I've said not one word about the phrase "legitimate rape." All of my comments have been based upon the entire answer, in context, because the first thing I did when I heard the attacks on that phrase was to go listen for myself. For those on the thread who may not have read it, here it is (including the question):
Charles Jaco:I think it's important to keep that entire question and answer in mind, especially considering your next statement:
“Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?”
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.):
“Well, you know, uh, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, ‘Well, how do you – how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question.’
“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. 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. You know, I think there should be some punishment but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
Perhaps the answer is that he was trying to undermine the 'trick' of the HOST in trying to include ALL RAPE into the discussion (and implying that ALL women who are raped get pregnant), when the real issue is SHOULD YOU AND I BE FORCED TO PAY for ABORTIONS. Not just RAPE ones, but ALL.
There was no "trick" in the question. It is simple and straightforward and predictable and easy to answer. Nor was the host implying that all rape victims get pregnant. Nor did anybody, Akin or the host, say one word in that exchange about abortion funding.
OK. Gameclock is running. You are being interviewed, and you just gave this response. Can you back up your claim ?
Can I back up my claim? That's what you're going with? Of course I can. But Akin can't. The plain meaning of his statement is that pregnancies are rare exceptions to a general physical impossibility of conception resulting from rape. That is an idiotic and unsupportable statement, and I don't understand why you can't see that's a problem.
He's not wrong about abortion. But he gave a dumb answer to a simple question, and I'm just not establishment enough to go defending every statement made by a guy just because he has an "R" after his name.
OK, now let's go back to the original quote.
" If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
NOTE it says TRY to shut that whole thing down.
How doe you logically translate that into "a general physical impossibility of conception resulting from rape" ?
He's not wrong about abortion.
So... you are saying he wasn't wrong, it's just the words he used ?.
... and I'm just not establishment enough to go defending every statement made by a guy just because he has an "R" after his name.
We agree on that. However, do you have any proof that the womb DOES NOT TRY to shut down an unwanted pregnancy ?
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
To me he's saying that pregnancies from an actual reported and documented rape are rare due to the fact that there are uncontrollable physiological responses that may, and usually do, prevent a woman who has actually been raped from carrying the child for a sufficient period of time to even need an abortion.
That's just my take on it.
THEN, I am sure that the following is just a COINCIDENCE.
New Poll Finds Most Americans Are Pro-Life
"A brand new CNN survey shows a supermajority of Americans want abortions proscribed in all or most circumstances "
They don't mention FUNDING in the survey either. But don't you wonder, if it's legal and 'proscribed' (think about what the word means) for women in ALL CASES (even just because the baby is inconvenient), who do you think will be paying for it ?
HINT: Sandra Fluke and Birth Control.