Watch how Akin’s comments are treated versus similar gaffes

Senate candidate Todd Akin said some garbled and erroneous things about rape and abortion and has since clarified them.  It appears that he was trying to distinguish between statutory rape and the more violent form, but he used the unfortunate and false term of “legitimate” to describe the latter.  He obviously wasn’t trying to say that some rapes were legitimate in the sense of being acceptable, but that isn’t how the media and the Left are playing it.  If anything, he was implying that statutory rapes were less severe.

His broader point of defending the children of rapists from death and destruction was lost.

While Romney and Ryan were quick to do the politically expedient thing in distancing themselves from Akin, I’m disappointed that their response was an endorsement of abortion in the case of rape.  I would have preferred the following:

We disagree with Akin’s botched descriptions of “legitimate rape,” of course, because he knows and we know there is no such thing.

But we agree that as awful as any type of rape is, it is never a justification for killing the innocent human being who was conceived by the rape.  Killing the unborn does not undo the rape.

We also want to note that statutory rape is still rape, and that Planned Parenthood has a long and detailed history of systemically hiding those atrocities.  If elected, one of our first acts will be to investigate them and defund them so that victims of statutory rape and sex trafficking will be protected and that your tax dollars will not support the protection of their abusers.

If we had journalists who were even remotely unbiased, they’d do the following:

  1. Report on the statutory rape and sex trafficking cover-ups at Planned Parenthood.
  2. Give more attention to the FRC shooting, where a pro-gay person — apparently fueled by the ironic hate speech of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Left in general — planned to shoot those who hold the same views about marriage that Barrack Obama did until a few months ago.  They were barely reporting on this story as it was.  Now it will disappear completely.
  3. Note that Akin is obviously not pro-rape.  He just misspoke in a very bad way.
  4. The current President defended infanticide.
  5. Note that the gaffes of Biden weren’t mistakes (reporting on that will disappear today as well

When this topic comes up I hope that pro-lifers will be quick to point out that all rapes are evil and that killing the children conceived in rapes is also wrong.  Ask pro-choicers if they oppose all rapes, and if so, why aren’t they alarmed that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just misspeak about rapes, as Akin did, but they systematically cover them up?

41 thoughts on “Watch how Akin’s comments are treated versus similar gaffes”

    1. What hypocrisy? Some 3rd world country doesn’t protect the life of the woman? Not my worldview, champ.

      Speaking of hypocrites . . . that would be you, pretending that there are moral absolutes and that we should care about your atheist opinions — which, of course, are nothing but deterministic chemical reactions making you think you actually hold a moral view. She was going to die and go to oblivion someday anyway, so why would any atheist really care?

      Really, try to go two sentences without contradicting your worldview. Preferably on your blog.


      1. When you codify a medical decision like abortion into the arena of legal absolutes based on anti-choice beliefs and fetus worship, real women in real life suffer the consequences with their lives to suit your willingness and advocacy to impose a religious tyranny on all of us. This case is merely one of many that shows us what your religious belief looks like in the real world when codified into public law – a belief in the sanctity of the fetus over the health and welfare of the mother known by the ironic term right to life – costs in human lives.

        If you fail to recognize the hypocrisy, let me be clearer: the right-to-life movement for fetal legal rights is really an anti-woman anti-life cult.


      2. I’m weary of you, so save your keystrokes. One comment after another of your self-parody, with one ungrounded moral claim after another. We don’t even need religious arguments to refute your nonsense.

        Oh, and do you rail against pro-choice “Christians” for forcing their religious tyranny on you? Of course not, you hypocrite. You just play your anti-religion card to cheat against those you disagree with. I’ve yet to find a consistent atheist who complains about the Religion Coalition for Reproductive Choice or any of the pro-gay religious (fake Christian) denominations.

        Re. anti-woman — oh noes! Don’t tell the people at Care Net Pregnancy Center where I’m a donor, board member and volunteer. They think I actually care about the women we help with our time and money!

