[Redmen4ever]

Protecting life within the womb is not a black or white thing, as you imply.

Here is what I object to Akin’s statement: That a woman who is pregnant by what she claims was a rape must not actually have been raped because the woman’s body shuts down when there is an actual rape (he used the word “legitimate” rape).

Now, do I believe the state should protect life from conception? No, I do not. Without debating the merits, I am with the large majority of Americans that are somewhere between the protect life from conception position, and the allow abortion for any reason at any time and pay for it by taxes position.

Given the realities of our two-party system, “soft pro-lifers” such as myself generally support “hard pro-lifers” who win our party’s primaries, and expect visa versa. But, supporting a candidate (with my financial resources) who re-victimizing women who have been raped is another thing.

[hecht]

some hard lifers cant compromise, some have favored the rape,incest and life of the mother exceptions because they know they alienate the soft lifers otherwise.
in Missouri, I wonder how many magic uterus hard lifers there are vs. normal hard lifers and soft lifers.

[WILLIALAL]

“Here is what I object to Akin’s statement: That a woman who is pregnant by what she claims was a rape must not actually have been raped because the woman’s body shuts down when there is an actual rape (he used the word “legitimate” rape).’

When you step back from all the rhetoric surrounding this issue, you have to honestly come to the conclusion you have stated above.
It wasn’t a gaffe or a mistake in the use of words, it was his deeply held belief.
And that is both scary and sad.

[mlizzy]

Protecting life within the womb is not a black or white thing, as you imply....

supporting a candidate (with my financial resources) who re-victimizing women who have been raped is another thing.

Life in the womb IS black and white. The child is either living or it is not. As far as your continuing thoughts, do you think a raped woman who conceives is "re-victimized" when she then receives an abortion? Abortion is even worse than rape, as it involves allowing the murder of the tiniest (and most helpless) of God's creatures. The horror of rape is not forgotten by receiving an abortion; in fact, now the woman has two violent episodes to deal with and heal from. Akin is protecting the child (and the mother!) through his stance. The most chivalrous men in the world, are those that stand up "hard" for life.

[old republic]

Here is what I object to Akin’s statement: That a woman who is pregnant by what she claims was a rape must not actually have been raped because the woman’s body shuts down when there is an actual rape (he used the word “legitimate” rape).

Well, Akin's statement was foolish and I don't know of any hard science that backs it, but if you look at the original quote from Akin, he did not say that a woman must not have really been raped if she gets pregnant. Here is what he actually said when asked if abortion should be legal in the case of rape:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

From the above quote, you can see that Akin did not say that all or even most rape victims will not get pregnant. He said it's rare for pregnancies to occur in rape. That is why Akin says at the end of the quote that the rapist should be punished for the rape not the baby who was conceived in rape. The fact that he mentions that a baby is conceived in rape implies that the mother can and does conceive when a rape occurs, but that the baby should not be punished for this. So how did Akin say that a woman must not have been raped if she is pregnant? He didn't, but the democrats/liberal media seem eager to exploit this gaffe for political purposes.

Now, do I believe the state should protect life from conception? No, I do not.

It sounds like you are admitting that life begins at conception, but are arguing that not all human life should be protected by the state. That doesn't make sense to me. If it's a human life from conception, then how can you morally terminate it without committing murder of an innocent person? If life does begin at conception would it be morally permissible for the government to turn a blind eye to murder?

[Fester Chugabrew]

That a woman who is pregnant by what she claims was a rape must not actually have been raped because the woman’s body shuts down when there is an actual rape (he used the word “legitimate” rape).

I don't know what planet you're from, but I suggest you take a closer look at what Akin actually said and actually meant. You'd be doing innocent, unborn people a favor.