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.
How does DNA prove whether or not sex was consentual? Given that a woman is pregnant there is a strong presumption that hetrosexual sex occurred. DNA is useful for identifying the father, but more or less worthless for determining consent. My guess, something like 9 out of 10 false rape accusations identify the actual father.
Abortion protects the rapist, especially for statuatory rape, by “disposing” of the DNA evidence
That’s where waterboarding comes in to play!
There are many whose heart aches at the destruction of any innocent baby, in any situation. Those voters may understand, and forgive Akin’s “misspoken comments.”
Figured you might appreciate this introspective article something beyond the hysteria.Oh thank you for the ping. Great wise-guy article. That little Romney is such a trickster! The rape victim mother who passes on abortion is saved enormous additional grief, of course, as she then receives, not a dead baby and a bill, but a beautiful child instead. Thanks again!
Romney and Ryan are PRO-CHOICE and should say that...tell the truth.You're definitely right! But will they? Just heard on FOX News (Akin was on) that Ryan called him "again," asking him straight out to step down, so Mitt's got his hold on Ryan pretty tight now. It's a shame. Ryan was a 100% pro-life Catholic. I wonder when his "On the Issues" page is going to change. That's a black mark that could cost him his soul. Of course, there's always repentance.
“Which babies should get the death sentence?”
The ones who present an imminent threat to the financial and social well-being of Progressive macho-men.
It's always best to NOT TEST the Almighty!
McCaskill is basically a thrill killer who gets pleasure from the death of the innocent.
Congressman Akin attended many March for Life rallies against Roe v Wade. What is so odd and “politically incorrect” when Nellie Gray, Founder of The March for Life, always stood by First Principles
“that every life, born and preborn, aged and young, must be cherished and protected. No exception! No compromise!”
Nellie Gray, Pro-Life Hero - 1924-2012
Nellie Gray, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, passed away over the weekend at the age of 88. Nellie was a native of Big Spring, Texas. She served in World War II in the Womens Army Corps. Nellies education included an undergraduate business degree, a master degree in economics, and ultimately a law degree from Georgetown Law Center. Nellie worked for more than twenty years for the U.S. Government in the Departments of State and Labor. After retiring from her federal career, Nellie played a key role in founding the March for Life in 1974, the peaceful prolife demonstration against abortion held every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. She soon emerged as the leader of the annual event, and as an outspoken, eloquent advocate for the most vulnerable members of our society, the preborn.
In addition to her heroic work for the March for Life, Nellie will be most remembered for her passionate stance that every life, born and preborn, aged and young, must be cherished and protected. No exception! No compromise!
Until the very last moment of her life, Nellie pressed for unity in the prolife movement. She firmly believed that not a single preborn life should be sacrificed for any reason, and urged all prolife organizations to adopt the March for Lifes signature statement, the Life Principles, as the guiding light for all participants in the noble cause to which she devoted her life.
Nellie has been a giant in the pro-life movement. As we approach the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Board of Directors will continue to honor Nellies memory by doing everything possible to protect every preborn human person, and to bring to an end the scourge of abortion in the United States.
“A nation that kills its own children is nation without hope. Pope John Paul II
Anyone know the actual numbers on pregnancy resulting from forcible rape?
I've seen estimates from 0.5% (1 in 200) to 5.0% (1 in 20).
Pregnancy for consensual, unprotected sex is around 1 chance in 20, or, 5.0%.
I'll guess that most rape victims are of child bearing age and have a reasonably high rate of birth control use.
Any links to serious data would be appreciated.
I also wonder if - legally - a criminal prosecutor, or a defense attorney, are allowed to inform the jury that a victim has become pregnant?
I cannot recall ever hearing this issue discussed.
In fact, I cannot recall ever hearing the subject of pregnancy discussed in a rape trial.
It seems like it could cut both ways with a jury.
Staunch pro-lifers might feel prejudice against the rape victim if she aborted the child before trial.
Or, staunch pro-choice jurors might feel prejudice against the defendant for adding a cruel insult to his already cruel injury.
A nation that kills its own children is nation without hope. Pope John Paul II
In addition to her heroic work for the March for Life, Nellie will be most remembered for her passionate stance that every life, born and preborn, aged and young, must be cherished and protected. No exception! No compromise!Romney states a "pro-life" stance but allows for the child victim of rape to be killed and the mother victim to be further damaged.. That's not pro-life!
You might want to check with “Life After Assault League” http://www.all.org/ It was begun by a woman/daughter rape victims.
Meanwhile, everything he said is TRUE, and the only way to dodge what he said is to NITPICK one word.
I've seen that movie too.
Forgive me, because I fail to see where he 'misspoke' anything.
He was just precluding cases where it wasn't rape until 'later', because the female's womb would have been more 'receptive' during the sex.
If someone here has a better explanation for what 'legitimate rape' meant, then fire away.
So if someone is staunchly pro-life and would forbid abortion for 99.99% of pregnancies, but would allow abortion in the other 00.01%, they should describe themselves as "Pro-Choice. Period". Right.
Okay, following this logic, do YOU believe a woman should have the CHOICE to abort her child if the pregnancy will kill her?
If so, you better start describing yourself as "Pro-Choice. Period."
I should have stated “analytical” instead “introspective”.
Keep in mind this is the first article I found that was not hyperventilating for the crucifixion of Akin.
My beef with the Akin fiasco is the absolute refusal to accept his message on the value of Life. His remarks were too ambiguous to draw a definite conclusion, and most everyone decided it was best to simply crucify the guy anyway.
I could not agree more. I am tired of people defending retardation simply because the retard happens to hold the right opinion on life. There are a lot of folks who are not retarded and who did not win a GOP primary on the basis of Democrat votes who plan on voting against that very person in November - who also hold that view. This is phony moralizing and it sickens me.
People like Cricket24 are too dense to understand the fallacy of their own logic.