        Anti-life??!! Yeah, because we’re anti-crushing and dismembering of innocent but unwanted human beings?

        Anti-choice? Absolutely! I’m proud to be anti-crushing and dismembering of innocent but unwanted human beings.

        Fetus worship?! Oh noes, what a remarkably scientific and logical refutation of my scientific view that the unborn are human beings from fertilization —

        Thanks for the concession speech. Feel free to read and link here but I have better things to do than continually remind you of what a hypocritical self-parody you are. Remember, you “know” that my conversion to Christianity and all my pro-life views are 100.000000% due to your beloved Darwinism. So why get so upset?


      3. You are advocating for your values to be imposed on the legal rights of others. This shows the root of your confusion.

        Although you may be willing to make an entire gender second class citizens in pursuit of transferring your values into law, you have no right to do so even with a majority of popular support. Your values are not worth the legal price. To show just how disconnected are your beliefs (that inform your values) from reality, enjoy the following video:


      4. You are a very confused person who apparently has not evolved enough to think clearly.

        1. You made multiple moral claims for which your nothingness to molecules to man worldview has absolutely no grounding.

        2. Like nearly all pro-abortion arguments, you ignore the unwanted human beings who are crushed and dismembered — . It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception — .

        3. Your faux-feminism is morbidly comical considering that nearly all gender selections kill females for the sole reason that they are female.

        4. Abortions often occur because men pressure women to have them.

        5. Abortions often hide rape and incest.

        6. Your if-legal-then-moral thinking is faulty. Using that logic you’d never seek to change any laws. You would have left pro-slavery and anti-abortion laws in place. After, all they were legal.

        It is hard to imagine that someone who pretends to care about science and logic could miss things that are so obvious.

        Save your keystrokes. I only posted this one because I was feeling generous, but now I feel bad for having had to embarrass you so.


  1. I ranted about this over at Da TechGuy’s blog (since Haemet seems to be permanently down).

    Short version: Akin was medically accurate; women who are raped are less likely than their peers to get pregnant (about 40% less likely, in fact). Akin was obviously distinguishing violent rape from “I sort of said no and he didn’t listen”, which is horrible and morally wrong, but not the same thing.


    1. Source, Roxeanne?

      The information I have is that “Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.” (Source)

      How is Akin addressing solutions to this endemic problem of rape? By believing that women’s bodies come with a secret and mystical rejection kit to avoid pregnancy! And voters empower this kind of nutbar by supporting his gaining public office! Incredible stupidity.

      The man is a fool because he has a long history of placing his beliefs about reality squarely in front of knowledge about reality and thinks they are an adequate and accurate replacement. They’re not. They are foolish. And that makes the man a fool because he seems determined (if not incapable) of figuring out why his method of promoting belief over knowledge in the public domain is a problem… a problem paid for by real people in real life to their detriment.


      1. Yeah, electing him would be almost as bad as electing someone who rationalizes infanticide for babies who survive abortions, and who think one of our major problems is that we aren’t crushing and dismembering enough innocent human beings in the womb so we need taxpayer-funded abortions to kill some more. People like Obama.


      2. Um, pointing out the obvious: women who are raped, according to your source, have a 5% chance of getting pregnant. A woman who has consensual sexual intercourse has an 8% chance of getting pregnant.

        That’s a 40% decrease. Please let me know how rape does not have a statistically significant effect on a woman’s ability to conceive. [smirk] I’m fascinated.


      3. A woman who has consensual sexual intercourse has an 8% chance of getting pregnant.

        I asked you for your source because I can’t find it. But let’s presume it’s true.

        Please let me know how rape does not have a statistically significant effect on a woman’s ability to conceive. [smirk] I’m fascinated.

