Skip to comments.NAPOLITANO: Akin absurdity aside, rape never justifies abortion
Posted on 08/23/2012 8:39:41 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The criticisms of the recent absurd comments by Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin, who at this writing is his partys nominee to take on incumbent Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in November in a contest he had been expected to win, have focused on his clearly erroneous understanding of the human female anatomy. In a now infamous statement, in which he used the bizarre and unheard-of phrase legitimate rape, the congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not mentally or seriously resisted. This is an antediluvian and misogynistic myth for which there is no basis in fact and which has been soundly and justly condemned.
Mr. Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect. Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter the relationship between male and female. I think even schoolchildren understand that.
What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in Mr. Akins comments that rape is not a moral justification for abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
Abortion takes the life of innocent human beings who are the most vulnerable in our society. Abortion is today the most frequently performed medical procedure in the United States. American physicians perform about two abortions every minute of every hour of every day: about 1 million a year since 1973. In my home state of New Jersey, abortion is permitted up to the moment of birth, and the state will even pay for it if the mother meets certain financial criteria.
How low have we sunk? What are the consequences of this mass slaughter? How did we get here?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yeah let just focus on Akin an ignore Obama open advocation for infanticide.
Napolitano nailed it.
Oh, ANDREW Napolitano. For a second there, I thought Janet had finally seen the light;)
Not true. IIRC, government killed some 170 million people during the 20th Century. Roe v. Wade has killed around 55 million, so far.
If you want to overturn Roe V Wade or have government discourage or put restrictions on abortion I’m with you.
If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then I’m out.
Good luck arguing that point of view to the American people. You might get 5% of the vote.
That is the argument Obama wants to have.
Focus on the economy and what is politically possible.
A true Libertarian would not consider the Life of another human to be involuntarily expendable.
Abortion is the legal killing of nascent human life.
Good for you Judge Napolitano...
Willard has been using this as an excuse to push his abortion =on-demand adgenda...
and to throw out the pro-life plank on the GOP platform...
LOL, me too, I thought that Hell had frozen over.
It’s amazing how we defend the “Strawmen” in this country!
>> If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then Im out.
It’s her baby too.
Given the irrational reaction to Akin’s remarks, I’m doubtful there’s much national interest in this matter.
Maybe rapists should be automatically charged with the conspiracy to commit murder in addition to rape. Well, there’s a problem — abortion is legal killing.
World wide I suspect that there have been about a billion abortions.
There are more abortions in Europe than births (except among the Muslims).
You think God hasn't noticed?
Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter the relationship between male and female. I think even schoolchildren understand that.
Akin and his Luddite supporters will dispute that.
“Only the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her father”.
Out of what? Out of the party? Out of favor with the candidate? Let's take Akin as a candidate. Can he possibly introduce a national policy of arresting, incarcerating, and harassing women who abort a child conceived as a result of rape? No. Would he even advocate such a policy? No. Is he otherwise 100% conservative. Yes.
Why so many folks take the pill of spinelessness in the face of liberal groupthink is beyond me.
Some battles should be fought outside the courts and the voting booth. Maybe this is one of them. If we change the hearts and the minds of the people, then it will not matter what the law says. If people respect the sanctity of life, the number of abortions will drop. If they do not, then even if abortion is illegal, they will find a way to have them.
On a side note, I also believe that if the economy were better, there would be fewer abortions. I don’t know if there are any studies on that, but it would be interesting to find out.
How much of “established medical science” over the past century has been unestablished? Screw your Luddite remark, Luddite. And screw your spineless conservatism. You wouldn’t know where the right to life comes from if it bit you in the a$$.
So you're opposing Paul Ryan and the GOP platform?
I totally agree with your post. We could spend 50 years trying to change the law and make no progress.
Battles can/are won at the individual level.
They can ignore a misguided, STUPID statement, that in the end will never change any women's issues either way, and cast their vote for Akin or THEY can be STUPID and vote for McCaskill, thus possibly being responsible for her winning and worse yet, causing the Senate to remain in Harry Reid's hands.
Come on, Show Me State voters, show the country that you're not STUPID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.