Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NAPOLITANO: Akin absurdity aside, rape never justifies abortion
The Washington Times ^ | August 22, 2012 | Andrew P. Napolitano

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 party’s 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. Akin’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; dredscott; massmurder; rape; roevwade; slaughter; toddakin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 08/23/2012 8:39:47 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Yeah let just focus on Akin an ignore Obama open advocation for infanticide.


2 posted on 08/23/2012 8:41:48 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Napolitano nailed it.


3 posted on 08/23/2012 8:41:48 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Oh, ANDREW Napolitano. For a second there, I thought Janet had finally seen the light;)


4 posted on 08/23/2012 8:42:33 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Roe v. Wade has spawned more slaughter than all 20th-century tyrants combined.

Not true. IIRC, government killed some 170 million people during the 20th Century. Roe v. Wade has killed around 55 million, so far.

5 posted on 08/23/2012 8:43:50 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


6 posted on 08/23/2012 8:50:59 PM PDT by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

A true Libertarian would not consider the Life of another human to be involuntarily expendable.

Abortion is the legal killing of nascent human life.


7 posted on 08/23/2012 8:52:15 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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...


8 posted on 08/23/2012 8:52:49 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_2001

LOL, me too, I thought that Hell had frozen over.


9 posted on 08/23/2012 8:55:30 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

It’s amazing how we defend the “Strawmen” in this country!


10 posted on 08/23/2012 8:58:07 PM PDT by hope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

>> If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then I’m 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.


11 posted on 08/23/2012 9:05:57 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Not true. IIRC, government killed some 170 million people during the 20th Century. Roe v. Wade has killed around 55 million, so far.

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?

12 posted on 08/23/2012 9:19:23 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


13 posted on 08/23/2012 9:23:16 PM PDT by hecht (restore Hetch-Hetchy, and screw San Francisco and Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Great article.

“Only the Nazis would execute a child for the crimes of his or her father”.


14 posted on 08/23/2012 9:38:28 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765
If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then I’m out.

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.

15 posted on 08/23/2012 9:53:18 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765; Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


16 posted on 08/23/2012 9:54:46 PM PDT by generally (Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hecht

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$$.


17 posted on 08/23/2012 9:57:42 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765
If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then I’m out.

So you're opposing Paul Ryan and the GOP platform?

18 posted on 08/23/2012 10:02:10 PM PDT by JediJones (Too Hot for GOP TV: Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Allen West and Donald Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: generally

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.


19 posted on 08/23/2012 11:04:11 PM PDT by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The voters of Missouri have a choice:

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.

20 posted on 08/24/2012 1:39:43 AM PDT by jmax (Full mag inserted, round in chamber, hammer is back...safety is OFF.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

It’s a dubious theory Akin used to bolster his point. But the mocking arrogance critical of Akin is uncalled for. Doubtful these critics can cite the research that supports the absolute certainty of their criticism.


21 posted on 08/24/2012 1:48:31 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

“Yeah let just focus on Akin an ignore Obama open advocation for infanticide.”

~ ~ ~

Thread after thread of hate for Akin, how come no one talks
about Romney, open advocate for a woman’s right to choose
abortion? Is it true, there’s abortion in RomneyCare?


22 posted on 08/24/2012 1:53:18 AM PDT by stpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stpio

How about the stupid “War on Women” the GOP is supposedly waging? The Dems have killed about 26 million unborn girls so far. If that isn’t a war on future women, what is it?


23 posted on 08/24/2012 2:21:16 AM PDT by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Not true. IIRC, government killed some 170 million people during the 20th Century. Roe v. Wade has killed around 55 million, so far.

Worldwide, about 50 million babies die by abortion every year. All of the other mass murders combined don't even come close to the total number killed by abortion.

24 posted on 08/24/2012 2:41:55 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
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.

I'm very surprised that a judge cannot recognize a simple misspeak, when it is clear from the context that Akin meant something along the lines of "bona fide" rape. A judge, of all people, should be aware that a not insignificant number of rape claims are pure fabrications.

25 posted on 08/24/2012 2:52:12 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765
If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then I’m out.

Statistically, victims of rape who become pregnant are less likely to abort the baby than women who choose to become pregnant. The idea that a pregnant rape victim only wants to kill the child is abortion advocacy propaganda that is not supported by facts.

26 posted on 08/24/2012 2:59:23 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hecht
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.

It takes more than just fertilization to cause pregnancy. It also takes implantation.

