Posted on 08/27/2012 4:41:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Todd Akin’s grossly irresponsible remarks about “legitimate rape” and conception have received much media attention. As well they should. The sheer weirdness of the remarks calls into question both his intelligence and his personal integrity. How could someone conclude logically that a rape victim’s body has the capacity to prevent conception in the wake of sexual assault? And why would someone assert that the conclusion had been supported by doctors with whom he had spoken? Clearly, Akin contrived the idea on the spot and then contrived the claim that there were doctors who had informed and/or supported his assertion. All of this leads to the unmistakable conclusion that he is unfit for office and should, therefore, suspend his campaign immediately.
As a pro-life apologist, I am more than just disappointed with Todd Akin. I am also angry. Over the course of the summer, I gave seven speeches on abortion - all of which addressed the issue of the so- called rape exception, which first appeared in my native state of Mississippi seven years prior to Roe v. Wade. In all seven lectures, I urged students to use caution when talking about the sensitive issue of rape and abortion. But I urged them not to run from the issue. In fact, I went so far as to say that we cannot win the debate until we make a reasoned argument for banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
In the event that there are prospective Republican congressional candidates who want to argue the issue (on CNN or elsewhere), here is how I would advise broaching this difficult subject. I would also request that Todd Akin keep his mouth closed until he has finished reading the following guidelines for discussion of the so-called rape exception:
A. Assess your opponent’s true position. In all likelihood, the person urging a rape exception does not really believe in it. In order for there to be an exception to a rule banning abortions, there has to be a rule banning abortions. That much is obvious. It is also obvious that pro-choicers do not merely want abortion to be available in cases of rape. They want it available in all cases. Call them out on it. Tell them you will write the rape exception into law just as soon as they write the law banning all other abortions. They will never take you up on it. The reason is simple: they are lying.B. Build a bridge to the central issue. Get to know an adult who is a product of rape. Then, ask the proponent of the rape exception whether it would be permissible to kill your adult friend who is a product of rape. They will, of course, say that it isn’t permissible to kill them now. Ask them why not. They will likely say that killing the unborn is “different” because of size (they are smaller), level of development (they are less developed), environment (placement in the womb), or degree of dependency (the unborn are not “viable”). Each of these arguments is flawed and each tends to undermine human equality. For example, the argument that one’s right to life is contingent upon size means that women have less of a right to life than men. It also means Asians have less of a right to life than Caucasians. As you defeat each “that’s different” argument, you will gradually lead them to conclude that the unborn are indeed innocent human beings and that there is no meaningful distinction between the terms “human being” and “person.”
C. Capture the moral high ground. People often say there is a double standard is displayed by those who support the death penalty and oppose abortion. But that is absurd. A double standard exists when one applies two different standards to the same thing. Clearly, an unborn innocent is not “the same thing” as a convicted murderer. True moral inconsistency exists among those who would execute the product of rape while allowing the rapist to live. That moral inconsistency is enshrined in our current constitutional jurisprudence. The rape victim has a right to abort the product of rape because the unborn have no rights regardless of the circumstances of their conception. Yet the rapist has a constitutional right to be spared execution. It is simply morally indefensible to execute the innocent product of rape instead of the guilty perpetrator of rape. Ask the proponent of the so-called rape exception to defend killing the innocent and sparing the guilty.
Getting in the driver’s seat on the abortion issue is important. Staying in the driver’s seat is just as important – especially when the conversation takes a turn toward the difficult cases of rape and incest. But you can do it without concocting false arguments that really only avoid the issue. It’s just as easy as learning your ABCs.
Not clear at all.
I'm no fan of Akin's, but I distinctly remember reading quite a few times that pregnancy in the case of rape was very rare. This was presented as a well-known fact with statistical backing, though I don't recall any specific studies on the subject.
Research since this issue blew up has convinced me those claims are probably mistaken, but if someone had asked me two months ago I would have agreed with Akin, though hopefully I wouldn't have worded my response so poorly.
This now pushing 2 weeks old, and the GOP can’t leave it alone.
I can only assume they want this in the news. Or that they stupidly are keeping it in the news despite what they want.
The idiot GOP is even dragging the B Team Pundits into their kamikaze run @ Akin. The stupidity is overwhelming.
