So Todd Akin, the senatorial candidate in Missouri, has made a commercial apologizing for his remarks on rape and pregnancy on Sunday. ”Rape is an evil act,” he says. “I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims. The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.”
One has reason to think this apology is disingenuous. For one thing, it’s doubtful he would have issued it had the video of him discoursing on “legitimate rape” and the mystical ability of a woman’s body to repel a rapist’s seed not become a subject of controversy. For another, as always with politicians, what tells is the phrasing. “The mistake was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold” places the blame for his error on “the words,” as though the words were somehow separate from him. Whereas “the heart I hold” is intrinsic to him, and therefore to be taken more seriously (and by the way, who exactly “holds” a heart?).
What strikes me, though, is the offense Todd Akin has given—not just to victims of rape, but to his fellow pro-lifers. The most difficult moral issue when it comes to abortion comes with cases of pregnancy due to rape and incest. (These are, relative to all live births, extraordinarily small in number.) The pregnancy in such circumstances is not only unwanted but the result of a barbaric and traumatic criminal attack. And yet consistent pro-lifers argue such pregnancies should not be ended by abortion. This is usually held up as an example of their fanaticism, or their cruelty, or their desire to punish women, or some other charge.
In fact, though, it is precisely when it comes to these most difficult cases that the underlying philosophy of the pro-life movement finds its moral strength. They argue that the unborn possess an independent right to life, that one would and should not do to them in the womb what would never be done to them one second after they were born alive. Wanted or unwanted, conceived in love or in violence, they are ensouled and they are people.
This is not a conviction I share, but it is a conviction for which I have enormous respect. Now comes along Todd Akin, and he has good news! No need to worry about those pesky hard cases, that pregnancy-by-rape stuff! Don’t bother yourself over that! He talked to a doctor, and the doctor said when a woman is legitimately raped, her body will act in ways to prevent that pregnancy from happening! So if there’s a pregnancy by rape, you can be pretty sure it’s not really rape, but something less…legitimate.
In one offhand stroke, then, Todd Akin not only offended all thinking people with his nonsense bilge—he was also selling snake oil to his own comrades in the pro-life battle. For that they should despise him.
This is not a conviction I share n nme neither, nIt seems to me that a considerable amount of force would be required to make a woman who chose to abort her child,to actually deliver that child.
It is regrettable that folks today no longer believe in moral absolutes or standards, only what feels right. How ironic Dems are more courageous in standing for their evil than the GOP is for standing what's right, even denying it's possible to know if anything is right.
Out of the heart, the mouth speaks. (Matthew 12:34 & Luke 6:45)
The issue now has moved far, far beyond the the subject of abortion. What is now at stake is the question of whether the Republican Party can gain control not only of the Presidency, but also the Senate while maintaining their majority in the House.. The Republicans need every Senate seat they can get. Because of the current storm which has resulted from Akin's intemperate remarks, he MUST step aside in order to avoid risking the loss of what appeared to be a likely Republican win in Missouri. Yes, politics is a dirty business. For the future good of the country, Akin should drop out today.
I do not feel sold out by Akin. He blew it on what he was trying to say. He was trying to defend an innocent life and messed up the conversation. If I were a democrat, I wouldn't be getting too self righteous with the likes of biden, bill clinton and the ghost of ted kennedy et al on their side.
So right. How sad Demo ncraps are far better at courageously promoting evil than the GOP is at defending what's right, preferring to shoot its wounded.
It is not EXACTLY a conviction I share. Being “ensouled” is irrelevant; basic biology shows that zygotes are living things, and embryology that they must be human. That aside, I thought your article was spot-on.
Very well written article, considering the author doesn't share the convictions of the "hard-core" pro-lifers. n nThe answer to rape or incest is really determined by one's position on abortion itself. If abortion is wrong, it's always wrong. Just like murder. n n"They argue that the unborn possess an independent right to life, that one would and should not do to them in the womb what would never be done to them one second after they were born alive. Wanted or unwanted, conceived in love or in violence, they are ensouled and they are people." n nI realize this is a tough subject. I asked a dear Christian lady what she thought, and her immediate response was that the evil of the rape was now in the woman's womb – but that's not really the case. n nA friend recently had a grandchild in less than desirable circumstances. But this child is now the light of their lives, as well as the mothers and young aunts and uncles. n nAnd I think you'll have to admit, the ferocity of the left to hammer on this issue is not really about "cases of rape or incest", it's really about the totality of abortion. Which is pure evil, yet it's the "law of the land", passed under very shady / shaky circumstances in Roe v. Wade. n
So what are your thoughts on war? What about innocent lives — including unborn children — lost due to "collateral damage"? Because you cannot promote forced pregnancies and be okay with war and the subsequent collateral damage. Doesn't make sense.
Solid analysis all around. I leaned about the moral conviction of absolutist pro-lifers at a young age when my evangelical summer camp counselors rebutted my exception-on-the-grounds-of-rape-and-incest argument with the stance even the unborn child of a rapist is a sacred human life. I've never embraced their absolutist position and instead felt I had to make peace living in the gray areas but their conviction was always something I admired. Then this Akin jack-ass comes along and spouts his repulsive BS. Pro lifers are 100% correct to hang this guy out to dry.
Todd Akin's problem is that pro-life issues are supposed to be his strong suit, yet after 12 years in the House the best he can do in a sit-down interview is to use the stupid phrase "legitimate rape" and make a calloused appeal to junk science. It should be plain to everyone that Todd Akin is not deserving of elevation to higher office. The Mo Dems would love to have this loose canon to run against.