Around 50% of fertilized ova never implant. Of those that do implant, 50% to 75% do not survive long enough for the woman to suspect she was ever pregnant. That means that only 13% to 25% of fertilization events result in diagnosed pregnancy.

Given that rape causes physical injury and emotional stress, both creating conditions less than ideal for pregnancy to occur, there is every reason to believe that pregnancy from rape is less likely to occur than from consensual encounters. I was taught in high school back in the 1970s that it's rare for women to become pregnant from rape.

27 posted on 08/24/2012 3:14:16 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

and do you have any scientific data to back up your assertion?


28 posted on 08/24/2012 3:50:40 AM PDT by hecht (restore Hetch-Hetchy, and screw San Francisco and Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Napolitano has never been raped by a member of either sex.


29 posted on 08/24/2012 5:00:59 AM PDT by IbJensen (Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

If you think a rape victim having an abortion magically makes things all better, then you are out. Of your mind.

It takes a bad thing and makes it worse. It gives the rape victim something to feel guilty about.


30 posted on 08/24/2012 5:30:04 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I'm not sure what Akin meant, but possibly he was thinking that if you have a loophole saying that abortions should be legal in the case of rape, then any woman wanting an abortion can claim that she was raped and have the abortion (no questions asked).

Another possibility was that he was trying to distinguish between forcible rapes and "statutory rape" which could involve a 16-year-old girl having consensual sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend...the type of thing that used to result in "shotgun weddings."

31 posted on 08/24/2012 7:50:20 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I'm not sure exactly how absurd the Senator actually is. He might not be aware of the details, but perhaps his notions should be given a bit more credance.

Here are two articles posted to FR recently. I believe these were actually reported before his statements were made.

Stress signal causes abnormal implantation location and pregnancy loss

 and

Stress Puts Double Whammy On Reproductive System, Fertility

 

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.


32 posted on 08/24/2012 9:03:02 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

If you want to argue that raped women have to have the rapist baby,then I’m out.””

When Judge Nap. gets raped & gets pregnant, he can talk about this topic.

Until then, like most men, he can shut up.


33 posted on 08/24/2012 12:52:13 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; MNJohnnie; P-Marlowe
congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not mentally or seriously resisted. -----Mr. Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation.

Akin said absolutely nothing about "rapes...mentally...resisted". That's a downright falsehood. And, for what it's worth, the incidence of pregnancy with violent rape does appear to be lower than the incidence of pregnancy in a normal relationship: 2-4% with actual rape and 3-5% with normal relationship.

There is no data I can find about the body "resisting", but their is no reason one can't surmise the body not being as ready. "Fight off" could just be a misstatement that meant to say 'receptive'.

34 posted on 08/24/2012 1:20:19 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
when it is clear from the context that Akin meant something along the lines of "bona fide" rape.

That's how I interpreted it after I got over my "WTF" moment.

35 posted on 08/24/2012 1:25:05 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obama should change his campaign slogan to "Yes, we am!" Sounds as stupid as his administration is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

“It’s her baby too.”

No, that is up to her to decide. This is a special circumstance.

The baby was not created out of love but out of terror, abuse and humiliation and with an evil man. She had no choice in the matter.

She would also have to consider the effect on her husband and family.

Forcing a woman to have the kid would be putting the state on the side of enforcing the rapists will.


36 posted on 08/24/2012 4:26:53 PM PDT by desertfreedom765
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

>> “It’s her baby too.”

>> No, that is up to her to decide

I assumed you meant the “baby” subject to the abortion. You reinforce this in the following:

>> The baby was not created out of love ...

Although you’re making an awkward argument, my comment is correct regarding the female’s physiological connection to the baby/fetus/cell-matter.


37 posted on 08/24/2012 5:16:05 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Mr. Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation.

I say B.S I don't believe in magical vaginas.

38 posted on 08/24/2012 5:24:44 PM PDT by Starstruck (Only the wealthy and the poor can afford socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
I say B.S I don't believe in magical vaginas.

Human physiology, not magic, is involved here.

39 posted on 08/24/2012 7:47:49 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: hecht
and do you have any scientific data to back up your assertion?

Which assertion?

This passage from a Discovery magazine article supports the statistics I recited from memory about implantation failures and early embryo death under favorable conditions: John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The professor is lumping together categories that I separated out, but if you do the math (50% don't implant, and 50-75% die soon after), my figures and his are fairly close.

I'm not going to describe the types of gynecological injury that occur from rape, since that is too graphic for this forum. You can Google it if you want. I should not have to reference medical studies on this one: it's pretty much a no-brainer to conclude that injury to the reproductive tract decreases the chance of becoming pregnant.