Trying to convince a traumatized rape victim or even a woman who can picture herself as a victim that taking a “morning after” pill is equivalent to slaughtering a moving, breathing human is futile and will not bring them into the voting fold.
It would likely scare them away from your position and either not vote or vote against you.
>pregnancy in the case of rape was very rare
As an experiment, try selling that to voting women and ask if they would vote for someone that would deny them the medicine that would insure they did not carry the rapists fertilized egg.
I agree. A very poor attempt to appease “It’s a Woman’s Choice” activists with some sort of reasoned explanation that their case is flawed.
My position is that a “Choice” vs. “Abortion is Murder of an Unborn Soul” argument needs no ‘appeasement of reason’; it is WRONG, period.
Let’s just be plain about this. This decades-long argument is not morality-based - it is one borne out of MONEY, GOVERNMENT money being used to feed people and organizations who’ve made this issue a cash-cow.
If we want an honest debate, as far as that can be taken, the MONEY factor has to be taken out of the equation. Once the MONEY is gone, the proponents of abortion will virtually disappear.
I agree. Akin’s contention about conception is floating around in various forms, supported by some “experts” and debated by others.
It’s not like a real experiment can be done, so any fact-claim is simply playing with some available statistics.
There is plenty of evidence to think that pregnancy resulting from rape is, indeed, rare. Rape causes gynecological injury, the nature of which is too graphic to describe here. Rape causes significant stress, resulting in the altered production of hormones. Between the physical damage and the stress, the ideal environment for implantation just isn't there. Other mechanisms also cause the environment to be poor for implantation. And, at the best of times, implantation isn't very efficient: around 75% of fertilized ova do not implant or die soon after.
Also, if you've ever read the supposedly debunked analysis by Willke, keep in mind that it's only described as "debunked" in the press. I have seen no actual refutation of the analysis.
Situations like the Duke case come to mind.
Maybe Akin had that on his mind when he made that comment.
I agree. They want out from under the burden of supplying medical insurance. It's an odd thing that they do provide it in the first place. There's no logical reason for them anyone to expect that to be part of an employment package. Why not have them provide free golf club memberships, too???
The best way to get out from under it for the non-unionized is to simply drop it and give the differential cost back to their employee, under whose name that expense fell anyway.
The union businesses are pretty much a lost cause unless they get socialized health care forced on the unions. The union members are too in the dark to know where they're being led.
Pregnancy from rape is rare:
1. A woman is fertile only 4 days a month
2. Rape is not always vaginal
3. In violent rape, blood interferes with insemination
4. Ejaculation often does not occur, or does not occur in the woman's body.
All these factors do result in a low 'statistical' probability. That, plus there are instances of women claiming rape to 'cover' an unintended pregnancy.
All that said, Aikin is an idiot. I can see why the democRats funded his campaign.
your #10 is a great post!!!
...before Akin, most, conservatives OR liberals,
would have agreed,
that stress can interfere with pregnancy,
and also cause miscarriage.
-
and most people would agree forceable rape is stressful!
-
...now, instead, you have some people, even here on FR,
seriously suggesting pregnancy is MORE common in rape,
than in happy couples TRYING to conceive!
-
They look at you strangely for the suggestion.
Considering the fact that women often stop menstruating when engaged in rigorous training or that groups of women living together often start menstruating at the same time I don’t find the statement by Akin shocking. Wrong maybe but not shocking. The poor use of the word “legitimate” is about as impolitic as was “macaca” for George Allen. Conservatives should not dance to the Dem piper.
So you will have to pay 100% of the premiums (as a single person, not as a group) with no increase in pay.
People on this site assume to much good will from companies.
Trauma from any event, especially a violent assault, can disrupt a woman's menstal cycle, making pregnancy less likely, but not impossible.
Abortion is wrong because it kills an unborn baby, not because some women deserve to be punished and others don't.
There’s a piece of me that agrees companies will be reluctant to return the savings to the employees.
In a hypothetical non-ObamaCare US, the market would have a way of sorting those things out. In the long run, companies still want the best employees, so with the added financial flexibility of not funding health care, those companies would find it in their interest to pay their best or their trained employees more in order to keep them.
You pay more for the best. Those folks would then have the individual responsibility to buy their own health care.
That would be what a world of individual responsibility would look like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.