Abortion in the Case of Rape — A Brief Treatment
The ignorant comments of Senator Todd Akin add fuel to the already huge fire over the abortion debate. Many conservatives oppose abortion in all forms, even in cases of rape and incest. In an August 19 interview, Senator Akin was asked to clarify why he opposed abortion in cases of rape. The following epic fail issued forth:
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: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child. (source)
I want to first address the two periphery issues our Democratic friends like to focus on, then the real issue. The real issue is obscured behind incidental (and I seriously hope unintentional) faux pas in his statement.
Calling them “faux pas” is too kind. I like to keep the blog family friendly, and words like “douchebaggery” run contrary to that; even though it is a more fitting term.
Let’s press on. The Senator’s first faux pas is “legitimate rape.” This seems to suggest that there are cases of illegitimate rape. Of course there are, but rape is under-reported, not over-reported. And it remains under-reported because of ignoramuses like the Senator who blame the victim.
Senator Akin’s comment seems to suggest that if a woman gets pregnant by rape, it isn’t rape. In other words, she must have wanted it. That type of thinking has to sicken feminists to their core. I’m not a feminist and it sickens me!
This leads to the second faux pas, suggesting that a woman’s body can somehow shut down a pregnancy if the rape is legitimate. That’s an interesting superpower. Why can’t women just do that for any unwanted pregnancy? It would end the abortion debate and the controversy over government-sponsored contraception in one fell swoop!
And how would the woman’s body know the difference, exactly? One fact I do know about rape is that the body reacts as if the sex is consensual, lubing up the right parts. So the woman is violated by the rapist and betrayed by her own body. That, of course, multiplies the shame exponentially and contributes to the under-reporting of rape.
Now on with the real issue. Viewing this from a pro-life standpoint, abortion is morally wrong; it is murder. In that light, when aborting a child conceived in rape, you punish the innocent child for the crime committed by the rapist.
Senator Akin later clarified:
I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life, and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. (source)
This was the point he was making in the first place, skewed by the stupidity of the surrounding context. Liberals pick up on the wrong part of the message — but Senator Akin needs to realize that he gave birth to that monster by spouting the douchebaggery in the first place.
I defend the child conceived in rape as having a right to life. I denounce the ignorance and backwards-thinking of Senator Akin, and join my liberal opponents in shock that he would make these comments. But let’s keep the focus on the right to life, not assbag Senators who thoughtlessly spew epic fails that alienate large portions of their constituency.
This awesome tweet gets the last word:
Posted on August 30, 2012, in Pro-Life Issues and tagged abortion, abortion debate, legitimate rape, rape, Todd Akin. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
let’s done be by done.
All we have to do is preventing.
Prevent our men of being provoke by the way of women dress (fulfill the soul by religion)
Prevent our women to not dressing in outfit way.
keep, raise and educate the child that were born by rape case.
So your solution is to punish the victim by forcing her to bring to term an unwanted pregnancy that daily reminds her of her pain, shame, and humiliation. Then what? Raise the child of a rapist so she can continue to be reminded? Allow the rapist visitation rights? (That’s the latest right-wing “faux pas”.)
Let’s take it to the next logical step: If the mother’s life is in danger, allow the mother to die and save the fetus?
And of course, the ultimate ‘right to life’ logic: the fetus is inviolate but after it is born then it’s the mother’s responsibility. It lives in poverty? The mother should have planned for it. It’s hungry? That’s the mothers fault- don’t go looking for government hand-outs you lazy slacker.
How you people must hate women and the poor! How do you sleep at night?
Are you at all familiar with “reductio ad absurdum?” You are stretching this post to ridiculous proportions then criticizing those points instead of the points I actually made.
It’s a logical fallacy, and thus not an acceptable reply to anything I said here.
Your comment is pretty close to bigoted, actually.
Oh, by the way: anyone who thinks pregnancy or children — however conceived — is a punishment is neither reasonable nor worth my time.
So I will simply say one word in closing that eludes every single liberal I’ve discussed abortion with. The word is “adoption.” ADOPTION. It’s when you send the baby to live with a couple who will love her and raise her as their very own, so that you won’t be reminded anymore of your pain and humiliation at the hands of a rapist. Solves all those pesky visitation questions you raise above!
Adoption really does exist. Google it!
I really appreciate this blog post on a very difficult topic. I like to “trot out the toddler,” to use Scott Klusendorf’s term, in response to this “hard case” argument: suppose a woman has the baby conceived in rape and carries it to term. The child grows to be two years old and the woman decides that because the pain from the rape is so horrible she should kill the child as she [the child] is a constant reminder of that painful memory. She then takes a gun and kills the child. Is this justified?
Obviously not: the child has done nothing wrong. But then why do the same thing to the child inside the womb?