Skip to comments.Which Babies Should Get the Death Sentence?
Posted on 08/22/2012 3:36:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Americans witnessed a remarkable drama this week when some of our most exalted politicians frantically scrambled to reassure voters that they, too, believed that the United States ought to permit the deliberate killing of at least some innocent human beings.
They apparently did so to persuade the public they are caring, compassionate and -- above all -- reasonable people.
The drama started when Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri, expressed his view that no innocent human being ought to be deliberately killed.
However, that was not the only thing Akin expressed.
"What about in the case of rape. Should it (abortion) be legal or not?" Charles Jaco of KTVI in St. Louis asked Akin in an interview broadcast over the weekend.
"Well, you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well, how do you slice this particularly tough ethical question," said Akin. "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."
Akin's answer had two distinct parts. In the first, he made a claim about the physiological likelihood of a rape victim conceiving a child as the result of the criminal act committed against her. In the second, he made a policy statement about whether aborting such a child ought to be permitted.
The first part of Akin's answer was worse than gratuitous. It made a claim he could not back up and did so in language that itself raised questions.
But what about the second part of Akin's statement -- that rapists ought to be punished but not children conceived through rape?
Is this a logical, morally defensible, even laudable and courageous position?
A good place to find the basic premises for conducting that analysis is on the website of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. It includes a statement explaining Romney's position on abortion.
"Mitt Romney is pro-life," says the first sentence of this statement. "Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view," it further says. "Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water's edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens," it also says.
"Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us," it concludes. "As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America's values of preserving life at home and abroad."
Now, I have not quoted here every word from Romney's campaign statement on abortion. But the term "rape" does not appear in it anywhere.
So, here is the syllogism a logical person might begin to construct from what Romney's campaign say about Romney's position on abortion: 1) "Life begins at conception," 2) "taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens," 3) "Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us," and 4) "Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America's values of preserving life at home and abroad."
Given Romney's premises, what would be the logical position for Romney to take on whether American law should permit the taking of an innocent human life conceived through a rape?
"Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told multiple news organizations on Monday.
This has been Romney's position ever since he declared himself pro-life. "I am pro-life," Romney wrote in a July 26, 2005, op-ed in the Boston Globe. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape and to save the life of the mother."
So, if abortion is not the "wrong choice" in cases of rape, what kind of choice is it?
Who exactly benefits when the government permits the deliberate killing of an innocent child conceived through rape?
"And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America," says the abortion statement on Romney's website.
Do those same consciences think permitting the deliberate killing of some innocent children can be squared with the good heart of America -- as long as it is only certain categories of children, such as those conceived through rape?
Rep. Todd Akin's substantive position that we should protect the right to life even of those conceived through rape -- who are themselves a second victim of that evil act -- is not only in keeping with the good heart of America, it is plain and simply right.
Figured you might appreciate this introspective article — something beyond the hysteria.
The article is not introspective at all. It is Terry J. being on a moral high horse with no legs. He asks in his snarky headline: “Which Babies Should Get the Death Sentence?”
A: All of them, after idiots like you help McCaskill and Obama win Missouri!!!
Interesting spin. Townhalls Jefferies is flipping the answer Akin never gave but should have while the question and the belief that Akin’ holds on conception still stands.
Naww the party should go after the guy bringing up the McCaskall connection to his primary and that half baked idea on when conception occurs. If it doesn’t it’s not a cohearent political unit.
The problem I have with politicians who call themselves pro-life is this...if you believe a woman can make the choice to abort a baby that is conceived from a rape, then you are PRO-CHOICE. Period. You are NOT PRO-LIFE and don’t say you are....the end. I do believe that most people today are pro-choice for others even though they, themselves could or would NOT have an abortion. Romney and Ryan are PRO-CHOICE and should say that...tell the truth.
All I know is that I’ve gone from not caring one way or the other as a teen to being a solid pro lifer as an adult. Even as recently as a few years ago I could find exceptions but I’ve realized that they were cop outs.
Life is just too precious.
We need to get this back on message! The fact is that CLAIRE MCCASKILL is the extremist NOT TODD AKIN. She AND HER PARTY believe it is 100% ACCEPTABLE to kill babies as in the picture above. Barack Obama's statements on the Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act should tell you everything you need to know about who is an "extremist" and who is not! Claire McCaskill has her lips surgically attached to Obama's rear-end!
Todd Akin has his beliefs regarding rape that he developed through his contacts/education in his life. On the other hand Claire McCaskill's extremist beliefs and party position are costing human lives every day!
Even if one agrees with every word in the article, Akin still committed political suicide. More babies will die because of his words than if he had kept his mouth shut. He gave aid and comfort to baby killers.
By the time one has decided to run as a serious candidate for U.S. Senate one should already have a politically palatible and morally correct response to questions about abortion and rape that are intellectually consistent with one’s other positions. It is one of liberals huge gotcha questions. Instead, he offered inane incoherence. No good.
And, there should be no excuse allowed for killing babies. That too should be punished with the death penalty.
We have a plentitude of perfectly acceptable pro-life candidates available who can win in MIssouri. This guy took Democrat money and help. There’s the blood of dead babies in that. He let temptation take over and rule his life in this matter.
I’m very pro-life.
BUT, if a woman opts to murder her innocent unborn baby (in the 1st trimester), let it be on her hands. SHE will be the one to face her Creator and explain.
Just don’t use tax dollars to do it and it should be considered murder when the baby is viable outside of the womb.
No. Many men are convicted when women lie about rape. Now, many more are being found innocent after DNA testing.
Change the rules of evidence and always use DNA testing. Then, just to make sure you could use WATERBOARDING. It’s incredibly reliable and doesn’t harm anyone.
He thinks rapists should be punished. What a brave stick your neck out stand that is.
In fact the reason we make a distinction in the law between rape and any other assault is that rape comes with the possibility of pregnancy. And being force to carry and raise a strange thugs baby is 10,000X worse then being punched in the nose.
Waterboard the man or the woman? A google search using “lied about rape” got me 6,620,000 results
No, but they will get to appoint more judges and elect more legislators. What he did was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.
Waterboarding is supposed to be very reliable. It makes use of your antidrowning reflex ~ the one that keeps you gulping rather than breathing in amniotic fluid in utero.
God and nature obviously conspired to bring you to life ~ and this is one of the basic built in tools that makes being a mammal possible!
Most Leftwingtards and pro-abortionists know nothing of this reflex ~ they never used it having been spawned by Satan himself, but nontheless, it's there and it works, so, yup, everybody party to the case gets waterboarded ~ including the other guests, if any. Should be particularly informative on those group rapes.
This close to the election they should be giving nothing but non plus answers on this issue and a few others.
Economy, Economy, Economy....
Just read that part and thought the same thing.