NAPOLITANO: Akin absurdity aside, rape never justifies abortion

The Washington Times ^ | August 22, 2012 | Andrew P. Napolitano

[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?

[murron]

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.

[Terry Mross]

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

[murron]

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.

[hecht]

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

[hecht]

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

[xzins]

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?

[Starstruck]

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.

[xzins]

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.

[Starstruck]

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."

[murron]

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.

[exDemMom]

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."

I'm not sure how familiar you are with abortion advocacy arguments, but *any* time even the slightest common-sense control on abortion is merely mentioned, many abortion advocates will start screeching about how cruel it is to force that poor little 13 year old incest victim to give birth to her stepfather's baby, or something like that.

Also, abortion was made legal on the basis of rape. Norma McCorvey did not sway the judges with a sob story about how she freely chose to become pregnant in a consensual relationship; she lied and said she was raped. (And she has repented for that lie; the child born of that pregnancy is still alive.)

Although he was clumsy in his argument, I think Todd Akin was trying to address the fact that much abortion advocacy still focuses on the rape angle, even though over 90% of abortions are committed on healthy babies of women who freely chose to become pregnant. There is probably a better way to express that argument, but I don't expect someone who is in the stressful situation of hostile questioning to be able to formulate it on the spot.

[murron]

Even if only one baby is conceived because of rape, it still doesn’t justify killing it.

I can just see it now. Sidewalk counselors stop a woman going into an abortion clinic to talk her out of the abortion. The woman then says to the counselor that the baby is a result of rape, and the sidewalk counselor tells her, “Oh never mind. Go ahead and have your abortion.”

If you can only get an abortion because of rape, then guess what? Women wanting abortions will say that they have been raped. Maybe that’s what Akin was referring to when he used the term “legitimate rape”.

[xzins]

Since there isn’t a higher rate, that doesn’t even enter into the equation.

The purpose is to reassure that there is no reason to think this is other than a very rare event.

Good law is not based on exceptions.

If a town needs to redo ancient, blocked and broken sewer lines, it doesn’t base its decision on the few folks near the treatment plant who have an occasional odor.

[Starstruck]

Although he was clumsy in his argument, I think Todd Akin was trying to address the fact that much abortion advocacy still focuses on the rape angle, even though over 90% of abortions are committed on healthy babies of women who freely chose to become pregnant. There is probably a better way to express that argument, but I don't expect someone who is in the stressful situation of hostile questioning to be able to formulate it on the spot.

See this is my problem with Akin. He has held political office since 1988. He should have answers down pat on all his views. If he had just answered that he is totally opposed to abortion in all cases this is not news. He would still be leading the Senate race. If you believe abortion is murder, you don't have to justify it. It is what it is.

[exDemMom]

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

You do realize that it is almost impossible scientifically to get an exact number on that? I've seen various figures; less than 1/100, less than 1/1000, 1/4 to 1/5 the rate of consensual sex.

The only thing I can say with 100% confidence is that the probability of getting pregnant from rape is lower than the probability of getting pregnant from consensual sex.

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

Why is Willke's analysis "idiocy"? I've seen over and over that it was "debunked", but the only evidence of it being "debunked" that I have seen is that those attacking Akin have said that it was "debunked." I have not seen any actual point by point refutation of any of Willke's points.

Willke used a technique that I've often used myself: he pulled together pieces of data from various sources to show that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is, indeed, quite low.

BTW, in case you haven't seen Willke's analysis, it is here:

Rape Pregnancies Are Rare

If you can find a factual error in the data he used, or see a flaw in his analysis, feel free to post it. You'll be the first person who has done so.

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

Akin was correct to apologize for his misspeak when he said "legitimate" instead of what he really meant, which was probably "bona fide." Anyone can make such a misspeak, and no one loses face by acknowledging it.

He was wrong to apologize for saying that women aren't likely to get pregnant from rape, because he was correct (even though he doesn't have the scientific training to understand the mechanisms behind it or to explain it accurately).

I should probably tell you that I *am* a scientist, and that I get paid to make assertions that I can back up with factual data. I may not provide a reference for every single assertion, but I do try to avoid saying anything that I do not know is true.

[exDemMom]

See this is my problem with Akin. He has held political office since 1988. He should have answers down pat on all his views.

I happen to think that is an unrealistic standard. No matter how much someone tries to anticipate every question, it is simply impossible to predict every question, except with 20/20 hindsight.

When I was in graduate school, I had to take an oral competency exam in order to advance to Ph.D. candidate. I prepared by having several mock exams, to which I invited a different group of people to question me each time. I asked other graduate students what kinds of questions they had been asked. And when it came time to take the real exam, despite all of my preparation, there wasn't a single question that I had anticipated.

So, given the fact that Akin was facing a hostile press and was not given the questions ahead of time so that he could prepare answers, my own experience prevents me from being too harsh on him for not presciently knowing the questions that would be asked.