Skip to comments.Akin To Akin: The biologically ignorant Sen. Boxer
Posted on 08/23/2012 8:05:47 PM PDT by Daniel Clark
Akin To Akin: The biologically ignorant Sen. Boxer by Daniel Clark
By now, practically everybody has condemned Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin for his bizarre claim that a natural defense mechanism prevents women from becoming pregnant as a result of rape. Because of that statement, previously endangered Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill has taken a 10-point lead over Akin in the latest poll. Still, one must never underestimate the Democrats ability to overplay their hand.
Not content with salvaging one Senate seat, theyre trying to smear all Republicans, and all opponents of abortion, as if they shared in the ignorance of Akins opinion. Unwilling to accept decades of consistent polling data telling them that their pro-abortion absolutism is a political loser, Democrats have seized on the Akin incident in an attempt to rehabilitate their favorite cause. They may even make it the centerpiece of their upcoming convention.
In a speech to Planned Parenthood, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, Calif.) said, Its deeper than one Republican congressman. It goes all the way to the top of the Republican ticket. Following a series of blitheringly stupid remarks in which she equated opposition to abortion with tolerance of rape, Boxer asked, Wheres the outrage by Mitt Romney? There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and Im not kidding. Maybe they dont like their moms or their first wives. Romney had actually condemned Akins comments as offensive and wrong, and called for him to drop out of the race, but why should Boxer start acknowledging the facts with that one?
Aside from giving pro-abortion Democrats an excuse to perpetuate their War on Women fantasy, Akin has enabled them to pose as the experts on biological issues, as opposed to those knuckle-dragging religious conservatives, who, as we all know, fear science. If only we had news reporters in this country, perhaps they would start asking Democrats, and especially abortion-supporters, to demonstrate their purported expertise where the facts of life are concerned.
On October 20, 1999, Sen. Boxer was being questioned by Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) in a debate over the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, when he confronted her with the question of when life begins. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born and there is no such thing as partial-birth the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.
Your baby has all the rights of a person when you bring it home? She seems to suggest that biology isnt enough, but that some form of societal validation is necessary to establish personhood. Perhaps the mother should take her baby to a notary, and have the word person officially stamped on its forehead. Furthermore, how can there be no such thing as partial-birth? Are babies born instantaneously, as if being beamed through Scottys transporter? If a pro-life Republican had said theres no such thing as partial-birth, he would now stand accused of callousness toward the pain that women go through during childbirth.
Santorum sportingly gave Boxer another chance to answer whether she would accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed. She responded by asking him to define separation, which few other people would have found so confusing. Santorum helpfully explained that it means no part of the baby is inside of the mother.
Boxer responded, You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mothers arms? That baby is a human being. Well, I dont know if its necessarily in its mothers arms, Santorum said. Lets say in the obstetricians hands.
At this point, Sen. Boxer, representing the Party of Science, began to utter the most incredible answer. It takes a second, it takes a minute. I had two babies, and within seconds of their birth --
Unfortunately, Santorum interrupted her at this point, and the exchange that followed allowed Boxer to escape having to finish that sentence. Nevertheless, theres no mistaking the fact that shed already indicated that a baby fails to qualify for personhood until some point after its birth.
Boxer later disavowed her own words, but Akin has done the same thing. If he cant get away with it, then neither should she. Moreover, her belief is the one thats truly representative of her party and its cause. Mitt Romney certainly does not share the viewpoint expressed by Akin, but President Obama just as surely agrees with everything Boxer said, as his record in the Illinois state senate will attest.
Maybe the Democrats just hate their children, eh Barb?
-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.
Abortion is the legal killing of nascent human life. That’s not something to promote as a virtuous platform.
See how our views differ? Murder can never be made legal.
Murder deals with intent.
Someone can be "legally" put to death for a crime they've committed. What crime has an unborn child ever committed?
Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another.
The factual basis of my statement is more compelling than the argument that states abortion is murder, when it’s clearly not. Of course to accept my statement, one needs to accept the definitions of law.
I think it’s important that everyone realizes abortion is about the legal killing of humans. Apparently, having the right to kill humans is very important to some people. I think it’s depraved.
Of course to accept my statement, one needs to accept the definitions of law.
So if there were a law on the books that did allow the premeditated killing of one human by another you wouldn't have a problem with that as it would then be lawful, right?
Here are two articles posted to FR recently.
Now, unless one is willing to say that rape is not stressful, then perhaps the body does have a natural defence against it.
While I don't particularly care about the senator in question because I don't know anything about him to speak of, I might just start spamming this information to relevant threads. He may will be an idiot, but he could be right as well.
>> So if there were a law on the books that did allow the premeditated killing of one human by another
There is, and it’s abortion.
>> you wouldn’t have a problem with that
Never suggested that.
You stated earlier...
I think its important that everyone realizes abortion is about the legal killing of humans. Apparently, having the right to kill humans is very important to some people. I think its depraved.
While on it's face such a response seems to say you're against abortion, and abortion laws, it still doesn't directly answer my question.
See, capital punishment can be viewed as having the "right" to kill humans while still being considered to be a "depraved" act as well even though it's "legal".
Asked more succinctly my question is this...would you have a problem with laws that allowed premeditated murder?
The choices are pretty simple...
Yes, I would have a problem with laws that allowed premeditated murder.
No, I wouldn't have a problem with laws that allowed premeditated murder.
No equivocating, no diversion...choose one of the two.
You’re illustrating the point of my initial post.
With all due respect, each choice you provided is contradictory. And I’m not messing with you.
You're right, yes and no do tend to be contradictory opposites.
There’s a difference between
“each choice you provided is contradictory”
and what you’re inferring as:
“the choices you provided are contradictory”
Then provide choices that make sense. Each choice is definitively contradictory.
Me: Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another.
You: I’m fully aware of what constitutes murder.
You again: “[would you have a problem with] laws that allowed premeditated murder”
And your tense is questionable.
How about a new question then?