Akin stepped in it with awkward phrasing of a disturbing issue, BUT. I. DON’T. CARE.! n nHis words won't prevent a single woman from obtaining an abortion; his words will not raise our taxes, saddle us with more punitive regulations, or restrict our rights as citizens. n nObama & Co's actions have cause far more damage to this nation that Akin's stupid remarks. n nMemory hole. Next! n n n
If John weren't an ignorant stupid fool (something he clearely thinks applies to Todd) he'd know that the "mystical" ability of a woman's body to shut down regarding conception after rape or other trauma is a doccumented medical fact. Of course it isn't 100%, as few if any things in life are, but if he were more interested in the very real welfare of the unborn than the merely theoretical gain or loss of a single Senate seat in his cowardly and spineless abandonment of Akin for no good reason he'd not take such a despicable approach to attacking Akin as with most in the GOP who are so good at shooting their wounded but of course hypocritically whining when it's their turn. Akin's right, as history will prove him to be, win or lose, and John's not, and a fool to boot! as history will prove him and other cowardly in the GOP to be too.
GIve us this documentation, please, and explain the physiology involved. What is this independent mechanism that kicks in when a woman is raped? You claim it is a documented fact that the female reproductive system includes an ability to a) discern intercourse via rape from consensual sex and b) begin a process exclusive only to rape situations that would prevent pregancy. Sources, please.
You do a wonderful job asserting this, but you never support it. Anyone besides ignorant zealots in the pro-life moment agree with your "fact"? You need to attend a biology class and learn something about a woman's body. Funny how its always men like you who think they know it all. Ugh.
No Akin was not wrong to assert that women can resist impregnation. This is true even if the person having sex with her is her husband. Which is why the birth-rate is falling even in countries without access to birth control and modern abortion. IAC, The real problem is that he remarks were artless at best, incoherent at worst. His efforts to clarify have not met the challenge. He should step down.
Yeah, it's called the morning after pill, however. Not some mystical, magical property that kicks in after rape (oh, but only if the rape is brutal enough….of course…)
Good Lord, where do you people get this stuff. You sound like the Taliban.
Actually this is a complete misrepresentation of what Akin said. He in fact acknowledged that women get pregnant through rape. Since Mr. Podhoretz either didn't listen to the interview or is willfully distorting it, I'll provide a transcript: n nREPORTER: “So if an abortion could be considered in the case of a [terminal?] pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape, should it be legal or not?” nAKIN: “Well you know people always want to try and make that as one of those things where people say ‘how do you, how do you slice that particularly tough ethical issue?’ It seems to me that, first of all, from what doctors tell me, if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume, maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be a punishment, but that punishment should be with the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
Oh, yes, that's loads better.
Here and elsewhere, John Podhoretz suggests Todd Akin thinks you can't get pregnant through rape. My point is that Akin never said this. I think that's worth knowing.
The issue is not whether life begins at birth. The issue is whether the State should possess the authority to make abortions illegal. Something can be morally wrong, but still legal. Certain areas are not such as to be the province of the State. Unfortunately, even Commentary writers can agree with certain pro lifers who want to extend the power of the state to the decisions of birth.
Hi Harv…I am looking for some context on this: Something can be morally wrong, but still legal…do you feel comfortable giving a few examples that fit the observation…thanks.
n nIn 17th century England, undoubtedly before and after, it was believed that a woman could not conceive unless she enjoyed the sexual act. n nThis would have had long ranging influence in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape.
These morons would say that a girl sexually assaulted by a family member and impregnated must have enjoyed the sex. I try to be considerate, but it's hard to restrain oneself in the face of such unbelievable stupidity.
I'm a pro-life guy, and I find Akin creepy. That he chose to stay in the Senate race tells us all we need to know about him—and about many like him, whose beliefs are "weapons" rather than deeply-held understandings about human life. The GOP has made common cause with the religious far-right for too long. The abortion issue belongs out of politics, on both sides. Women are much more than either pro-life or pro-choice citizens. All of us are more than that. n nThe tragedy of "the abortion issue" is that it has obscured what brought it on—a weird, repressed idea about sexuality and women. But 1960s morality pushed the weirdness to the other extreme, and now we're figuring out what to do with young kids who attend sex parties after school and think their gender is fungible. n nOne thing is certain: Todd Akin is not a "go-to" guy on this issue, or on anything else. He's just as scary as the far-Left is. They deserve each other. We deserve neither one.
The most discouraging thing is he's getting defenders on the net. I am starting to think the pro-life movement consists of a great many credulous morons like Akin.
think again, killer. consists..of a great many…that's like saying that all people who vote Democrat are Socialists. How about includes some? Nice try.
Mr. Akin did not invent the concept that the raped woman will almost always not get pregnant. When presented with evidence that this is not true, apparently he is willing to change his opinion, but not his actions which were and remain supporting life whenever possible. I doubt any action he will take in the Senate will change present law. n nI will reluctantly allow killing the baby if the raped woman cannot allow it to live inside her until born and adopted by someone who wants it. If God asks who is at fault, I will point at the rapist and add murder to the charges against hm. n nIn return then, will the Democrat party allow those other inconvenient babies to live, where there was no crime but the mother/family just doesn't want it? No, I didn't think so; the blood of the murdered babies is on them.