        In spite of what you presume are my math shortcomings (and that the 8% figure you use for the comparison is accurate), I would think you could do a better job at interpreting this difference in data than you do; rather than presume the women raped are somehow able to magically reduce their rate of conception (and this data certainly doesn’t support this claim, which is the one used by Akin), can you think of any other reasons why women who want to conceive might improve their chances to conceive versus women raped? I think you can. And this is all it takes – one good reason – to show why the conclusive jump Atkins (and you) make about cause and effect of why raped women might have a lower rate of conceiving than women who wish to conceive – is exactly backwards: it’s not rape that reduces conception (for which you provide no evidence at all about this magical ability women are supposed to possess), but actions and behaviours conducive to improving conditions for conception that raise the probability (ie. optimum timing for intercourse during the cycle, as just one possible explanation for improved fertility.)


      4. By the way, it cracks me up – to no end – when people who do not grasp the basic elements of science use science to further their own agenda.

        Basic science: if you are running a study, use a control group. You presented me with ONE side – the variable group – then declared scientific victory. That’s like saying, “Smoking doesn’t reduce life expectancy; smokers routinely live until age 70 or 80!” The OBVIOUS question is, “Compared to what?”

        In your case, you need to present the control group, i.e. women who have consensual intercourse without protection. Those women have about an 8% chance of getting pregnant. Absent the control group, your 5% number is meaningless. Meaningless!


      5. You’re very quick to presume my shortcomings when I’ve given you no evidence for them. I simply use the same data you present and offer what I think is a very reasonable alternative that does not include any need for or kind of mystical female reproductive properties to explain the difference in rates (presuming as I must do that your facts are correct). How this translates in your mind into an inability to understand basic elements of science is also rather mysterious.

        The point I made about Akin’s response was about addressing this very real problem of unwanted pregnancies with something more effective than his rhetoric, bizarre notions about female reproductive biology, and the role of his misguided religious beliefs on harming public health policy (which you confuse with something unknown called my “agenda”).


      6. ROFLMAO.

        Look up “ovulation suppression.” It’s only a “mystical female property” if you are so frickin ignorant as to think that the only thing necessary for conception is male gametes.

        The other day, one of my friends told me that she wasn’t able to conceive last month because she was travelling to Europe. Turns out that going into a different time zone affects ovulation. (She’s been tracking her cycles daily for three years.)


      7. Let’s stay focused here, Roseanne. Akins said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down…”

        Because you apparently missed it the first time around, Akins is saying that raped women – the ones fully raped and not just those who did not consent in some way to give permission to be raped (?) – have the biological means to avoid getting pregnant. You’re so determined to excuse this wildly inaccurate assertion that you’re actually going to pretend that, once you’ve been raped, traveling to the next time zone is one of these biological ways females have that reflects the so-well-hidden-it’s-absent medical accuracy of Akin’s statement.

        Also – in case you missed it – the assertion by Akin is just another tired and tedious retread of blame the victim for her pregnant predicament. After all, according to Akin with your apparent support, she apparently had the means to terminate her pregnancy – to “shut the whole thing down” – naturally… but failing this activation of her mysterious shutting-down biology, all she really needs to do is just change time zones!

        Quick! Let raped women everywhere who also fail to “shut the whole thing down” and risk getting pregnant know this neat little parlor trick of yours on how to avoid it!

        Thank goodness one of us isn’t “fricken ignorant” about how human reproductive biology works. That must be me… the one who isn’t laughing and excusing Akin for this little gem in his necklace of scientific illiteracy.

        Oh, and I’m still waiting for that source material you use about the 8% figure…


      8. First, you are the one who implies that 5% is normal; find a source to back it up yourself.

        Second, google anything about Plan B. All of the Plan B stuff says that you have an 8% chance of getting pregnant if you have unprotected intercourse.

        Yes, I use FDA-approved statistics. Read ’em and weep.


    2. WOW! If nothing else, this whole situation points to how inadequate our education system is in bringing clear understanding to human biology. You quote some bizarre statistic from God (yes, God) only knows what research paper and think you have said something accurate and true? As a researcher I know first hand that studies must be thoroughly read and considered before we proclaim them as discovered knowledge. Anyone can and will print whatever they want and cite “statistics” backing their claims.

      God created a woman’s body in such a way that she gets pregnant only during a certain time of the month. End of story. Look it up (I am compelled to add) in credible references. The fact that there may be some difference (I would love to see the report-which you fail to cite-of this difference, but for argument’s sake I’ll allow your stat), is more likely due to the fact that a woman has a much greater chance of being raped by an acquaintance who has a greater likelihood of knowing the details of said woman’s personal life (i.e. her cycle and chances of getting her pregnant). According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 80-85% of rapists who were reported were known to their victims. Please look it up. I dare you.

      Your attribution of a slight (unverified) statistic as evidence of biological magic reminds me of a research study that was held up as evidence of foolishness in one of my Statistical Research classes. A researcher studied a city and found a correlation between the number of churches in an area the the levels of criminal activity and prostitution. He/she found consistently that the more churches there were, the higher the criminal activity and human trafficking. His/her equations were tight, the numbers were outrageously significant and the research was replicable. He/she then concluded that the only possible conclusion must be that churches introduce crime and prostitution.

      I seriously doubt that you will move from your most uninformed position. You strike me as the type of person who refuses to learn despite overwhelming evidence that you may have room for growth. Normally I don’t argue with fools, pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). However, your stance promotes an ideology that has great potential to profoundly damage abused individuals. May God have mercy on your soul. “…”Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to Me.” (Mt 25:40)


      1. ROFLMAO.

        Yes, most women are raped by people who know them, but most people don’t know the details of a woman’s cycle. I would venture that no one – not even my boyfriend or house mate with whom I share a bathroom – knows when I’m ovulating or menstruating.

        …and as for the idea that rapists time their attacks for when a woman isn’t fertile? Even if they knew, that’s just comical. “Oh, I totally will rape Tracy tonight, because she’s had her period three days ago and isn’t likely to get preggers.”

        In your world, that is MORE likely that people who have unprotected sex having it at times when a woman isn’t likely to get pregnant?

        I won’t ask if you’re stupid – that is clearly established. I will ask if you’re getting the help you need.


      2. To elaborate:

        In your world, a woman is less likely to get pregnant from rape than from consensual, unprotected sex because:
        1. rapists are more familiar with the cycles of their victims than are those women’s boyfriends, husbands, and hook-ups; AND
        2. rapists are better at timing their rape to avoid pregnancy than couples are at timing consensual sex to avoid conception.

        Neil, she’s killing me. The only problem is that my vote counts the same as hers does, not like 85 times as much as hers.


    1. If you are on moderation it was for good reasons. I was about to approve your previous comment, but when people whine it makes me not want to post them — especially when it is atheist whining. If you concede the following I’ll be more likely to approve your comments. A simple “agree” will suffice.

      1. As an atheist I realize there is no transcendent, universal right and wrong — just subjective “opinions” driven from the illusion of consciousness and the random chemical firings in my evolved brain. Therefore, my implication that echo chambers are bad and that real debate good is a self-parody of my worldview.

      2. As an atheist, I “know” that all religions, including Christianity, are 100.000000% driven from Darwinian evolution, so it would be foolish of me to criticize them or be surprised at their existence.


      1. You have offered no good reasons for such lengthy moderation. That’s why I asked. If all you want is an echo chamber then I won’t waste my time. But if you want honest debate against which to take the measure of your own opinions, then don’t moderate me. It’s pretty straightforward; it’s a matter of equivalent respect. As for you insistence that I agree to your ludicrous “Therefore…” in order to comment without moderation, my intellectual integrity is not so easily or cheaply prostituted. Maybe this kind of approach works with others but it seems to me you are more concerned with being a boss than you are with the quality of the product your blog can produce. My commentary will raise the bar and bring you some additional traffic – a larger audience to hear your opinions. Your choice, obviously.


      2. If you can’t agree to those points then you are either intellectually dishonest or incapable of rational thought. You should select a worldview for which you aren’t ashamed of the logical conclusions. More proof: Your implication that intellectual integrity is good and prostitution is bad. My worldview has a foundation to support such claims, your worldview does not.

        I am glad to have alternate views, but I weary of those who just repeat their bumper sticker slogans from the Big Book of Atheist Soundbites.

        I love the chirping of crickets when atheists are confronted with their wild irrationality of acting irritated at Christians, when they should “know” that Darwinian evolution is the sole cause of my conversion from atheism to trusting the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Consistency with their worldview: They’re doin’ it wrong.


  2. I had no sympathy for Whoopie Goldberg when she said “It wasn’t rape, rape”. I have no sympathy for Akin saying “legitimate rape”. I am tired of the nuanced approach to right and wrong. There is no such things as legitimate rap or rape, rape. There is violent and non-violent rape. I get the point he was trying to make but he shot himself in the foot with how he said it. Point about PP minimizing statuatory rape is dead on in terms of this understanding of right and wrong. Either we as a society agree rape is a crime or we do not.


    1. While I see what you’re saying, there’s also the issue of false rape accusations. A woman decides her drunk-goggles stud looks a lot less appealing in the morning light? Cry rape and save some face. That is not “legitimate rape”.


  3. May I translate RepAkin into English?

    Legitimate rape: violent rape by a stranger. Distinguish from: “I woke up in the morning and regretted it.” “We’ve been dating for three months and he pressured me.” “I asked my husband to stop, but he wouldn’t.”

    Why it matters: traumatic life events can change a woman’s ability to ovulate; absent ovulation within very close time to intercourse (a few hours before or about two days afterward), she cannot get pregnant.

    The science: travelling to a different time zone suppresses ovulation, as does stress, breast-feeding, and a host of other things. Some women who undergo a huge amount of trauma will not ovulate – we can all understand the evolutionary advantage to that.

    The conclusion: women who are violently raped are less likely to get pregnant than those who consent.

    My problem: I don’t want a Republican Senator who needs translating into English. This isn’t some kid in college who mangled his biology final exam; he’s a long-time politician who should know how to speak in front of a camera. Even if he goofed up – we all do – he should have been able to respond with a cogent explanation.


    1. “I don’t want a Republican Senator who needs translating into English. This isn’t some kid in college who mangled his biology final exam; he’s a long-time politician who should know how to speak in front of a camera. Even if he goofed up – we all do – he should have been able to respond with a cogent explanation.”

      I agree. That is my point as well. The mainstream media will ignore or laugh away Joe Biden poorly constructed arguments by Democrats but will always hold Republican candidates to a higher standard. They have to expect that and act accordingly. Akins is getting hammered and he should not be surprised. That is the way it is today. I have no sympathy for him making this large a mistake.


    1. No, he choose to run as a candidate in a media environment that will try to hang him if he says something stupid. This is not an unexpected consequence for a Republican candidate. He should know the environment in which he is running and act accordingly.


      1. I’ve long given up on seeking perfection in my candidates (not that he’s mine). Anyone is capable of speaking poorly, spouting a gaffe, stumbling on words. I don’t know this guy’s overall record, but I would not put this little incident on top of it in deciding his worthiness as a Senator. There are far more articulate people who purposely say things I know are
        stupid and mean what they say and believe (or attempt to project that they believe) what they say. Yeah. He should take greater care in what he says publicly. The people and the media should take greater care in judging who a person
        is than to condemn one over a verbal gaffe. One’s ability to
        speak extemporaneously is not the determining indicator of
        one’s ability to do the job.


  4. I saw the comments on YouTube. It was only a few seconds, I wish I could have seen the original interview, but couldn’t find a link.

    What I heard was horrible. What I heard was as cold as anything I’ve heard before. Any victim of rape would be offended. I’ve never spoken to a victim directly, but I understand that many feel that they could/should have done something to prevent the rape – this kind of talk will only re-inforce it.

    As for the medical science he refers to, this seems even more ridiculous. With my limited knowledge of human development, I believe fetilization can occur over several days, the body changing ovulation cycles is no prevention.

    Moreover, I think to try to use this as a talking point to deflect the anger to other stories is wrong. I may agree with Akin’s views on abortion, your views on the FRC shooting or any of the other items, but the bottom line is that Akin said something VERY STUPID. I tend to stay out of the business of other states (I’m a long way from Akins’ district), and normally wouldn’t comment. But when another believer mentions it and minimizes it, I have an obligation to offer correction.


    1. As for the medical science he refers to, this seems even more ridiculous. With my limited knowledge of human development, I believe fetilization can occur over several days, the body changing ovulation cycles is no prevention.

      Half true, half COMPLETELY wrong.

      The egg is only good for a day (at most): sperm last for five. So a woman who has sex on, say, the first of the month can get pregnant if she ovulates any time in the next four days; however, if she ovulated more than a day prior (i.e. the 29th of the previous month on back), she is unlikely to get pregnant. That is why a small reduction in the chance of subsequent ovulation makes it substantially less likely that a woman will get pregnant.


      1. Roxeanne, I think my statement of “several days” may have mis-interpreted. I was thinking something like 5-10. My youngest is now 22, so it’s been a long time since I focused on these things, but that’s what my memory told me. Your calculation isn’t too far off from mine (you narrowed it down to 6 days). I remember when my wife and I decided to start a family, we had a chart (we never checked temperature) that helped us plan.

        As I recall, the issue we always had calculating ovulation cycles was that it was based on the last menstrual cycle start date. However, since ovulation cycles can change for any number of reasons and are often irregular in some women, it’s very difficult to calculate “fertile days”.


  5. It’s not the entire interview, but it appears to be the entire segment regarding abortion, posted without any intentional irony as “Todd Akin’s extreme anti-choice positions.”

    The segment ends with the interviewer moving on to the subject of the economy: no follow-up questions or even hesitation as if he just realized that the politician across from him just asserted that rape never leads to pregnancy. IT’S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT HE DIDN’T. He did state that, assuming pregnancy did result, the rapist should be punished not the child.

    A lot of the controversy is circling around the claim that pregnancy is less likely in the case of rape. Critics are dismissing this as obvious hogwash, but they do so as if it’s as obvious a gaffe as saying that the sky is green. To me it’s not so obvious, in part because I do not dismiss out-of-hand the theory that the woman’s body encourages the reproductive process in instances with a man the woman finds attractive. If attraction is a function of genetic “fitness” (symmetrical features, healthy appearance, etc.), then such a physiological reaction WOULD be beneficial at the margins, where natural selection does still play a part. Even if trauma hinders that reaction and doesn’t result in (say) increased miscarriages, the difference might still be statistically significant.

    But I don’t know, I’m just a layman like the vast majority of people who are commenting on the subject; I just recognize that I’m no OB-GYN, and so even as I admit that I’m dubious about the claim, I’m not arrogant enough to dismiss it as ludicrous on its face.

    What I find more striking than the outrage over the comment’s plain meaning is the willingness to put the worst possible spin on the comment — and the fact that this really negative spin is coming from prominent places on the right.

    The normally good Ed Morrissey writes, “Akin’s statement on the legitimacy of a rape claim being suspect in the case of pregnancy isn’t your garden-variety gaffe; it’s an exposure of some very muddled and factually-deficient thinking, for which Akin deserves all of the castigation he’s been getting.”

    GOOD GRIEF!! There’s no conceivable way to take Akin’s statement in good faith and to construe it to suggest that he thinks “the legitimacy of a rape [is] suspect in the case of pregnancy.”

    The also otherwise good John Podhoretz, editor of the largely Jewish neoconservative (that’s not redundant) Commentary Magazine, makes the same mistake. Podhoretz evidently isn’t opposed to abortion — he mentions “ensoulment,” which is a subject I’ve ONLY heard from critics of pro-lifers; I’ve never heard any of us mention the subject on our own, because we don’t have to, the biological case that the fetus is a human life is more than sufficient — but he says he deeply respects the movement….

    “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.”

    Akin IMMEDIATELY addressed the case where rape did indeed result from pregnancy, concluding that we should punish the rapist and not the child, but Podhoretz is too busy losing his mind over Akin to be remotely fair to his comment.

    It seems that Akin’s point is that abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape is rare. That much is true, the vast majority of abortions are NOT the “hard cases” of rape, incest, and a significant threat to the life of the mother. He could have made this point without mentioning physiology at all, and he would have been better off just focusing on the indisputable fact that the child is an innocent human life regardless of the circumstances surrounding his conception.

    Regardless of the prudence of his bringing up physiology at all, it is ABSURD TO THE UTMOST DEGREE to suggest that Akin was arguing something like, “If she’s pregnant, she wasn’t really raped.” The claim is belied by his immediate comment afterwards, and it’s belied by the complete lack of a follow-up or even a pause by the interviewer.

    Morrissey and Podhoretz wouldn’t DARE be this unfair in reading any comment by a Democrat, but their contempt for Akin is viceral and shameful.

    It reminds me of nothing more than it does the contempt that Leftists have for those who deny the serious and immediate threat of anthropogenic global warming, or those who question macroevolution or don’t immediately discount young-earth creationism. It’s the contempt of the atheist for the Christian who believes in the Resurrection.

    It’s the Orwellian Two Minutes Hate for the Other.

    And you’re seeing it everywhere, at NRO’s Corner blog, at The American Spectator’s Spectacle blog, at Ace of Spades, EVERYWHERE where serious pro-life conservatives are accepted so long as they know their place: Don’t embarass us. Say that you believe life begins at conception, but don’t say anything else that our cosmopolitan friends might ridicule us for. Don’t dare be explicit that your beliefs regarding abortion actually mean that you would support criminalizing any form of abortion. JUST VOTE FOR POLITICIANS WHO PAY LIP SERVICE TO YOUR BOUTIQUE CAUSE, DONATE YOUR TIME AND MONEY TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS, AND DON’T EVER EXPECT ANYTHING MORE IN RETURN.

    Conservative pundits have defended Republican politicians for lots of things, including Romney’s true-but-poorly-phrased point about how corporations are treated like people in certain circumstances. Some pundits have even tried to defend Roberts’ betrayal of his country in upholding Obamacare.

    But being anything less than perfectly respectable in your defense of the unborn just cannot be tolerated.

    A few weeks back, the excellent Andrew McCarthy wondered aloud about whether the GOP has outlived its usefulness in tolerating those who push for sharia law.

    “As is the case with crushing government debt and out-of-control government spending, it appears that the GOP is choosing to be part of the problem, rather than the solution, when it comes to the threat of Islamic supremacism. Certainly, that is a choice party leaders are entitled to make. But if it is the one they have made, why should conservatives concerned about liberty and security bother with the Republican Party?”

    A similar question occurs to me in the wake of the completely disproportionate response to Akin’s comment: if the elites in conservatism — those who have largely identifed more with leftist elites than with conservatives in flyover country — are using their position to place a straight jacket on those of us who are serious about the enormity of abortion, why should we bother with them?


      1. Very well said and a more detailed version of my brief comments above. I haven’t even heard the interview Akin gave, but it didn’t occur to me that by “legitimate” he was speaking about anything other than the level of trauma experienced by the woman and how it might affect her physiology. I am far more concerned by the lack of spine by those on the right who have jumped down this guy’s throat
        over the issue, rather than taking the time to determine his true meaning.


    1. Yeah, I was wondering about that – he wasn’t saying that rape never results in a child, he was just saying that it’s really rare – which is true.

      I would also posit that modern medicine knows far less about women’s reproduction than it thinks it does. Given both concealed ovulation and heavy use of the Pill, few doctors know much of anything about their patient’s fertility, and there are few women to study.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s