Regarding the effect of stress on ova: Maternal restraint stress diminishes the developmental potential of oocytes. Yes, this is a study in mice. Mice are used because their physiological resemblance to humans allows researchers to learn about human physiology while avoiding unethical human experimentation. What the study says is that stress hormones damage ova. Damaged ova, of course, would be less likely to implant and less likely to survive if they do. And this study showed that acute stress (such as that brought on by rape) hastens ovulation, so that it occurs before the uterus is ready to receive a fertilized ovum. In scientificese, they said, "We should bear in mind that an acute-stress-induced surge of LH is shortly preceded by an elevation of serum progesterone from the adrenal glands. This fact suggests that such an elevation of serum progesterone may advance the secretory transformation of the endometrium resulting in embryo-endometrium asynchrony and consequently reduced chances of implantation and pregnancy if ovulation and fertilization took place."

Now, did I miss anything?

40 posted on 08/24/2012 8:23:50 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

A woman doesn’t have to have the rapist’s baby, but she’s still killing a child. There’s no way around that. And once you make an exception, you are no longer pro-life. You are justifying the killing of a baby, no matter what the reason is.


41 posted on 08/24/2012 8:46:30 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I don’t think Janet has to personally worry about anyone raping her.


42 posted on 08/24/2012 8:51:07 PM PDT by Terry Mross (To all my relatives and former friends: Do not contact me if you still love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertfreedom765

That is a pro-abortion argument. You are still killing a baby, no matter the circumstance. If you wish to rationalize it by putting conditions on how the baby was conceived, then you can’t be pro-life.


43 posted on 08/24/2012 8:52:52 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

so based on the world renowned medical journal discovery.
what is the implantation rate in rape vs. consensual sex?

Or does it not matter because Wilkie doesn’t need science to back his idiocy up.

I guess the nut job akin should take back his apology because he was telling them truths


44 posted on 08/24/2012 9:08:12 PM PDT by hecht (restore Hetch-Hetchy, and screw San Francisco and Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

so based on the world renowned medical journal discovery.
what is the implantation rate in rape vs. consensual sex?

Or does it not matter because Wilkie doesn’t need science to back his idiocy up.

I guess the nut job akin should take back his apology because he was telling them truths


45 posted on 08/24/2012 9:08:28 PM PDT by hecht (restore Hetch-Hetchy, and screw San Francisco and Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

So, you don’t believe fertility specialists’ advice on best positions, attitudes, and behavior to increase odds of conception?

Do I understand that correctly....that you think fertility can’t be enhanced?


46 posted on 08/24/2012 11:54:17 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Do I understand that correctly....that you think fertility can’t be enhanced?

I just can't figure out what point is trying to be made. What difference does the rarity of rape fertility make? Just state you are against abortion in any case and move on. You don't justify being against abortion because rarely do forcible rapes lead to pregnancy.

47 posted on 08/25/2012 7:41:57 AM PDT by Starstruck (Only the wealthy and the poor can afford socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
You don't justify being against abortion because rarely do forcible rapes lead to pregnancy.

Of course it is part of the discussion. The question asked was about abortion in the case of rape. The lib position is that rape justifies killing a baby.

The typical response is that pregnancy as a result of rape is very rare. The talking points, since John Wilke, MD, have been that the female body for some reason seems to have decreased chance of fertilization when violently forced. That is part of the point that says rape pregnancy is rare.

The next point is that a baby should not be punished for the act of a father, and that even the father is not subject to capital punishment for the crime of rape.

That ties into the follow-on point that broad law should not be based on the rare exceptions but one the broad justifications for abortion.

In short, the pro-abortionists want the exception to lead to a law that allows abortion. The pro-life forces want a broad law that prohibits abortion.

48 posted on 08/25/2012 8:03:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The typical response is that pregnancy as a result of rape is very rare. The talking points, since John Wilke, MD, have been that the female body for some reason seems to have decreased chance of fertilization when violently forced. That is part of the point that says rape pregnancy is rare.

But when you use this argument, my inclination is to think what you are saying is "Well if a much higher rate of pregnancies were the result of rape, then there would be a case for abortion."

49 posted on 08/25/2012 8:37:10 AM PDT by Starstruck (Only the wealthy and the poor can afford socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hecht

I don’t know if Wilke started this rape and incest exception nonsense, but he sure did run with it. He and his group have stood in the way of those who didn’t want exceptions because it’s not a true pro-life stance. I still believe he was working for the other side.


50 posted on 08/25/2012 8:58:11 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson