Todd Akin, imperfect hero
Which is worse, slavery or rape?
Answer: Neither. They’re equally despicable atrocities committed by humans against fellow humans.
Last week Joe Biden violated a sacred pain of black Americans by recklessly comparing Republican control of the presidency to a return to slavery. Worse, he attempted black dialect, y’all, to do so.
Biden took some heat for his insensitive remark, but President Obama and Democrats stood by him.
Four days ago Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin made a problematic remark about rape victims, and Republicans promptly threw him under the bus.
Republicans are famous for doing this, but one difference in this case was the offended constituency. Democrats were not afraid blacks would deluge the media with righteous howls of protest. But Republicans, even conservative Republicans, are deathly afraid of pro-abortion feminists. As the Bible says, “It is better to sit on the corner of the roof than to dwell with a contentious woman” (Proverbs 21:9), and liberal women excel at being all that.
After he misspoke, Biden ran home to hide. Akin manned up and apologized:
It was a good apology for the inexplicable mistake of straying from pro-life talking points on the rape/incest exception. That topic shouldn’t really take any of us off-guard, but particularly a U.S. senate candidate. As Dana Loesch tweeted, “I’m used to Republicans screwing us over [but] you don’t go into a national senate race unprepared. Period.”
In other words, “legitimate” is not part of our lexicon. Nor is wandering into the weeds about women’s bodies rejecting pregnancy by rape, whether or not it is true.
Our talking points are simple. We affirm: 1) the unspeakable trauma of being raped, but 2) nevertheless, abortion hurts women, and 3) the innocent baby is not responsible for his/her father’s crime – all as concisely put by the American Life League (HT: Matt Abbott):
The trauma of sexual assault is very real, and there is no intention here to downplay that. Abortion carries its own variety of trauma, however; women – even those who were victims of sexual assault – have reported years of physical, emotional and psychological difficulty following their abortions. Abortion did not solve their problem; it merely created additional ones.
There is also the very important fact that abortion takes the life of a living human being. The circumstances of conception may have been criminal, but the life of the newly-created human being is just as valuable as any other person’s. We do not put criminals’ innocent children to death in our culture; it simply isn’t done. It should not be done in this situa0tion, either.
Now, despite great pressure, Akin has decided to stay in the race. A few thoughts.
Foremost, as Erick Erickson wrote at RedState.com two days ago (before concluding Akin should drop), Akin is a hero:
The hyperbole from the left over Todd Akin has been disgusting. The man truly believes that children who are conceived out of rape should not be killed. The Bible teaches us that God raised us up from the dust of the earth and stitched us together in our mothers’ wombs.
When you believe that, as Congressman Akin does, then it is asking much to tear apart what God has stitched together.
Congressman Akin said something dumb and inarticulate. But God bless him for trying to explain why so many Christians do not believe in an exception for rape and believe that to have one could see an increase in the number of claims of rape that are not actual rapes (“legitimate” rapes in his words), but are claims of rape used to justify an abortion when abortion is otherwise prohibited.
It is truly unfortunate that Akin showed such political naiveté, but who among us hasn’t had a macaca moment? It’s ridiculously over-reactive to tell Akin to give up his hard-earned senate endeavor for this unfortunate comment, particularly since pro-life Americans own the majority. It’s as if no one knows it.
Furthermore, pro-life issues of the day – fetal pain and sex selection abortions – enjoy 70-80% support!
I internally scream at the unfairness of Akin’s situation. Democrats don’t abandon gaffers; Republicans do. Democrats unite on the abortion issue; Republicans don’t. MSM ignores Democrat mistakes but magnifies those made by Republicans. MSM ignores Democrat extremist views while calling Republican mainstream views extremist. Liberal feminist crazy talk is considered the voice of reason and vice versa.
This debacle is just another reminder that pro-lifers fight a unique, two-front war. Rather than circle the wagons and stand united when controversy arises around the abortion issue, Republican elites run from it rather than do what Democrats do – only yell louder.
Republican elites don’t want to deal with abortion, while their counterparts relish such conversations. It doesn’t matter how many times we tell Republicans life is a winning issue, they are uncomfortable with it, if not themselves pro-abortion. They cannot conquer a fear exacerbated by the liberal media that women will somehow be offended by pro-life talk.
Rather than blink and run, Republican elites should be turning the question around, as Rush said yesterday on his show, asking reporters whether they know Obama supports infanticide. National Right to Life has a good media advisory in this area, “Mainstream news media again subjects Republican pro-life positions to hyper-scrutiny and extrapolation, while ignoring President Obama’s positions on current legislation on late abortions and abortion for sex selection.”
There are any number of questions Republicans could raise to turn the tables. Do reporters know Planned Parenthood has been prosecuted in several states for failing to report child rape? Do they know PP has also been caught in a multi-state sting offering to help a pimp get underage abortions?
The proper response to this PR crisis would have been for Republican leaders to quickly organize a call with pro-life leaders to plan a united front and gather talking points. You know that is what Democrats would have done.
Rather, by abandoning Akin Republicans have invited scrutiny of themselves – their votes, their platform. (Jim Bopp, seriously?) In the end, it is the Republican establishment that is to blame for fanning the flames and for turning on pro-lifers – once again, as usual.
Pro-lifers must demand Republican leadership stand by us in times like this, just as their counterparts would.
Pro-lifers must now also give to Akin’s campaign, since the establishment has abandoned him. I like reading articles about our continued loyalty to him, like this and this. He’s asking for $3 apiece. Give more if you can.
Throughout history there have been lots of heroes. But only one of them was perfect.
[Photo of Akin via the Washington Post]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Thank you for this article Jill. You put it very well. Mr. Akin made a mistake in what words he chose, he should have definitely phrased it differently. But when you actually take the time to understand what he means, it does make sense.
And he also shows character in taking the time to make an apology. Most politicians would not take a second out of their day to worry about such a thing. They would just brush it off and explain it away.
Something else that I have found ridiculous is that people are upset and claiming that Akin is secretly working for the democrats since he has been getting donations from so many of them. The fact is that many other republicans have gotten much support from democrats, take Ronald Reagan for instance….when he ran for a second term, pretty much every state except for Minnesota voted for him. There was definitely democrat support there. So if they’re going to get mad at Akin for this, then might as well say that they don’t like Reagan.
Just so: very well put, Jill! The fellow seems quite decent (and I think I’m safe in saying that he won’t make this particular mistake again!), and he’s certainly a pro-life stalwart. I don’t blame anyone for scolding him roundly (and I don’t think it’d be excessive to have him endure a lengthy trainign seminar on these issues!) for his carelessness and lack of preparation, but to abandon him is insane.
I do sympathise with those who impulsively wished for someone a bit less… politically radioactive. But if we are to be people of principle, and not merely unfeeling followers of an amoral political calculus (putting expediency over principle), then we really must act accordingly, and not follow the “main-stream Republicans” in abandoning him for the sake of trying to keep up “clean appearances”.
Only problem is that this is a thousand times worse than “Macaca”. It’s a gaffe of monumental proportions that the Democrat/media complex will use for DECADES to claim that ALL Republicans hate women. It could easily cost us not only that Missouri Senate seat but also several other elections, including the presidency. This could be the worst political gaffe in American history. I’m not exaggerating – Akin played right into the proabortion Democrat narrative. Yeah it would be nice if our media wasn’t completely intellectually and morally bankrupt but they will do anything, tell any lie, manufacture any outrage to hurt the prolife cause. That goes for many of the people over at FoxNews too, where Sean Hannity is probably the only real prolifer. The other day FoxNews claimed that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform abortions. Unbelievable! Outside of Christian media, NOBODY tells the truth on abortion.
Shawn: You’re utterly missing the point about “Democratic support.” His Democratic opponent supported him in the primary. That means she wanted to run against him. That’s very different from how you’re characterizing it. In fact, I hadn’t heard — anywhere — that he’s “secretly working for” Democrats. If you’re claiming that’s some prevalent critique out there, I’ll have to call foul: that’s a straw man.
Paladin: Because of Akin, the Democratic national convention is going to be all about abortion.
A couple things. First, Obama is such a desperate candidate this year that his campaign has been capable of credible proactive strategy. They’ve been ridiculously ineffective, relative to 2008. That they’re now steering their entire ship to sail through the Sea of Akin is pretty telling; they feel a strong breeze in their limp sails. So first, Obama’s been on the ropes. Now his campaign figures they’re back center-ring (so a sailing, boxing, and circus metaphor all mangled together; am I good or what?).
Second, Akin single-handedly made this election about abortion and the “war on women,” from the Dems perspective. They could no’ o’ done it without ‘im. They were looking for a burning tire to throw over Republican heads — and they found it.
Having said that, I grant that there is, indeed, an opportunity here. It’s a perilous one, but I also grant that the greatest things in history have come by peril. The opportunity is that the Dems will have taken this a bridge too far and cast themselves as the genuine “extremists” (a word I don’t really like for its inherent question-begging quality). Their convention could be – could be, and I doubt it — transparently demagogic to a lot of voters more concerned about the economy. It’s ridiculously possible that a vast swath of pro-choicers more concerned about the economy — whose personal understanding may have been that Obama’s mandate was to actually bring hope and change — may be offended enough to stay home or throw in their lots with RR. It wouldn’t shock me at all.
But I’m skeptical. It’s a huge gamble that can only hope without evidence that this is a cusp for RR. The evidence is entirely that this is a gift handed to the dems.
Was the reaction fair to Akin? No. The exigencies of the election year and the particular dynamic of the Dem’s desperation, however, are the root of the Republican reaction to his gaffe. This reaction is NOT unwise. It’s not expediency over principle, either — because there are other counter-principles than mere expediency in play. In fact, the very same principle that argues against expediency in the immediate circumstance of the Senate campaign, argues for expediency in terms of long-term strategic concerns with regard to the importance of that senate seat.
Having said that (a phrase that’s fun to have to use in a consequential election year; these are exciting times in every way), it would be hilarious if Akin won and the Dem convention alienated Americans. It would be even more hilarious if, amid their hand-rubbing glee at the Akin gift, they lost more seats in the House and gave up the Senate more significantly than any thought possible.
It would be a source of insane joy to me if fears about Akin and doubt about Americans’ good sense were banished by voters’ rejection of the last four years under Obama.
Which, of course, would mean that the Republicans have a stunning mandate to work harder and more sincerely than they’ve ever worked before to implement serious reforms.
John: “It’s a gaffe of monumental proportions that the Democrat/media complex will use for DECADES”
Oh now. That’s a terribly exaggeration. Akin’s value as a politically expedient rallying point won’t outlast the election.
Poorly put, Jill. What this man said was patently wrong and profoundly stupid. His apology showed that he did not have a clue as to what he said-one bad word in a sentence, etc. His holier-than-thou Christian arrogance could cost us control of the Senate, as well as the presidential election itself. I do not vote for stupid-he is in well over his head.
By the way, what he said does NOT make sense. To state that the body will self-contracept itself and prevent a pregnancy because of stress during a rape is ridiculous.
This is so perfect. The Democrats and the media holler about a Republican who spoke ignorantly about the dynamics of rape and the existence of an estimated 32,000 pregnancies which result — and no one says anything about the Democrats’ and Planned Parenthood’s largely successful efforts at shielding abortion providers who maim women. Last month a young woman died in Chicago as a consequence of a botched surgical abortion performed at a Planned Parenthood clinic that was equipped for abortions by pills. All because abortion providers don’t want the government to tell them to properly equip their ambulatory surgical centers.
That is a War on Women.
I didn’t support Republicans until I realized how contemptuously women were being treated by the Democrats.
I first heard the hoopla and then went back and heard the actual remark. It was not nearly as bad as the furor. I have heard the theory of the body fighting back against the attack but let’s remember that millions of sperm are released in an ejaculation and it only takes one to impregnate. So he spoke badly because we know that pregnancy does occur with rape but it is not as frequent as the MSM portrays it. We never have an abortion discussion without it.
I like to use the example in my training of suppose I am attacked and raped tonight and I give the police a good description and they catch the rapist and he confesses and I identify. I then say to the police to stand back because I have a gun and since I positively identified the attacker and he confessed I will execute punishment now with my gun. They would say..no he has to be arrested, charged, given an atty and a trial by jury and sentencing by the judge. What happened to you was bad but you are still alive so he will not get the death penalty since the punishment must fit the crime. But if I do get pregnant from the attack, someone who is totally innocent and defenseless will die and that is the baby. The woman attacked needs support, love, counseling and time to heal. There is no evidence that an abortion will help that to occur. Many feel that they are traumatized again by the abortion.
Who will want to parent a child conceived in rape. Thousands of couples…..I personally know people who were conceived in rape…some were adopted and some were raised by their birth mother. Remember that that baby is 50% from her.
Do I look at their human face and say they should be dead because of the crime of the birth father? If my husband robs a bank will they arrest my son?
I share Jill’s disdain for the throwing under the bus reputation of the R’s…grow a spine. Stand up! It amazes me that the keynote speaker for the Dems will be an impeached ex president who perjured himself, had an extra marital affair as a sitting president with a WH intern…multiple accusations of rape from women and he is beloved and called the most popular pol!!! He uses and abuses women and they love him??!!
Obama defends infanticide and he is considered a good family man!!??
Stop the world….I want to get off.
Well, welcome to the M.O. of Chicago pols, which is brazen chutzpah.
Those defending Akin’s pro-life creds might wish to consider that the reason he gaffed in the first place was from an apparent desire to minimize the sense that rape pregnancies are common — an apparent effort to dismiss the question as of less importance than many think.
B.S.
If he was less politically calculating and more rationally pro-life, he’d have simply answered with a limit case: “Well let’s look at what it would mean if all pregnancies on the planet were a consequence of rape or incest; how does that fare as a real-world situation if we apply sound pro-life principles to it?”
No. Weasel-words thought to minimize the potential damage from his interview, so he sought to pooh-pooh the prevalence — and thus, apparently, in his mind, relevance — of rape pregnancies. “Don’t worry about those so much; they’re rare.”
Those of you who are quick to circle the wagons around Akin and blame the Republicans for “expediency” need to give an honest read to Akin’s answer again. Seriously. His answer is the definition of “weasely.” He didn’t defend the pro-life point here very well at all. To the contrary, he largely avoided it while dwelling on a point he thought would minimize the question’s importance to hearers. He was being expedient.
He’s as much a political calculator as any other pol, and in this case it came back to bite ‘im in the arse.
Great points (Jill, and Paladin and Rasqual!). So Todd Akin’s remarks were idiotic (women self-contracepting during rape? We need to get this guy to a training seminar or something). BUT he is a person, and people do make mistakes. And I agree that if we have another pro-lifer in the Senate, the better for us. Let’s just make sure he’s more prepared next time, mkay? Because, honestly, it is rare to find a politician who is willing to make the no-exceptions case. He just needs to learn to say it better. And yes, at least he did apologize. He was struggling to communicate his views – he failed, but I know (think? Hope??) his heart was in the right place.
Though, I wouldn’t go so far as to call Akin a “hero”….
As to Biden… His obvious attempt at pandering to black people was just stupid and offensive. Seriously? Biden, you’re not Southern. SO knock the “y’all” and knock the slavery analogies. Ugh that guy just irritates me.
Haha maybe they circle the wagons cause they just don’t have anything better to offer than Biden? lol
Biden talking to teenagers: “Yeah, that’s how Obama rolls! Like, right? Cool, huh? Neato! Hunky-dory! The cat’s pajamas, man! He’s in the catbird seat!”
LOL
Joe IS comical. What’s not comical is having him a heartbeat away from the presidency, but everyone knows that.
It could be argued that the last two presidents, each in their own way, took pains to make themselves assassination-proof.
Just the other day we had a post about a female who was aborting her second set of twin girls because she wanted a male child.
The left can deploy their legions of trolls to distract, pervert and equivocate, but at the end of the day that female in Florida is the poster child for the dead babies r us mob.
Make them publicly embrace that female or publicy reject her.
She is the face of ‘choice’.
Rasqual lol. Yes and talking to Southerners he goes: “Hey y’all I’m goin’ down that thar hill to sip on ma homemade sweet tea that Miss ObamaBelle made me – ain’t she just the partiest thing? – and her husband truly is the most wonderful politician of all time, y’all!”
And to inner city folks: “yo diggy dogs! Obama be the coolest thing you ever see. He’s ballin, ya dig?! That’s how he rolls.”
lol oh Biden. He’s just comic gold… until you think that he could be President. Oh gosh no!!!
Oh well.
Yeah, but what if veeps “flipped” when faced with the responsibility? So Biden would become this god-like competence engine (which would be a welcome change over our current Lightworker), and Cheney would have morphed into a limp-wristed Easter bunny…
It really doesn’t do pro-lifers any service to refer to abortion as “an issue.”
Romney has pretty much lost my vote over this. He’s proven no better than Obama. No surprise there. As I always suspected, especially when it comes to the pro-life fight, if we want something done we’ll have to do it ourselves. Screw the establishment. Sending my donation.
“Romney has pretty much lost my vote over this.”
??
I don’t understand. Are presidents supposed to be magical make-your-wishes-come-true persons?
We vote for the least of evils. Always. There is no perfect candidate. Pitching a snit isn’t citizenship at its best, friend.
You’re being naive, rasqual. Voting a man like Romney into office will only make things worse. It tells the already too confident GOP establishment that we’ll take any pathetic scrap they throw to us as long as it’s better (no matter how -much- better) than “the other guy.” I’m afraid of where that might lead. Essentially, the lesser of two evils tomorrow, might be the greater of two evils today. I’m not going to be responsible for letting that happen.
Pro-lifers can’t allow themselves to be pushed around. You are either with us, and gain our support, or against us, and face our opposition, regardless of your party line. Anything less isn’t abolitionism at its best, friend.
So basically, you’re gambling that what you think MIGHT happen if “a man like Romney” gets into office is certain to be worse than what you think MIGHT happen if “a man like Obama” stays in office for a lame-duck four years where a guy who’s demonstrated that “if Congress won’t act, [he] will” is free to do on steroids what he’s only hinted at thus far through executive order, selective prosecution against the rule of law, and agency overreach.
Basically, you want Sebelius for another four years — minus whatever fetters she’s been held in until Obama’s future re-election is no longer an issue.
I see.
“Pro-lifers can’t allow themselves to be pushed around.”
That’s really immature thinking. We are, like it or not, one of a dozen major constituencies in the political world. Pretending we live in an external world that matches the one in our heads — where this is the most important constituency — is the stuff of fantasy.
Wisdom works in the world that is. Idealism that crashes on its shoals — not so much.
Wise as serpents, gentle as doves.
Not naive as gerbils.
The CDC’s 2011 report states that there are around a million rapes a year. Pregnancies resulting from rapes accounts for around 32,000 a year. Todd Akin said NOTHING inaccurate. He did not say “never” he said “rarely”. It’s both statistically and medically accurate to say rape rarely results in pregnancy. The very delicate hormonal balance and physical home that is required to produce a pregnancy is easily interupted by stress, violence, terror, not to mention the after-effects that happen to people who have been through traumatic experiences like sleep deprevation, lack of eating, frequent fight/flight responses, near constant emotional stress, etc. CAN pregnancy still result? Of course, our bodies are, ultimately, meant to have kids. But the likihood of getting pregnant via rape, which would 1) have to take place during the short fertile time, 2) actually deposit semen (rule out any rape except penile/vaginal where the man actually ejaculates, and then factor in condom use to avoid detection by many rapists) 3) successfully overcome both likely physical trauma to the cervix/uterus and emotionally-driven hormonal inbalances is, by point of both medical FACT and statisical probability, very low. As for the “legitimate” part of his comment, yeah, it wasn’t politically correct to suggest that some women claim rape when it didn’t happen. As far as the liberal mindset is concerned an outcry of rape from a woman automatically means it happened. But unless you honestly believe no women ever do or ever would falsely report a rape, the word choice is perfectly valid.
Yeah, ideally he would have said it differently: ‘the tiny, less than 1% of abortions that account for women aborting children concieved via rape is no excuse for the massive abortion-on-demand machinary that is trying to use those ‘hard cases’ as an excuse and smoke screen.’ But then, he isn’t getting attacked because of non-pc word choice, he’s getting villified because he’s a conservative male who dared point out that the abortion debate has nothing to do with the tiny amount of women who seek abortions (at a much lower rate than other ‘unplanned’ pregnancies) after rape.
Rape victims do not need abortion to retraumatize them and to help the community ignore what happened to them, they need real justice carried out upon their actual attackers, not the horrific death of *their* innocent child.
It’s clear you see Romney as a major improvement over Obama. I don’t. He’s hardly a minor improvement. Honestly, no matter who wins, the American people lose. God knows the unborn lose. I just don’t care to waste my time with any of it. We’ll just have to agree to disagree, because this snarky back-and-forth is a waste of time and mental energy.
We probably can both agree that the world is harsh enough without us being snide with one another.
So, apologies, and God bless.
John Lewandowski @ 8:23am –right on!
This election is between: Obama/Biden/MSM vs. Romney/Ryan
The MSM makes me want to puke, I don’t watch them anymore, even Foxnews sometimes..
No apologies necessary. But you are, indeed, content to live with a lame-duck Obama who’s already demonstrated he will militate against unborn life even before having a four-year term where his re-election is not an issue that will hold him back.
Yes, I should think it would indeed be a waste of your mental energy to defend that against electing a first-term Romney who would need a conservative vote in four years to get re-elected.
Four years more of Sebelius. Unfettered. With Planned Parenthood practically taking up office space at HHS, for all practical purposes.
Friend, this isn’t snark. You’re making a grave rational error.
Compelling points. I’ll consider them. Thanks.
Will you really? Or is that just wishing to shut down the conversation?
I’m adamant because I’m pro-life, and this election matters. If it’s irritating that I asked those two questions just there, realize it’s the same level of concern that causes me to press pro-choicers about their views. But it’s worse when a pro-lifer seems to be “screwing the pooch,” as it were, with their thinking about a consequential election.
You shouldn’t just be persuaded to reluctantly trudge over to the polling place to cast an irritated vote while muttering under your breath. You should be whipping up support among all your friends, working them into a fevered pitch as the entire mob in your neighborhood descends upon the polling place singing the Star Spangled Banner.
I’m earnest. This isn’t a milquetoast, apathy-is-acceptable election. And the irony that the most anti-life president ever is somehow preferable to one who’s merely not self-consciously and critically pro-life, is intolerable.
Here’s the thing, Tony. You know what false flag concern trolls are, right? They show up and engender credibility while walking a thin line of fostering discontent and discouragement. Well guess what — your reasons for not wanting to vote for Romney are precisely — precisely — the kind of reasons a concern troll would supply.
I’m not saying you ARE a concern troll. But what can it mean when we’ve come to the point that some among as are indistinguishable from them, in their attempt to discourage pro-lifers from voting against the most anti-life president ever, who’s on the cusp of four unfettered years?
I will beat this kind of dead horse until someone buries it. Under 10 feet of concrete. Because as long as its fetid stench is even potentially dissuading even one pro-lifer from casting a vote for the only candidate with a chance to beat a man with Obama’s anti-life record, the problem is not those of us hollering about and beating the carcass. It’s those who don’t show us they’ve dug its grave, shoved it in, and piled it over.
Oh, but the pro-life movement has Science(TM) on its side!!!
(and you’re right, liberal women WILL be offended because any rational, empathetic person would recognize the desire to further strip a rape victim’s autonomy as nightmarishly sadistic).
(*sigh*) Speak of the trolls, Rasqual, and you get them (and a “traditional” one, at that, and wearing “Blue Velvet”, to boot!)…
By the way: when I mentioned “principles”, above, I wasn’t referring to any particular duty to support Akin per se, much less “at all costs”; nowhere did I (or anyone) sign in blood to support him over any other viable, pro-life candidate, and I’d gladly select the latter if it were feasible. But if push comes to shove (and, barring his resignation, that might well be the case, since the primary is over), and the only alternative to Akin is some sort of abortion-tolerating-or-promoting Democrat, then principle would require me (were I a voter in that area) to support Akin, rather than “sit out in indignation”. No… his gaffe is not nearly severe enough to sit out such an election (regardless of Democratic outrage, feigned, inflamed, or otherwise).
Does that clarify?
Blue Velvet: the instance of rape is a case to which pro-life premises apply. A claimed autonomy that justly kills unborn life is what pro-life premises dispute. This autonomy does not gain sudden credibility on the merits of the conditions of conception (as you cite, rape), because the pro-life argument neither rests on nor is vulnerable to claims that the value of a human life is dependent on pedigree.
Furthermore, your remark is senseless on its face. If you wish to fault pro-lifers, it cannot possibly be for a lack of empathy. Pro-life empathy for the unborn is, in fact, so great that on your view it blinds pro-lifers to the emotional condition of rape victims. It takes a lot of empathy to hold forth against that kind of thing and sustain a commitment to the value of unborn life. It’s simply empathy for parties you have none for — the unborn themselves.
As for rationality, the pro-life argument would be irrational precisely if it granted that rape victims were entitled to abortions. It’s rational — 100% — precisely when it does not acknowledge that a child’s pedigree determines its value.
Although the latter view is consistent with slavery — and with the views of pro-choicers who imagine that somehow it’s the pro-lifers whose views are the odious ones.
Paladin: Hmm. I think I must have been skimming your remarks, because I don’t think my own assumed or inferred anything you’re now disclaiming/clarifying.
I missed where whether Akin should be voted for was at issue. Heavens. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. That’s a very different proposition than believing he should withdraw. The arguments are, as far as I can tell, quite separate.
If Akin is still in the race on election day, every pro-lifer in Missouri darned WELL better be voting for him. Anyone who wants other statist crap stopped in the Senate, as well.
Gah! I actually said “First, Obama is such a desperate candidate this year that his campaign has been capable of credible proactive strategy.” ??
INCAPABLE of. Darnit.
Actually what he said about the woman being less able to conceive after rape IS correct. I had a pro-life doctor explain it to me a few years ago. There is truth to it. The adrenaline somehow contributes to an increase in acidity in her reproductive system which kills sperm. And will often delay ovulation as well.
He DIDN’T say that women NEVER get pregnant from rape. Those who are huffing over this are ridiculous. Listen to what the man ACTUALLY said.
And I agree that it is pitiful how quickly Republicans throw each other under the bus. Your man Romney was chief among them!
Rasqal says “We vote for the least of evils. Always.”
And how is that working out for you? Congratulations on Roe being overturned! I’m so glad we’re following the Constitution again! Oh wait…
Akin takes an infuriatingly supine position in answering the ridiculous rape question rather than going on the offensive and telling that gotcha reporter what for. I mean, when someone asks an abortion question, it is an invitation to launch a full on attack of the depraved pro-choice position using as much gore and graphic detail as you can. Bring up the facts about women’s suicide rates after abortion vs. delivery. Discuss devaluing people who were conceived in rape. Bring up the brutality of abortion. Don’t forget the part about dismemberment and severing heads and sucking out their little brains till their toes stop wiggling in the abortionists hand.
Rape exceptions aren’t being discussed in state houses, fetal pain and late term abortions on healthy babies of healthy mothers are. Akin needed to educate that fool with some facts. If prolife politicians would expose the brutality of abortion every time they are asked a question, reporters would be terrified to even ask. Prolife politicians should answer questions like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz does. She never answers questions she doesn’t like. She just repeats her talking points. She may be evil in her support of abortion, but she is a professional politician. Not that that is a good thing.
“Actually what he said about the woman being less able to conceive after rape IS correct. I had a pro-life doctor explain it to me a few years ago. There is truth to it. The adrenaline somehow contributes to an increase in acidity in her reproductive system which kills sperm. And will often delay ovulation as well.
He DIDN’T say that women NEVER get pregnant from rape. Those who are huffing over this are ridiculous. Listen to what the man ACTUALLY said.”
Voters don’t care about the truth of minute details. They vote fact free on emotion. The election of Obama makes that painfully clear.
We voted for Reagan (sorry for everyone who thinks Reagan was so great. He wasn’t.) He gave us the Dept of education which sucks up tax dollars faster than a Hoover sucks up dirt. And our kids are ranking what in the world these day? I was a hiring manager for years. Trust me…our kids are stupid. They are NOT being taught what they should be in school. Instead they’re singing songs about Obama and having fight club at lunch and learning how to put condoms on each other.
We voted for George W. and got the Patriot Act and the dept. ofhomeland security. Now pro-lifers are being harassed as terrorists because of that.
I do not consider myself a conservative anymore because it no longer means anything. If we can look at Romney and consider him to be a conservative then count me out. I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST. We need to return to the Constitution! No more pork! No more needless wars! No more straying from our Constitution!
You keep voting for the “lesser of two evils”. I think you’re fools. I really do. Nothing will get better when you keep accepting these “lesser evil” types. But keep deluding yourself that Romney will somehow set us on the right path. Crazy.
Romney will overturn Obamacare? Really? When he implemented the same thing in his home state? Um, okay. Romney cares about abortion? He’ll work to overturn Roe? And you’re basing this wishful thinking on what exactly?
Ryan is going to cut spending? When he voted for TARP and auto bailouts? He voted to expand medicare? He voted for the PAtriot act?
I mean really folks! You were ready to settle months before Romney even clenched the nomination! You were ready to settle before the first primaries.
I was told if I won’t fall in line and vote for Romney then I can’t complain about Obama anymore. Well I say all of you who vote for Romney can’t complain when he gets elected and things STILL GET WORSE. You can’t complain when he shows that abortion just doesn’t matter to him.
@Rasqual: Ah… I see. (Ironically, I think I missed details in *your* point while skimming; ah, well…)
In short: had the GOP establishment united behind Akin (while declaiming the content of his muddled message) and said to his foes: “Back off! He goofed, he’s sorry, and we’re supporting him!” (and I think it’s unutterably stupid of the main GOP figures not to have done that), then I think Akin would have been fully justified in staying in the race. At present, unfortunately, with so many GOP mainstays throwing him under the bus, as it were, I do see where some people could cogently argue for his resignation. It’d be unfair, in the grand scheme of things, of course… a bit like someone saying to a concert pianist: “It’s terribly unfair that your arms were blown off in that terrorist attack… but I’m afraid you still can’t be our pianist for the recital, at this point!”
Busy today, but glad to see this excellent post by Jill. I agree 100%. I hope it gives the GOP brass something to think about. I hope the GOP brass talk to experienced prolifers like Jill, Dr. Nadel, Ryan Bomberger, Ms. Kiessling, Mrs. Hartshorn, Priests for Life, Sisters for Life etc… in order to see how the prolife has evolved and developed over the years. I think prolifers have a valuable message to give to the GOP, if the GOP would give them a hearing, and ask for their input. The GOP brass need to be updated what the new prolife message is – which is a message of compassion. The prolifers of today are not the reactionary warriors of the past who were caught off guard by the new life and science denying arguments of the postmodern pro-choicers; prolifers today know the arguments of the pro-choice side better than the prochoice side knows their own arguments.
Mr. Akin did win the opportunity to represent the people of Missouri. The GOP brass should respect the will of the people. The GOP brass should not try to guess what the people are thinking about Mr. Akin and his chance for winning the Senate seat. A little restraint when a gaffe occurs is always a good idea. This Senate is important, no one member of the GOP is more important than the party, but no one decent member of the GOP is too unimportant for the party not to support or to throw under the bus.
One last piece of my obnoxius advice to the GOP: when you hear a gaffe, listen once with your ears and intellect, then listen a second time with your heart. If the two conflict go with what you heard with your heart.
My prayers are with GOP brass today..
Generally, in order to make progress in the business world women have to work harder and better than men. Its discrimination and it sucks, but there it is. Perhaps to a lesser degree than in generations past, but it is still there. This is a widely known fact in the modern world.
Because of the MSM it is the same with Republicans. They have to be better than Democrats. (This Biden / Akin thing is evidence.) As a result if a Republican makes a bad gaffe at the wrong time about a certain subject…they can be expected to be thrown under the bus. It is a matter of self-preservation for Republicanism. It sucks, but that is just how it is. Maybe someday it will be less true.
The first step in resolving a problem is to recognize it. Thanks for this article Jill.
“Generally, in order to make progress in the business world women have to work harder and better than men. Its discrimination and it sucks, but there it is. Perhaps to a lesser degree than in generations past, but it is still there. This is a widely known fact in the modern world. “
What a bunch of BS. Men outperform women at work on pretty much any objective measure. I blame society that pressures women to go into work they aren’t that great at. But come on. Women quit good jobs at much higher rates than men do, like 400% higher rates for doctors. They are unwilling to do all kinds of stuff that men do. It goes on and on. I don’t think women should be discriminated against in any way, but let’s not just pretend they are doing as well as men in job performance. It is not true on average, if you know what on average means.
Hi Sydney
I hear your points, but I believe the corruption of the Dept of Education and the Dept. of Homeland Security is the abuse of State power by Progressives and not misuse by the GOP. You can be upset that another government department was created, but the misuse of these governmental departments is a somewhat separate matter than the mere fact of their creation. The new postmodern Progessives (which can also be called the neo-Enlightment gang, or the New New Philosophers) spend all of their time thinking of ways how they can gain political power and use the various government departments to advance their agenda. They no longer care if there methods are eithical or not, they only care about achieving their goals. Western democratic countries are in the midst of a silent (non-bloody?) ”French Revolution” since about the 1960s.
In America, the progressives orchestrating this silent French Revolution are not the main group of Democrats or even the leaders of the Democratic party (save Mr. Obama) but the vast group of left wing activists in the Democratic party. These people are the so-called brains of the Democratic party, and very little policy gets passed without their approval. They have their hands on the throat of the Democratic party.
I agree that not only have many progressives infilitrated the GOP, but the progressive messaging has corrupted the entire pysche of the American public. I saw how mass media created peer pressure and got a whole nation to quit smoking, I have little illusion about the power of the MSM. The one thing that is differnet now then in the past: the internet or the ability and ease to hear other dissenting voices. I wonder how long the progressives will alllow this to happen.
Finally, let’s pray that Romney will come round.
Dept. of Homeland Security is the abuse of State power by Progressives and not misuse by the GOP.
Dude, that’s all GOP. The DHS is the GOP’s lovechild.
Tyler, you have got some serious issues with blinding yourself to any and all GOP-related people and things. You can’t admit that what Akin said was wrong and now you you the DHS is the Democrats’ problem?!!?!?!?
Hippie, here here! My cell won’t ‘like’ comments or I would. Feminsts today are terrified, horrified indeed, by the concept of “equal pay for equal work”. They want the same pay and the same advancement opertunities as men while working less hours, taking more personal time off, demanding more breaks, and being both less physically capabale and less willing to do the same jobs.
That CEOs, managers, carpenters, police, etc, etc, etc are primarily men and not women isn’t because of some 1920′s style discrimination or some mythical, all-pervasive misogyny, it’s because far more men than women are willing to make the huge sacrifies necessary to be successful in high power, high stress, or highly physical jobs. I’m sure there are a few HR departments out there that care if you have internal genitalia and noticable mammary glands (just like I’m equally sure there are a few HR departments that care if you have external genitalia and an adam’s apple) but the vast majority just care about how well you’ll do the job. Men, for good or ill, are far more willing and likely to make personal and familial sacrifices for the betterment of their career than are women (especially mothers) that makes them better employees. That doesn’t make hiring practices discriminatory, it makes them sensical.
Rasqual beat me to it. This whole disaster was a result of Akin’s protesting the blatant appeal to victim sympathy from the Choicers. “But, but rape is only in 1% of abortions!”
He went a step too far: “But, but, conception from rape is really rare because I heard…”
I do not consider myself a conservative anymore because it no longer means anything. If we can look at Romney and consider him to be a conservative then count me out. I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST. We need to return to the Constitution! No more pork! No more needless wars! No more straying from our Constitution!
Amen, Sydney. A thousand amens.
Also, Tyler, dude, what are you smoking when you think that DHS was progressives? The “right” isn’t perfect. There are those on the right who want a constant state of war and essentially a police state. The left, however, generally wants a big giant nanny state. Learn the difference. Yes, both sides want more government control, but in different ways. BOTH are bad – yes, Tyler, even those in the GOP right.
Wanted to add as an addendum to my above that I think the American job market is horrifically family-unfriendly, and that is something wrong that (ideally) will someday be fixed. But that’s discrimintory towards families, not women in general. There are tons of jobs that *should* be far more flexible in hours, location (especially given phones, cells, faxes, and the internet) and inclusive of infants, children, and families and those changes would tend to benefit women more than men in a direct sense, but the overall benefit would be towards families.
Hippie, I am not saying that all people ought to get the same pay rate or anything like that. Lots of people (including myself) make choices that are not in the best interest of business advancement. Then progress fails to materialize. (So I make less than my siblings) However, sometimes people do run into real discrimination based on all kinds of stuff…sex, race, age, political view… As you say, “ I don’t think women should be discriminated against”. I agree, this is what I am referring to.
I think my point stands.
Jespren, I do appreciate your post about CDC numbers regarding the number of rapes in the US and the comparatively small numbers of pregnancies that result. Although, a very small percentage of women conceive after rape I believe it has little to do with the women being “less likely” to conceive physiologically or hormonally but more with the small percentage of women being raped compared to the large percentage of women having consensual sex.
Case in point, the tragedy of American slavery, Black women suffered untold numbers of brutal rapes at the hands of slave owners for centuries, there was nothing they could do about it as they were considered human property (hmm, reminds me how pro-aborts view unborn babies today). Their “hormones” did not ”self-contracept” their mulatto babies from being conceived. I am not minimizing the crime of rape in any way but out of these tragic circumstances came heros like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Mildred Richardson, Dr. Alveda King, etc. whose ancestors came out of slavery. That is why I don’t believe rape is a justification for abortion, the baby is not a criminal and abortion doesn’t un-rape the women.
Some pro-lifers may not agree with me but I do think after a rape, obtaining a rape kit and offering the woman treatment to prevent contraception is a valid option (I know it does not always work).
Ack! I’ve succumbed to the disease of the unnecessary apostrophe, my pet peeve!
I think I’ll have to go lie down.
Sydney and LibetyBelle,
I’ve been intrigued by the Constitution Party too, but unless they get a Perot-type billionaire, they have no chance for many years. Romney will have to indeed be a lighter shade of Obama (I didn’t mean that the way it sounds) for a term or two for them to gain any steam.
In the meantime, I’d rather be punched than shot. How about youse?
I agree, and this preserves the evolutionary purpose of the psychological and emotional trauma caused by rape.
It can avoid further violence, and even save people’s marriages.
I am all for it.
Going forward:
Politicians need talking points on abortion.
“We don’t believe in exceptions for abortion, unless it is an exception for the Mother’s health. We believe each innocent preborn child deserves to be born.”
Repeat. Repeat, Repeat.
Don’t discuss whether the preborn should have rights unless you are prepared to talk about how the Constitutional amendment process works. If the interviewer persists in asking whether you believe the preborn should have a constitutional right to life simply respond: ”Yes, don’t you?”
Jill: Thank you, thank you, thank you! You eloquently expressed my own thoughts and frustration over the knee jerk fury that Akin’s misspeak brought about. As I posted on my own page the other day, to lose Akin would be a great loss to the pro-life movement. I’m sure the pro-abortion left are rubbing their greasy palms in glee. It’s time the RNC made their position clear and precise: they’re either for or against abortion, regardless of the circumstances, instead of pandering to the wafflers and fence-sitters who drive the campaign engine.
I’d like to see your thoughts on Paul Ryan’s defense of Romney’s demand that Akin drop out of the race. We know Ryan’s position on life. Will he stand firmly or allow politics to silence him?
Case in point, the tragedy of American slavery, Black women suffered untold numbers of brutal rapes at the hands of slave owners for centuries, there was nothing they could do about it as they were considered human property.
Yes. But let’s be honest, women, including women in slavery are attracted to powerful men. So, there were probably plenty of slave masters in actual romantic relationships with their slave mistresses. Plenty of adulterous men find plenty of women willing to be their mistresses nowadays. There is no reason to believe that all of the relationships between slave owners and female slaves were entirely unromantic. Also, probably quite a few teen sons of plantation owners found some of the teen slave girls attractive and the feeling was mutual. They didn’t have to rape them. Many likely were willing. Teens then were probably about the same as teens today. There are not a few cases from history of slave owners either trying to marry slaves or living as married albeit not legally married. My point is just that few men are really rapists, but plenty of men like multiple partners. I am not saying no female slaves were brutally raped. I am just saying that given that people were born into that system whether slaves or owners, it seems a little implausible that they were far more violent back then as well as being far less romantic than we are today.
Paladin: “It’s terribly unfair that your arms were blown off in that terrorist attack… but I’m afraid you still can’t be our pianist for the recital, at this point!”
I pretty much agreed with your post, just there. Yes, had he been backed up by people willing to “clarify” for him by doubling down and going on the polemical offensive (he was clearly on the defensive), this would be a very different dynamic. Once there’s a tipping point, though…
I recall, in boot camp, I was in the machine band. We stayed an extra two weeks, performing two other graduations and then our own. During the second graduation, our drum major stepped off wrong with the cadence we were doing. The music was supposed to start a bar later. So everyone in the band was faced with a choice — and we hadn’t planned for such a contingency. Do we step off right and leave the drum major hung out to dry on his own — on the wrong foot, even? Do we start the music on the wrong beat? Do we step wrong and play right? Do we step right and play wrong? And how do we adjust as the drum cadence is now seeming off-beat?
In the end, everyone did something different. It was a disaster. With literally one second to make the decision, it ended up looking like the Cosby Kids shuffling by the parade stand. I’ve never even seen anything as ridiculous as what I was a part of that day.
But we had no choice. Everyone had to decide quickly, and the results were a mess.
Welcome to what happens in the middle of high-stakes, high-octane politics.
Apparently, not enough people in Missouri think of Akin as a hero.
This should demonstrate the “value” of favoring forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.
Interesting double standard, ya think?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-biden_650609.html
“This should demonstrate the “value” of favoring forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.”
It doesn’t, actually, and the reason is because value is not found in popular opinion. In fact, on another thread that you posted this exact same link, you have been discussing how evolution determines morality and by extension, I can only assume value. So I am having a very difficult time discerning how exactly you are arriving at your moral conclusions. One minute it’s evolution, the next its popular opinion. It’s as if what is moral at this particular moment is determined by different options written down on a wall, and you decide by throwing a dart at the wall… or perhaps a shoe?
Sydney: “Rasqal says ‘We vote for the least of evils. Always.’ And how is that working out for you? Congratulations on Roe being overturned! I’m so glad we’re following the Constitution again! Oh wait…”
I think you missed my point. There is no alternative for voting for the least of evils. It’s not a matter of choosing that strategy. It’s the way the world IS. Anyone who imagines some messiah is coming along who opts out from being among candidates with baggage to account for . . . well, we see how well that went this last election. The last thing we want is someone who’s too good to be true.
Apparently Missouri doesn’t want an imperfect hero for Senator, considering he’s losing by a solid 10 points to Claire McCaskill now, according to Rasmussen (which already tilts Republican anyway). Here’s hoping that many, many more imperfect heroes get nominated in GOP primaries in the future.
Hans, LOL I’m not a member of the Constitutionalist Party!
I’d rather shoot back, how’s that? 
joan,
What do you think of Democrat Senator Al Franken who has “joked” about rape as a writer for Saturday Night Live?(Refer to my 3:44PM post). Certainly you find it objectionable that he would campaign for Obama/Biden.
Would you also find it objectionable that such a man is a United States Senator?
. So, there were probably plenty of slave masters in actual romantic relationships with their slave mistresses.
Hippie, you need a history lesson. You CANNOT be in a romantic relationship with someone who OWNS you and has the power of life and death over you. You CANNOT have a romantic relationship with someone who thinks you are inferior. These women could not refuse their masters’ advances. What kind of “romance” is that?
Thomas Jefferson, for example, started having a sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings, his wife’s half-sister, when she was about fourteen, and he was a grown man. The affair with “dusky Sally” was an open secret and Jefferson’s opponents used it as political fodder. Jefferson had children by her, some which could and did “pass” for white (Sally herself was described as “mighty near white”) but he never f set her free. At his death, she was sold to the University of Virginia.
If this is “love”, I don’t want to know what hate is.
hippie, that is the biggest bunch of crap that I have ever heard. You are looking with rose colored glasses upon one of the most hideous, cruel, inhumane parts of slavery. I have talked to elderly AAs who have related stories passed down by their grandmothers and great-grandmothers and what happened to most slave girls and women is nowhere close to having a “romantic relationship” with their slave masters or to being “attracted to powerful men” but most were raped against their will. Giving up by not fighting anymore does not make it “romantic” or consensual in anyway, it is still rape. There probably were some rare exceptions but slavery was one of the most shameful, cruel, horrible parts of American, British (think John Newton) and world history and part of the reason is because women were treated as human chatel not lovers. That is why the tragedy of abortion dehumanizing human babies is akin to the dehumanization of slavery.”this is my property I can abort this baby if I want”.
Yeah, Akin isn’t a hero. He’s a poor fool whose heart is in the right place, but who has nonetheless proven that he isn’t ready for the Big Leagues. Remember Sharron Angle? Does the name “Christine O’Donnell” ring any bells for anyone?
Being an effective pro-lifer (or any other kind of advocate) requires two things:
commitment to the cause, and
the skill to effectively promote the cause.
I’ll give Akin full credit for the first quality. He is 100% committed to Life. Good for him, and I wish that more of our elected “leaders” shared his commitment. Unfortunately, Akin just flunked the second test. He doesn’t have the skill required to defend Life in the public square. So, no, Akin isn’t a hero for me. He’s a well-intentioned nebbish.
One could argue that Akin’s test wasn’t fair. The MSM have jumped all over Akin’s moment of high-octane stupidity while ignoring similar nonsense from Biden, Obama himself, and a host of other “progressive” figures. That’s true … but pro-lifers should expect it. Life isn’t fair. The MSM and our cultural elites hate pro-lifers. They have always hated us, and they will likely continue to hate us for the foreseeable future. Pro-lifers must be smarter, more articulate, and all-around better than pro-choicers. Pro-lifers who don’t understand that simple fact should get out of the public eye and go support Life in other ways.
I’m on the fence about whether or not Akin should resign. Personally, I don’t think the MO Senate seat is winnable anymore. McCaskill is probably a lock now, even if Akin is replaced by another pro-lifer. That damage has been done. That said, most Americans are not “social-issues” voters. Most Americans vote on the economy, so I don’t think that Akin’s foolish mistake will still be a factor in nationwide politics by November.
TL;DR = Akin’s a fool with a heart of gold, the Missouri Senate seat is probably lost no matter what, but I don’t think the Presidential election will be affected.
The slave woman, or man, may have also viewed the relationship as the lesser of two evils.
Also, we have to keep in mind that slaves, wherever they existed, were not stupid, but rather educated, musically and artistically talented, multilingual, and beautiful, and could use their talents and attractiveness to better their situation. Yes, this could include a slave woman who knows that being in the master’s bed means a better life for her.
This in no way justifies slavery or sexual abuse. The master/slave relationship remained.
It was more about surviving as best one could and in the best circumstances possible, certainly not about romance and devotion to the master.
Slaves functioned as overseers of the palaces, homes, fields, and workplace. Slave women who the master favored could live very well. Slaves would do what was necessary to stay with a benevolent master and any disobedience could mean death or sale to a far more brutal master. A slave in a fairly comfortable or favorable position wasn’t likely to rock the boat. They were still at the complete mercy of their master.
lol, Hans. Don’t forget though that you get punched enough times that can kill you just as much as a bullet.
Akin ripped the scab off of the ugly, misogynist underbelly of the pro-life GOP. He did us all a favor.
CC/joan,
You still haven’t responded to my post concerning a Democrat senator who has “joked” about rape, who is now stumping for Obama/Biden. Again I refer you to my 3:44PM post.
“Hippie, you need a history lesson. You CANNOT be in a romantic relationship with someone who OWNS you and has the power of life and death over you.”
Sure you can. Throughout history power has typically been very unequally distributed. In Rome the head of the household had total life and death authority over his family. Are we to believe that there were therefore no romantic relationships? No true love? That is just absurd. We are talking about Italians!! Anyway, remember people were born into these systems. It was normal to them. There is no way that the system short circuited their natural sexual desires, nor could it turn them all into monsters or cowering beings. Just picture a couple of 16 year olds with spring fever. There was probably a lot of that going on. What would there be to stop them?
“hippie, that is the biggest bunch of crap that I have ever heard.”
No, it isn’t. Individuals back then were real people with real feelings based on what was actually happening to them in unique situations. They were as fully human as the rest of us.
Interesting study of free blacks in ante-bellum New Orleans. Check out pages 14-15.
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/32216/Quadroon_Balls1.pdf;jsessionid=F31206A13A4F68AE5255654F78A28ABF?sequence=1
“another significant way that slaves could attain their freedom: enslaved women and their offspring were often manumitted by their white masters.”
“In addition, this practice clearly favored women who had served as concubines. In fact, on average, women were manumitted twice as often as men before 1805.”
“Slaveholders commonly manumitted these female-headed families for good and loyal service and for the love and care they had shown the master…in some cases…[sexual] relationships can be deduced.”
Just because slavery is an evil institution, doesn’t mean that the individuals born into those situations can only fit into some kind of stereotype induced by the distance of time. Surely some of the men could actually just plain fall in love with a slave woman. And she, being a real person with feelings could actually reciprocate. I mean, it seems pretty plausible to me as well as documented in many historical accounts. So now it is just a discussion of how prevalent it was and how many shades of attraction and commitment there were among those involved. Still I reject as unattested that 100% of interracial relationships were in fact abusive just because the parties were born into an unjust system. Modern western culture is not the only time and place where people fall in love or even just mutual consensual lust.
Goood one, Jill! I’ve been beating on the republicans for dumping Akin. I’m diverting money to him, because of their actions.
How can normal people be attracted to politics if they know that one verbal gaffe will result in being thrown out?
It seems that this kind of betrayal occurs most notably to the strongest pro-lifers.
For those contesting about the slavery/rape/romance notion, you’re all partially right. Our modern thoughts on American slavery is primarily based upon the large plantations of the deep south. They were horrible, abusive, wretched places were slaves were used, abused, raped, even bred, were family ties were ignored by masters and very few slaves were ever freed. They stuck in our cultural memory because they were the worst of the worst, where masters did readily tape their women to make mallotto babies which, because of their fairer skin, would fetch a higher price at market, and slaves were left to die when sick and beaten to death for missing quotas. But that’s not the all of American slavery, that was the deep south. The average American slave owner owned less than 5 slaves. Most families who owned slaves had only a few slaves who helped with small fields, were house-helpers, and were generally well treated. Their own family ties were honored by their masters, romantic love or at least willing affairs were not uncommon, freedom upon the death of the master was common, being given the chance to own private property and save for your own purchase price was common, and children resulting from master/slave relations were frequently (although certainly not always) raised as part of the family. And slave women certainly did seduce their masters or the teens/adult children of their masters.
If you read slave diaries (one of my favorite types of literature) the stark difference between a slave’s life in a deep south plantation and the upper south family slaves is night and day, using one as a comparision to the other is highly disengenuous.
“CC/joan,
You still haven’t responded to my post concerning a Democrat senator who has “joked” about rape, who is now stumping for Obama/Biden. Again I refer you to my 3:44PM post.”
Indelicate jokes made by a comedian are comparable to the sub-moronic, genuinely-held beliefs of a would-be senator? Do I understand the silly point you’re trying to make here?
Oh yessssss,
“indelicate jokes” by a comedian. So when a US senator has talked of tying up a woman and raping her, then taking pictures of her in various positions, this is “indelicate” and a “joke”. I call it sick and perverse.
You were saying something about silly points CC/joan??
“Indelicate jokes”
Joan, what is indelicate about this joke? Please explain so we Pro-lifers can better understand the moral high ground you think pro-abortion advocates are standing on.
Don’t look down, lest you receive the same fate as our friend wile e. coyote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d8ROhH3_vs
Thanks for a thoughtful piece on this issue, Jill. You have said what I have hoped a pro-life leader would say. Sure appreciate your grace. It was a real privilege to meet you and be part of the SBA bus tour in WI earlier this week. Your story is so very important as we head to the final couple of months before this election. God bless!
Pharmer: “How can normal people be attracted to politics if they know that one verbal gaffe will result in being thrown out?”
I don’t know, as the Democrats. Because of him they’ve dedicated a night to abortion at their convention.
CC: “Akin ripped the scab off of the ugly, misogynist underbelly of the pro-life GOP…”
In other words, trolling bigots need single instances so they can generalize to the class.
Stop plagiarizing your own material, CC. Please.
Great points, but ProLife politicians need to be in control of the situation. There are no passes for us when it comes to idiotic comments, we are held to a much higher standard and Mr. Akin, while a good man, needs to bow out. Another 6 years of Clare isn’t going to help anyone especially the prolife movement.
My concern comes in seeing so called Republicans (including Rove, Hannity, Rush, Romney, Ryan &.more) harshly attack a fellow Republican for his stance on abortion. Romney and Ryan are now for some abortions proving themselves liars, not to be trusted.
Well dandy then, vote for Obama. Or fail to vote for Romney. That’ll just solve everything.
Better an enemy of life you can trust to be consistent in that regard during a second term when he doesn’t have to be worried about re-election, than someone you mistrust who, if he wins, would need to count on conservative votes to get him RE-elected in four years.
Is that really it?
Think, people.
The economy demands we vote for Romney. The pro-life cause is 10 tens better off if we vote for Romney. There is no rational debate here for conservatives. Romney calculated what response would win him the election. I am confident his actions as president will be pro-life too.
Jespren – excellent comments at 10:57.
First people wanna bash Akin. Then people wanna bash Romney for throwing Akin under the bus. Sometimes the same people doing both. Romney did the right thing politically. I am glad he did. Gaffes have greater consequence during a political campaign. This played out as well as it could have.
I heard this guy once who explained that all children are wanted.
Denise Noe, this link is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=PH5l1Ka8YMI&NR=1
You know Jill this is excellent commentary and you’ve made me re-think with this excellent article. I was one initially thinking Akin ought to resign (see link below), but now I’m beginning to think you’re right. The Republicans at least the establishment types and also the punditry, are afraid of the abortion question, and don’t want to be made to look ridiculous, so they all in lockstep (at least the pundits on the radio and TV — and here FOX news is the worst) we ought to let this thorn bur awhile into the Republican establishment a bit, so they are forced to make an articulate stand for life, instead of running for the hills every time the intimidating — and intentionally so — “rape and incest exception question is asked of pro-lifers.
I heard Ann Coulter on Hannity the day before yesterday — the normally brilliant Coulter — actually say that all reasonable Republicans are willing to allow the “rape and incest” exception, and Hannity agreed of course. She tried to make it a matter of numbers, as if this is nothing but a pro-choice trick because only 1% of abortions are from those atrocities. WHat does that matter? As far as the intellectual and moral defense of the pro-life position is concerned, if one intentional abortion is OK then the reason to condemn all the rest evaporates. Why is it OK to destroy the innocent when their existence poses more difficulties? Why is it OK to double down on the trauma to the woman, adding to the terrible trauma of rape that of abortion?
Keep up the good work.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=what+akin+ought+to+have+said&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I’m beginning to suspect that Akin will be useless to them by the time the Dem convention airs. Their “war on women” night should be pretty weird.
Pro-life politicians should undertstand that the question about whether a prolifer believes in exceptions (such as rape and incest) that would permit abortion is, ultimately, asking the pro-life politician what they think about the personhood of the preborn. Don’t run from Personhood. It can be defended because it doesn’t need to be defended!! The pro-choice side has to justify their killing of a human being. Always and forever. Turn the question around – even onto the interviewer!!! Make it personal because it is personal. They need to justify the KILLING that they do. The prochoice side is in the punishment business. They support the death penalty for the preborn, let them support it.
How so?
Do questions about the Castle Doctrine turn on the personhood of the homeowner or intruder? Do questions about war turn on the personhood of soldiers and sailors?
Same reasoning applies to homicide in general.
No one outside the Code Pink and LewRockwell.Com crowd argue that war or the Castle Doctrine means that the reason to condemn the Aurora, CO theater shooting evaporates.
A comedian’s job is ” pointing out truths lying just beneath the surface”. The comedian who made the joke believed it to be true.
SHOE THROWER
I don’t address analogies (shoes thrown). Why don’t you defend the killing of the preborn? What is your justification for killing the preborn? At which development age will you grant a preborn personhood or will you only grant the preborn the status of being a person at the moment they are born?
When you answer my questions I will respond to the shoes you have thrown.
Addendum: Prolifers need to cautiously welcome questions about exceptions and Personhood, but welcome them nonetheless. Prolife politicians need to take their time answering these questions, or rather to slow the interview down as soon as a life question has been asked of them. A pause before responding is important for several reasons but most importantly it shows reverence and respect for the topic about to be discussed. Be happy privately that you have been given this opportunity to defend life. Finally, don’t finish your response without turning the question around. Always turn the question back onto the pro-choicer’s position of wanting to be able to kill the preborn. Pro-choicers are the people perpetrating a violent act, not prolifers.
Here is a good baseball metaphor. It’s the bottom of the 5th inning, with the Republicans holding a narrow, 5-4 lead over the Democrats, thanks to a 2-run homer hit by Paul Ryan in the top of the 5th. In comes relief pitcher Todd Akin. Akin is one of those players whose been pitching in the minor leagues for almost 12 years, and is now looking for his big break into the major leagues. This is his rookie appearance. At the plate is Claire McCaskill, who watches two called strikes go right down the middle. So it’s 0 and 2. The next pitch is the same, fat and straight fastball down the middle, and McCaskill tees up and blasts it way, way over the right field stands. Now the score is tied again, and the meat of the Democrat order is due up. And it is clear to Manager Romney that Akin does not have any good stuff out there: He’s throwing batting practice. Out of the bullpen comes Manager Romney and he yanks Akin out of the game.
But wait! Something strange is going on! Akin refuses to get off the mound! So the coaches come out of the dugout to try to persuade him to leave, but he won’t go! So former managers and players and coaches; even broadcasters tell him–right over the PA system and on the radio and TV broadcasts–to get off the field. But Akin won’t go! Some obscure rule in his contract says that if he stays in for the rest of the inning, he’s in for the whole game. The home run ball to McCaskill was embarassing enough, but now, Akin is really making himself a spectacle!
Would you rather have a military metaphor? OK, Akin is a wounded warrior all right: We all know he was wounded by shooting himself in the foot. So the GOP leadership–and many pro-life conservatives–go out on the field (also in the line of fire), with a stretcher to bring him off the field, knowing that his continued presence on the battlefied will put the whole operation at risk. But no, he insists his wounds are not serious enough to take him off the field. It is HE who is insisting we leave him there! And now, unsurprisingly, he is getting wounded more seriously, by hostile and friendly fire alike.
Take your pick of metaphors, but the point is the same: War is a team exercise and baseball is a team sport. So is politics. Yes, the Democrats play by different rules, and why not? After all, their other side–us–does not pile on to their wounded warriors,so they can get away with surrounding their wounded on the battlefield and make him a martyr and a cause celebre. But when one of our own goes down, we move to get him off the field asap to minimize the damage, both to him and our cause, because they will pile on and use the event as a rallying point to use against us.
Now, I fear many of us are falling into the same trap and trying to play the Democrats’ game, i.e., playing the victim card for poor Todd Akin. But it’s useful to remember that the words “inadvertent” and “innocent” do not mean the same thing. And no one is criticizing Akin for making an innocent mistake. But Akin himself has compounded it.
It remains to be seen how this plays with the voters, but I only ask that we do not demonize the GOP leadership–and the many pro-life conservatives (like me) who take the same view on this incident–over what really boils down to a simple, tactical decision. Please don’t make it or take it personal. We have a war to win!
I am treating the preborn exactly as a person in someone else’s house. A guest in someone’s home can not be morally or legally killed on a whim, even under the Castle Doctrine, unless they pose an unjust threat to life or limb.
Intruders fare differently.
Shoes thrower wrote:
Intruders fare differently.
Hm. So: intentionality on the part of the intruder has nothing to do with the matter? If a team of gang kids “jokingly” threw an innocent child through my picture window, I would be entitled (morally speaking) to blow that child to bits with a gun, or disembowel/dismember him with a bladed weapon of my choice?
This metaphor of yours doesn’t fly, friend.
ShoesThrower – Are you saying the child is an intruder to the mother?
If so, your logic doesn’t hold because of the very unique nature of the child to his mother.
The uniqueness of the relationship is biologically and logically sound. To equivocate the relationship with any other personal relationship is fallacious, because of the biological aspects of conception.
The problem with the intruder analogy is that it posits an absurdity. I address that problem here:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2010/03/biosled-bodily-autonomy-abortion-absurdity/
Todd Akin will only be a hero if he somehow survives this flash of a fiasco. As Rasqual said, nothing would give me more pleasure. He misspoke and at the same time he rattled off an ill-informed opinion.
I understand the panic this has caused in the GOP and Pro-life Cause. On a petty, personal level I threw myself under the bus for my first comment, mistakenly thinking I mis-used an apostrophe - something I always cluck my tongue about in others.
I’m crossing my fingers that Akin can bandage himself and get through this. But he’s swimming among sharks of several species.
Hi Mary:
Your attempted dialog with our trolls reveals the extreme hypocrisy of the leftist and feminist mentality. They are more than willing to overlook the swine-like “humor” of a Senator and the multiple allegations of forcible sexual advances and rape committed by an unrepentant former President, even as they excoriate the issuer of a gaffe, for which the individual apologized profusely. Hmmm…what is going on here? The first thing that jumps out at me is that at the time of the rape allegations against Clinton the MSM and the feminists did not consider the rape allegations as “legitimate” rape. They instead dissed the accuser!! But let Akin suggest something of the sort and the whole world implodes.
Of course our trolls are not alone. The ever so fair and impartial N.O.W. (not ordinary women) addressed the piggish behaviors and comments of President Clinton and Senator Franken with uncharacteristic silence. We know why….because the latter are both members of the unborn baby killing and sodomy promoting cult otherwise known as the Democrat Party. Alas poor old Akin, who has done nothing even close to the stuff Billy Boy and the mentally ill (how else does one reference rape with humor unless you are ill?) Al Franken is NOT a member of the cult so they unleash every bit of trumped up and over the top invective against him.
Then there are the tired charges of misogyny leveled, every day it seems, against any man who dares to assert a desire to protect tiny boys and girls from being dismembered in the womb. Our trolls are especially polished at this, so much so that one can conclude that it is they who are the ones who really have the problem. Misandrists, both they, are fueled with rage because a, dare I say it; a MAN opines about abortion and rape. It is true they do not attack men such as Franken and Clinton but that is because as unpalatable these men may be the dictum applies: “the enemy of my enemy (pro-lifers, especially pro-life men) is my friend”.
A couple of questions:
Not trying to absolve Akin of his comments but is it not true that stress is a contributing factor to an inability to conceive? Is it possible that Akin’s comments a clumsy and ill-advised reference to this?
Are there instances you know of where men have been treated for rape, and if so what are the short and long term consequences to those men?
Jerry wrote, in reply to Mary:
Hi Mary: your attempted dialog with our trolls reveals the extreme hypocrisy of the leftist and feminist mentality.
It also indicates that, if you absolutely must play with trolls, you should at least wash your hands when you’re done, young lady! Hop to it!
Shoe Thrower
It looks like Paladin and Chris have swiftly shown how your analogy is not appropriate, so do you have any other reasons for supporting the killing of the youngest of human beings?
Please try to answer the question asked without deferring to an analogy.
“I am treating the preborn exactly as a person in someone else’s house. A guest in someone’s home can not be morally or legally killed on a whim, even under the Castle Doctrine, unless they pose an unjust threat to life or limb.”
The unborn is not an intruder. When someone breaks into your house, they are not where they should be. When someone is in your womb, they are EXACTLY where thy should be. Where does a fetus/embryo belong other than in a woman’s womb? The natural place for a fetus is precisely in a womb. To tear the fetus out of the womb is to do violence to the nature of the womb.
I think it isn’t even at all unreasonable to say that a fetus has more of a right to be in its mother’s womb than a child does to be in its mother’s house. There are many instances when a child should be removed from their mother’s house e.g. child abuse, the house is being fumigated, the child has to go to school, etc. Even if you kick a, say, 12 year old out of your house based on your “property autonomy” the 12 year old can still survive and hopefully find shelter elsewhere. He certainly won’t die by the very nature of being ejected from your house. Of course, we don’t need to mention what happens when you “expel” a fetus from the womb. IN this sense, it is much more conceivable to suggest that a fetus has the right to his mother’s womb even more than the child has a right to their mother’s house.
Tyler wrote, in reply to “shoe thrower”:
Please try to answer the question asked without deferring to an analogy.
Well… or at least use one which works…
Joel Brind, your comment at 11:09am this morning was spot-on.
As much as politics is a team endeavor, any sort of advocacy — including pro-life advocacy — is a team endeavor. Pro-lifers need to be aware that our own foolish comments can easily be used by the Party of Death to taint and discredit the entire movement. Is that fair? No, of course not. But it’s the way our fallen world works….
That said, I’m not seeing much more in the news about Akin. Folks seem to be far more concerned with Prince Harry’s nude pictures and Lance Armstrong’s doping today. If the wind really has gone out of this story, then we should count our blessings and let it go.
I can’t help but notice two things:
1) if there really were a war on women being waged by Republicans, wouldn’t there be more “evidence” than one verbal gaffe by a badly- educated politician?? Where’s the rest of the beef in your war hamburger?
2) None of the hypocrites are throwing shoes, sandals, boots, flip-flops, or fuzzy pink slippers at Planned Parenthood, who has been throwing young women and minor children back into the arms of their rapists. Hypocrites: if you think women need to be protected, then why don’t you hold Planned Parenthood accountable????????
“I don’t want to know his age” “Just say he’s a boy your age you met at school.” Cuz, like, it’s totally normal for guys in their 30′s to date 13 year old children.
It does not. Concerning intruders into a home, the Castle Doctrine does not exempt insane intruders, who, by definition, have no intentionality. And the insane intruder killed under the Castle Doctrine is most definitely a victim.
Shoes Thrower, you come back to the Castle Doctrine a lot. Surely you are aware that these laws vary from state to state, and that some states have no castle laws to speak of – do you think that states should be able to similarly decide on abortion?
You are also likely aware of this, but many states require the occupant to have reasonable belief that the intruder intends to inflict bodily harm or death, in order for him to be justified in killing the intruder. Some states allow for the occupant to merely believe that non-lethal crimes are the intent, ie burglary. But I don’t believe that there is a state in the country that would not prosecute a man who shot a baby who had crawled into his house. Even if, say, a criminal smashed the front window, dropped the baby inside, and ran away; if the occupant of the house shot the baby he would pretty much certainly face legal charges.
So, if I’m at your house when you’re not home, and I leave an infant child in your livingroom, you honestly think you have a right to slaughter him? Wow. Even Peter Singer would blush at that.
So, wanna hold Planned Parenthood responsible for their crimes against women and girls??? Or are you gonna dodge, deflect, and ignore?
Let’s not let the abortion advocates keep framing this as a matter of chosen pregnancy vs unplanned pregnancy. A conception via rape would certainly constitute an unplanned pregnancy. The only real question is: does a child deserve to die because his mother doesn’t want him? The answer is either yes or no. The answer is not “well, if…” Either it’s alright to kill innocent human beings or it’s not. Saying that if we don’t slaughter the child, we are forcing the mother to be pregnant is innaccurate. The child is either a human being or not. Either we can kill anyone anytime for any reason or not. It is barbaric to kill innocent human beings for any reason. Killing children does not undo crimes, no matter how awful those crimes might be.
Pro-life 100% without exceptions.
The “nature” of the womb? Pshhh. This biological determinism really has nothing to do with a civilized society. Having the physical capacity to do something doesn’t mean we have an imperative to do that thing. Men can’t rape women to ensure they sire heirs, right?
I find this kind of reasoning to be truly problematic because it’s entirely functionalist. That’s what a pro-life argument does: it reduces women to mere biological entities and reproduction to a grim march toward the continuation of human life. This isn’t about “protecting the weak,” it’s about wrenching human life from women’s bodies at all costs. Life at all costs. Does that sound humane to you?
Blue Velvet,
If it is the life of a child, and especially the life of my child, then, YES! Absolutely rights at all costs, YES!
It absolutely IS about protecting human lives, or else I doubt you would see as many women here advocating for human rights for gestating human beings as there are. Do you really think we show up to the functions we do, vote like we do, and frequent blogs like this like we do if this were really just a matter of “Shucks, I just don’t like havin’ them rights thingies like I do. A-hyuk!”
Honestly, think about how a Pro-Life woman like myself would sit down, read some garbage like you just typed, and react to it. Please try and think outside your little bubble for ONE SECOND as a Pro-Life woman, fighting for human rights for the next generations, on a thread where NOWHERE is mentioned or even hinted at a concerted effort at subjugation of females, and then TRY to take yourself seriously. It’s gonna be difficult, let me tell you.
I am treating the preborn exactly as a person in someone else’s house.
Then your premise is faulty. A biological mother has custody of her child from the earliest point in that child’s life (most times) by default. That would mean that it wouldn’t be as if they’re in SOMEONE ELSE’S home, but their own. What’s mom’s is theirs. My children aren’t intruders in my home simply because their names aren’t on the lease. Minor children are in the care of their guardians who have custody of them, and in the case of most gestating children, that’s their pregnant mother.
Hi Paladin 1:10PM
LOL. Young(??) lady. You are a dear
Hi Jerry,
I think Akin’s answer is a very clumsy attempt at explaining how the extreme stress of rape can prevent conception, but certainly does not make it impossible.
There are a number of factors. Some rapists force acts on a woman that will not result in pregnancy. A victim can be too young or too old. A victim may be on birth control or be othewise sterile. Surprisingly some rapists cannot complete the sex act.
I’m afraid I would have no knowledge about therapeutic treatment for rapists or if it is successful.
I have to wonder if Democrats will come to rue the day they interfered in the primary and helped elect Akin. Often times by interfering we cause an outcome that completely backfires on us. I have always believed the gods punish man by answering their prayers. Just a thought.
Also Jerry, isn’t what I said about Obama coming to pass? The more threatened he feels, the more dangerous and desperate he will get. Believe me, to Obama this is very, very personal and he is seething.
“The “nature” of the womb? Pshhh. This biological determinism really has nothing to do with a civilized society.”
This is not biological determinism. Rather, it is natural law which looks at the nature as in “essence” of a thing and defines the good in terms that thing resembling or fulfilling its nature. What does it mean to be a womb? What makes a womb different from say a kidney or a dog? Why don’t wombs combust or become liquid when a blostocyst implants? Things have certain ways that they act and certain ways that they don’t.
“Having the physical capacity to do something doesn’t mean we have an imperative to do that thing.”
Again, this is not at all the theory behind natural law. It is not a “if we can then do it” theory, but rather one where we determine what certain things are and not take actions to thwart the proper or final ends of those things.
“I find this kind of reasoning to be truly problematic because it’s entirely functionalist. That’s what a pro-life argument does: it reduces women to mere biological entities and reproduction to a grim march toward the continuation of human life.”
That simply is not the case. Does not allowing one to cut off their arms for fun reduce them to a mere biological entity? Certain things, regardless of subjective wants and desires, are intrinsically disordered. Not allowing one to engage in these actions rather than reducing them to bioloigcal entities ensures their dignity as human persons.
“This isn’t about “protecting the weak,” it’s about wrenching human life from women’s bodies at all costs. Life at all costs.”
No, it’s about protecting the weak. It actually IS about what you said it isn’t about. You can never directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means or an ends. Abortion does this. So yes, it is about protecting the weak.
Blue Velvet, do you think that a woman has an obligation to breastfeed her infant if there are no other options available (perhaps she’s stranded in isolation somewhere, or a shortage increases the price of baby formula to over $9000 per bottle)?
If so, then you’re just as guilty of “biological determinism” as your critics.
That’s what a pro-life argument does: it reduces women to mere biological entities and reproduction to a grim march toward the continuation of human life.
No, it treats pregnant women as mothers with moral obligations toward their minor children. It simply extends these duties to before birth.
This isn’t about “protecting the weak,” it’s about wrenching human life from women’s bodies at all costs. Life at all costs. Does that sound humane to you?
It does not, which is probably because it’s not a correct description of my position. Pro-lifers aren’t pushing for a minimum quota on how many babies each woman must have.
Xalisae, if you ever run for office, I am totally voting for YOU!! :>) ! Articulate and Pro-life, a win win!
The mentality of the pro-choice is to reduce a child to the status of property, and in some cases unwanted property disposed of in landfills or sold to labs to be experimented upon. Who’s being inhumane???
Thank you, ninek, and I genuinely appreciate the sentiment, but I’m afraid I don’t think I have the temperament for it. I’m a better commentator, since I am so hot-headed. ;P
Blue velvet,
Why do you consider the female’s ability to give birth inferior to a male’s incapacity to give birth? Aren’t the functions of males and females just different, but of equal value?
Additionally, if it hasn’t been said already, the womb technically belongs to the preborn baby. The preborn baby has the right to the womb. To correct Show Thrower’s analogy, the womb is the preborn’s Castle, and no Abortionist is allowed to intrude without permission of the preborn owner. The preborn has a claim on the mother’s body and the father’s body as soon the preborn is conceived, simply in different ways. If you were spiritual/consitituionalist I would add that neither the mother or father truly created that human being (they are only the physical agents), rather the preborn child is created by God, and since God is the true creator of that preborn child, that preborn child is an independent unique person endowed with unalienable rights.
Finally, I agree that human beings are more than their functional capacities, and it is for that very reason I value the human embryo and why I think abortion should be illegal. It is not often that I hear a prochoice person agree with this point.
Mary, I liked your point that things may work out for Congressman Akin.
Assuming this is true, and setting aside the fact that an intrusion into a womb is of a greater magnitude than an intrusion into a house, the occupant of the house could merely put the baby outside without disturbing the physical integrity or using poison. Same goes with a pregnant rape victim. The baby could simply be placed outside without disturbing the physical integrity or using poison.
Simply placed outside. Sure, that’s what Kermit Gosnell was doing.
Xalisae first: I believe in all sorts of rights–rights for women, men, children, animals. But I don’t believe the “right to life” automatically supersedes somebody else’s basic rights (rights as we know them in a liberal democracy). Forgive me, but how can a policy of enforced pregnancy continuation be construed as life-affirming? Life, regardless of the physical or psychological toll on the mother. Life, regardless of the circumstances the child is born into.
I don’t sincerely believe you yourself buy the human rights schtick. Women aren’t immune from doing terribly nasty things to each other, and this is just another instance of that. You must get a real high messing with other women. Would it be worth it to save an embryo if in the process you made the woman carrying it feel totally inhuman, without an opinion that mattered?
Mary:
Thanks for your comments. And yes, it is exactly what you suggested would happen with Obama. The fun is gone from the campaign for him, there is nowhere near the energy and crowds of four years ago. I look for him to spend even more time escaping from the fray. Michelle is going bonkers too. What puzzles me is now that people have seen they were had that any of them could support him again.
Hi Tyler,
Thank you. I have just lived long enough to see it happen time and again. I saw the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, great “victory” for Lyndon Johnson giving him unlimited power to wage the Vietnam War, and that came by questionable means, lead to a defeated and broken man forced from office. I’ve learned that when we think we have what we really want, our “prayers” have been answered, it is in fact only the gods having a good laugh.
“…the occupant of the house could merely put the baby outside without disturbing the physical integrity or using poison. Same goes with a pregnant rape victim. The baby could simply be placed outside without disturbing the physical integrity or using poison.”
Well there you have it, then! Problem solved! What a friggin’ genius!
Shoes Thrower,
(Notice the lack of caps. Those are, ironically enough, baby booties you’re throwing at us. No need to be as agile as George W.)
It’s big of you that you’d put a baby outside without poisoning her. But she would still be on your property, right? Or would you throw your guests in the moat of your little castle?
Assuming this is true, and setting aside the fact that an intrusion into a womb is of a greater magnitude than an intrusion into a house, the occupant of the house could merely put the baby outside without disturbing the physical integrity or using poison. Same goes with a pregnant rape victim. The baby could simply be placed outside without disturbing the physical integrity or using poison.
Nope. Physical removal can’t be done without harming the physical integrity of the preborn, To begin with the obvious, the integrity of the uterus would be changed because the contents had been removed, and the umbilical cord would be severed prematurely. Moreover, all abortion methods involve poison or mutilating the physically integrity of the preborn child. The physical forms of mutilating the preborn are very gruesome: the preborn can be turned into a 7/11 style slurpee via an aspirator that would make Mr. Bloomberg proud, or the preborn can be torn apart limb by limb until the preborn’s skull is crushed and removed with a cranioclast. In short, every abortion (aka the physical removal of a preborn human being) always disturbs the physical integrity of the preborn, and sadly, the removal of a preborn child through surgery can put the Mother’s life at risk: http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/08/pro-life-video-of-the-day-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-death/.
I hope you can sleep at night Shoe Thrower.
Hi jerry,
He will not try to escape the fray, he wants power and loathes Romney. This is personal and he’s only getting started.
I don’t sincerely believe you yourself buy the human rights schtick. Women aren’t immune from doing terribly nasty things to each other, and this is just another instance of that. You must get a real high messing with other women. Would it be worth it to save an embryo if in the process you made the woman carrying it feel totally inhuman, without an opinion that mattered?
Affirming life can’t be a dehumanizing process. Giving birth is part of human nature. If the Mom ends up not feeling ready to be parent, she can always allow others to care and love her child. Please tell me: do you think adoption dehumanizes a mother as well?
rasqual, that was my original (unwritten)response.
rasqual? who is this rasqual? ;-)
He’s quite a rascal.
SOAPBOX STANDER
Shorter Blue Velvet response: “No, I will not step outside my Pro-Abortion bubble.” Duly noted. Thanks for that.
I feel like we’re all time lords, choosing our names. XD
Hans Johnson said - Those are, ironically enough, baby booties you’re throwing at us. No need to be as agile as George W.
LOL – Thanks Hans, now I need to go wash the coffee spray off my laptop…
So it is impossible to remove an intact embryo from the womb?
Then how is it possible to remove intact babies in later stages of pregnancy?
Shoes Thrower – are you sincere in your questions?
Yes.
Shoes Thrower do you know what an embryo is?
Look it up.
For the record, the only way to abort a preborn child in the embryonic stage is through chemical poison that will cause the child to be expelled from the mother. No abortion surgery ever occurs when the preborn child is in the embryonic stage. By the time an abortion surgery occurs the preborn child has developed out of the embryonic stage.
No offense, but have you done any research about abortion.
In addition to ‘abortion’ you may also want to google ‘embryology’ and ‘fetal development.’ I think you will find it educational.
Shoes Thrower,
Furthermore, “embryo” is just a label, or one stage in a human being’s life. It is no different than the label “toddler.” Just as you and I developed out of the toddler stage, you and I developed out of the embryonic stage. I wouldn’t get too hung up on the labels we use to describe the various stages of human development.
Well, I have to qualify my earlier post, depending on the doctor and how they count the weeks, an abortion surgery, via the aspirator (aka slushie machine), can be done at the later embronic stages. Nevertheless, the preborn child is not removed intact.
I believe in all sorts of rights–rights for women, men, children, animals.
So do I. I even believe in rights for MORE children than you do. I believe in recognizing the basic human right to live of children who are younger than birth-aged. Look at how much I love rights!
But I don’t believe the “right to life” automatically supersedes somebody else’s basic rights (rights as we know them in a liberal democracy).
Nor do I. I don’t think we’re arguing about the rights of vampires to drain others of their blood so that they can continue living. We’re talking about the right of a child to not be killed by their parent. The right of a child to have nourishment and shelter provided for them by their default parental guardian. Those rights are already well-established for children POST birth. It’s an egregious error that those same rights are currently not protected and enforced for a child prenatally. Enforcing those rights for children post-birth to not be killed by their parents through abuse or neglect isn’t the suppression of their parents’ rights to property. It is recognizing the rights of a minor to continue living when they otherwise would not be able to do so on their own without the assistance of their parent(s). Laws and rights differ according to age. A minor child is entitled to much more from a parent/guardian than an adult child is.
Forgive me, but how can a policy of enforced pregnancy continuation be construed as life-affirming?
“Enforced pregnancy continuation” doesn’t even make any sense, if you bothered to think about it. Do you think Pro-Lifers would advocate continuing a pregnancy in which the child has already died naturally in utero? Do you think we just love pregnancy and hate women so much that we’d demand we women continue gestating our children well-after they should have already been born naturally? Honestly, you like to imagine I hate other women so much, but do you not realize that as the mother of 2 children, I’m advocating policy that affects ME TOO, and my son weighed over 9 lbs at birth-I didn’t want him in there any longer than he had to be. You’re so funny though! “Enforced pregnancy continuation”? If you don’t do something to forcefully end it, pregnancy typically continues on its own until the child is ready to be born, then it ends on its own as well. And THAT is life-affirming, since it terminates in a live baby. Please explain to me how a willful action which directly causes the demise of a very young child is “life-affirming”. PLEASE.
Life, regardless of the physical or psychological toll on the mother. Life, regardless of the circumstances the child is born into.
Yes. As the mother of a child who was born when I didn’t particularly want to be pregnant or become a mother, yeah. As the friend of someone who had a mother who despised him just because she was mentally ill, didn’t want him, and would rather have aborted him, yes. He was born into some of the worst circumstances you can imagine, and abused in countless ways. His situation was even WORSE than what my daughter was born into, and my feelings, his mother’s feelings/dysfunction, a lack of resources, or any other thing shouldn’t have been a license for either me or my friend’s mother to kill our children.
I don’t sincerely believe you yourself buy the human rights schtick. Women aren’t immune from doing terribly nasty things to each other, and this is just another instance of that. You must get a real high messing with other women. Would it be worth it to save an embryo if in the process you made the woman carrying it feel totally inhuman, without an opinion that mattered?
Fine. Don’t believe it. I can tell you the reason I decided I wanted to become a Pro-Life activist, and if it makes you feel better to just ignore everything I say and convince yourself I just have it out for other females for some reason (even though any policy I support would effect me too) simply to comfort yourself so you don’t have to trouble yourself actually giving this issue any rational thought, so be it.
But, I find it ironic you attempt to characterize me as having it out for other women when another little lady in my life is the reason I’m Pro-Life in the first place. You see, my daughter’s father wanted me to abort her. And I think that her life never should have been able to have been legally taken just because her father and I were in a crappy place financially and emotionally. So, there’s your women’s rights for ya.
x,
I feel like we’re all time lords, choosing our own names. XD
I’m going to have a very good tv week. First the convention, capped off with the return of the Doctor on September 1st. Luckily my basic cable allowed BBC America through on New Year’s.
I don’t expect the great ending of last season to be answered: “Doctor…Who? Doctor…Who?”
Hans,
I’m a somewhat new convert to the way of The Doctor, so I have a lot of catching up to do before then! I’ll have to go tell my daughter (since she’s also become a fan of Doctor Who recently). Thanks for the heads-up.
x,
I’ve been a fan since ’73. It’s ingenious the way they kept it going with new actors by way of regenration. Much less clunky than all the James Bonds.
I’ll have to get the dvds for an arm, rather than an arm and a leg. They don’t show the entire episodes here, as you can tell from the BBC America website. I think they’re about an hour and fifteen minutes across the Pond.
We’ve been catching up on Netflix. We’re about to increase our cable package though, so, I’m excited about that. I miss RedEye so, so badly. ;_;
Isn’t Red Eye on Hulu? I kind of miss all the late shows. I’ve been here and around the Net trying to find Pro-life videos.
x,
Shazam! http://new.hulu.com/search?q=Red+Eye
I hope this wasn’t a mistaken hit and run like The Walking Dead. Last time I looked, there was a backlog of a few months’ episodes. I never got around to seeing them.
Tyler–no, adoption isn’t inherently dehumanizing, as long as the mother consents to it. What IS dehumanizing is bandying about adoption as some kind of miracle cure for an unwanted pregnancy. Giving up a child after nine months of gestation is rarely as psychologically or physically simple as you’re making it out to be.
Xalisae–I’ll reframe this: do you believe that a conflict of rights exists between woman and unborn child? I believe that in this scenario, the desires of a sentient, grown woman outweigh any claims the embryo/fetus/unborn child (what have you) has to existence. Call it brutish, call it evil, but I don’t think any of our lives at such an incipient stage, a stage of utter dependence, were worth more than our mothers’ desires at that point.
Also, you’re losing me on another point: do you wish anti-abortion laws had been on the books during your pregnancy to protect your child from…yourself? Your partner should have had no say in your desire to have the baby, but do you think he would have been more supportive without the abortion option?
Thanks, Hans!!! I’ve never loved you more than I do right now. <3
Blue Velvet:
I’ll reframe this: do you believe that a conflict of rights exists between woman and unborn child?
No more than a born child’s rights to be provided for and protected by their parent’s rights to own property. It’s the same “conflict”, only in different places.
I believe that in this scenario, the desires of a sentient, grown woman outweigh any claims the embryo/fetus/unborn child (what have you) has to existence.
And really, all that is, is just saying that you believe age discrimination to the point of killing someone just because they’re so young is okay. I disagree. The desires of a parent should never outweigh the right to life of their child. Ever.
Call it brutish, call it evil, but I don’t think any of our lives at such an incipient stage, a stage of utter dependence, were worth more than our mothers’ desires at that point.
It’s brutish. It’s evil. My life, and the lives of my children, were always worth exactly as much as the LIVES of our mothers. And that goes for everyone else in the world, regardless of how old, developed, or able they are. This “incipient” rationalization is total bunk. In the biological world, in the realm of sexually-reproducing mammals, there is alive, and there is dead, and trying to sort the “killable” from the “worthy” is a frame of mind I never want to understand.
Also, you’re losing me on another point: do you wish anti-abortion laws had been on the books during your pregnancy to protect your child from…yourself?
Yes. Your attitude shows that the need for such a law exists. If I had had such a callous attitude towards her then as you would have, she would’ve needed to have been protected from me. If I had shared her father’s weaseling cowardice coupled with his biological ignorance, absolutely, she would’ve needed and deserved protection from me. The fact that her continued survival was ever put in question to me is what spurred me on to my current course of action. The fact that the question existed and still exists for many more to this day demanded I take a stand.
Your partner should have had no say in your desire to have the baby, but do you think he would have been more supportive without the abortion option?
And my desire should’ve been irrelevant to our daughter’s continued survival. Do I think he would have been more supportive if what he saw as an “easy out” wouldn’t have been included in his emotional formulations? Yes. The ultimatum I was given of “get an abortion or else I’m killing myself.” wouldn’t have been something I would’ve had to go through.
Blue velvet wrote: Giving up a child [adoption] after nine months of gestation is rarely as psychologically or physically simple as you’re making it out to be.
Blue Velvet can you please, and I mean this sincerely, do you believe abortion is psychologically or physically simple? Additionally, do you think abortion is more or less psychologically and physically simple than adoption? If so, why?
Sorry Blue Velvet. I didn’t read what I wrote before posting:
Can you please answer these questions, and I ask these questions sincerely: Do you believe abortion is psychologically or physically simple? Additionally, do you think abortion is more or less psychologically and physically simple than adoption? If so, why?
so, BV, are you at least ready to walk back your claim that I oppose legal abortion just because I don’t like other women?
[...] List purposefully chose Missouri to launch the ad to redirect the conversation starting by Todd Akin to the real radical on abortion, our current [...]
I am SO disappointed in Governor Scott Walker who was one of the Republicans who agreed that Todd Akin should step down. As a Christian and a rape survivor, I respect and accept Akin’s apology.
I thought my Governor had more of a backbone than this and my respect for him is diminished. ):
As a Christian and an unapologetic, no exceptions pro-lifer myself, “ I respect and accept Akin’s apology” also. But as I noted in my earlier comment, that has nothing to do with asking Akin to step down, which is strictly a tactical, political decision that would have taken more courage–and humility–on Akin’s part than a mere apology. Let’s not beat each other up over political tactics.
Prax, a pragmatic political calculus is an entirely separate issue from the substantive matter.
Sheep among wolves must be wise as serpents, gentle as doves. Not naive as gerbils.
How can I “like” all three of the last comments. Well, I guess you can call me someone like France - as stable as water.
Tyler: I believe that for some women, abortion is more psychologically painful than adoption. For others, adoption would be more difficult. Every woman has a different story.
Xalisae: This has nothing to do with you “liking” or “disliking” other women. I sincerely believe that you, and other pro-lifers, get a real trip from this Orwellian “the unborn need to be protected from their evil women captors!” thing. We don’t exist in the mere “biological world”–that’s the world of animals, and of people who can’t accept the messiness of reality. Do animals have a conception of rights? Do they understand what the right to liberty is? There’s a difference between bare life–an animal life–and a life with meaning, and the former is what you’re trying to relegate women and their children to. Continuation of life. Survival at all costs. That’s not the kind of world I want to live in.
I totally disagree that the tension between the rights of mother/unborn and mother/born are equivalent. The body is THE most important piece of property we own–absolutely more important than any material good that a baby is entitled to post-birth. Not the same. Allowing a new life to grow and nourish itself from your body is of a magnitude far greater than giving a kid a bottle or a blanket (purchased with your monetary property).
Blue Velvet,
You illustrate the heart of the problem in your last two sentences: Thinking of a body–any living human body–as a piece of property is the heart of the problem. It enables us to think of the body of the unborn as a blob of tissue, because we think of our own bodies as bigger blobs of tissue.
Also, your previous paragraph gives a confused view of animal v. human life. “Bare life” is not synonymous with animal life! The very fact that the life is human imbues it with a dignity far beyond animal life. If this concept is not central to the culture, there is no basis for civilization. It seems you would draw the line at birth (or even later) on the young side, and who knows where on the old side, but no matter where you draw the line, it is arbitrary. When arbitrary rules govern society, whose life is safe?
I sincerely believe that you, and other pro-lifers, get a real trip from this Orwellian “the unborn need to be protected from their evil women captors!” thing.
Okay, so, you need to imagine us as wicked Big Brother Boogeymen in order to soothe yourself. So be it, but that is not how things genuinely are. However, the unborn DO need to be protected, since as it stands more than 3,000 every day are being killed. You think that doesn’t warrant taking some action on their behalf?
We don’t exist in the mere “biological world”–that’s the world of animals, and of people who can’t accept the messiness of reality.
Excuse me? The biological world IS reality. It’s the feeling, seeing, living world around us in which we exist. Human beings are animals-we are categorized in Kingdom Animalia-but our capacity for higher functioning is something that gives us more responsibility in our lives to those whom we have social obligations. And here you are trying to argue that our capacity for higher functioning gives us LESS responsibility than other creatures. Trying to reduce us women to things like rodents, eating our young. And I am the one trying to belittle we women? Right.
Do animals have a conception of rights? Do they understand what the right to liberty is?
No. That’s why rabbits just eat their kits if they don’t feel like rearing them. And you want that same thing for us-having no clue about inherent dignity in our species that demands basic human rights like the right to live. There is no liberty for the child disposed of as medical waste. But I’m the one who has it out for “evil women”, not you, trying to drag us back down to a purely animalistic level.
There’s a difference between bare life–an animal life–and a life with meaning, and the former is what you’re trying to relegate women and their children to. Continuation of life. Survival at all costs. That’s not the kind of world I want to live in.
Right. Because I’ve never touted things like private charities here before. I’ve never contributed to food pantries, donated time or money to charities, worked for a non-profit for the disabled, or anything like that. If you think that unless certain circumstances are met human lives don’t have meaning, who is the one of an animal mind? All human life has meaning, regardless of whether or not you personally think it does, and thinking like yours brought to us things like slavery and the Holocaust. Classifying different people as unworthy animals without meaning. THAT is barbarism. THAT is animal savagery. And you are welcome not to live in the world I am trying to create, where all human life is respected for the inherent dignity it has. You’re at an age, I’m sure, where you acting on such an impulse would be entirely your choice.
But seriously, you direct me to the local wild dog colony food pantry for the impoverished. Show me where my cat can sign up for community service work. C’mon! Back up your crap! I am where the humanity is. Your mind is stuck in beastly egotism, and you have that confused with freedom and liberty. How sad.
I totally disagree that the tension between the rights of mother/unborn and mother/born are equivalent.
Good for you. You’re also welcome to disagree on the color of the sky, whether the Earth orbits the sun or vice-versa, and the law of biogenesis. Those disagreements will be noted and then promptly disregarded since they have no scientific weight whatsoever, just as this one has been.
The body is THE most important piece of property we own–absolutely more important than any material good that a baby is entitled to post-birth. Not the same. Allowing a new life to grow and nourish itself from your body is of a magnitude far greater than giving a kid a bottle or a blanket (purchased with your monetary property).
It makes very little difference to the child. Doesn’t really matter where the substance is coming from or how it is provided-you have a minor child in your care and it’s your obligation to care for them because you have custody of them by default. You’d not see a newborn refusing the breast out of some great concern for mommy’s “bodily autonomy”. If you think the body is so gosh-darned important, you should keep in mind that children have their own bodies, too. If our rights to our bodies are so freaking sacred, then so to are the rights children have to their bodies and the integrity thereof, regardless of where their bodies happen to be. You don’t “allow” a child to live and survive where they are. A child is created and placed somewhere, and it is a parent’s obligation to make certain they do everything in their power to facilitate that child’s life.
Tyler: I believe that for some women, abortion is more psychologically painful than adoption. For others, adoption would be more difficult. Every woman has a different story.
Blue Velvet, thank-you for responding. And thank-you for your answer. But of these two ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, adoption and abortion, which option offers the possibility of a chance at psychological health should the woman later change her mind about the value of a preborn human being?
Blue Velvelt
Just a thought to ponder: instead of viewing life as springing forth out of nothingness, envision life flowing from and returning to an eternal/everlasting life. Or conceive of human life as being situated in the ‘womb’, so to speak, of everlasting life (for those who like fractals this metaphor may have some appeal). All human life has an inherent meaning to return the Creator/Eternal Lif/God (or whatever adjective/noun you wish to use). Human life is awash in meaning, so full of meaning it is blinding to some, just like some people can’t stand being joyful or being around those who are joyful, it pains them to see the happiness of others.
At what point in time does this obligation start?
From the point the child exists and you have awareness that the child exists and is in your care. I don’t even understand why you’re asking this question, the answer is so obvious.
[...] supposedly suffering a nine point drop following his infamous rape remark, to fall behind Claire McKaskill 49-44%, could it be that Akin has already recovered? Yes, [...]
[...] supposedly suffering a nine point drop following his infamous rape remark, to fall behind Claire McKaskill 49-44%, could it be Akin has already recovered? Yes, according to [...]
[...] had Republicans not freaked out and abandoned him, would be in a much better place following his unfortunate explanation on August 19 as to why he opposed a rape/incest [...]