Abortion Todd Akin

Published on August 21st, 2012 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon


Legitimate political gang rape

We expect leftists, liberals, and other miscreants to pounce opportunistically, to lie, cheat, and twist (all the while drooling) over a phrase like “legitimate rape” when uttered by a strong conservative Christian politician. But should we expect the same from alleged conservatives?

Yet this is exactly what we’ve seen from several prominent conservatives in the wake of a media gaffe from U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) in regard to alleged “legitimate rape” and abortion.

What could have been quickly and easily handled with a consolidated response correctly interpreting Akin’s unfortunate phrase was instead a rare cause of bipartisan hazing.

It’s an old and reliable political reality: liberals care for even the criminals in their midst, while conservatives shoot their wounded. So, for example, Joe Biden can put all three of his left feet in his mouth twice a week and the media performs damage control (and perhaps leash training as well). The Right can scream and howl but the matter gets buried in no time. And thus, the male-prostitute hiring Barney Franks of this world retire from Congress as alleged civil rights heroes.

Meanwhile, let a conservative utter an awkward phrase, and it’s ready, aim, fire—not only from the leftist media, but from alleged conservatives like Ann Coulter, Scott Brown, the Romney-Ryan campaign, and the RNC itself. “We’re not associated with him!”

And in this case, the volley of verbal bullets came with disproportionate verve. It’s almost like the GOP establishment is more than eager to get rid of the most conservative tea-party types among them. (This is not to endorse Akin myself. I find his views on foreign policy and unlimited military-empire spending far less than biblical.)

Here’s the Akin incident, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Akin prompted the uproar with his response to a question in a KTVI television station interview in St. Louis about whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape.

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” he said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Ann Coulter blasted Akin in numerous ways, saying she would “hate” him unless he withdraws from the race. More on Coulter in a minute.

Romney-Ryan stated they “disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” More on their pro-choice exception in a minute.

RNC chairman Priebus called the remarks “dumb,” “biologically stupid,” and “bizarre.”

Needless to say, the leftists are in high gear and their attacks are as numerous as they are fallacious. There are two chief parts to the criticism from both sides: the phrase “legitimate rape,” and the issue of the rape exception for abortions.

“Legitimate Rape”

The left immediately ran with the idea of “legitimate rape” meaning that Akin must believe that only some rapes are carried out legitimately and others are “illegitimate,” and this an unacceptable “blame-shifting” and “sexist” view.

Now, this would have been a wonderful time for the Right to engage is education, courage, and square, powerful refutation: exposing how stupid and devious liberal politicians are. Expose their lunacy and lies for all to see! This is an opportunity!

Nope. Instead, they savaged the truth and bent, like quivering grass in the winds of assumed political fallout, before the left’s claims.

Coulter didn’t even get the position right: she says Akin should have responded “Yes, it’s still a life, but more people are killed in drive-by shootings in Chicago every year. You give us the 2 million abortions that aren’t a result of rape and incest and we’ll give you the few thousand that are.” Not really. Akin’s position is that of denying exceptions for instances of rape also; so this imaginary compromise may be what partial-pro-life moderates believe, but it certainly doesn’t represent how Akin could have said his view more clearly.

But what she’s really upset about is the rhetoric of it all. Politicians “should have a clear, nonthreatening answer at the ready.”

“Nonthreatening.” Right. Not to unborn babies, of course, but to potential voters. Thus do we sacrifice both life and truth on the altar of rhetorical fear. This is an insult both to true conservatism and the right to life, but also to the sense of most voters. Coulter and her likes in the party are assuming that most people vote purely on mindless, uninformed, ignorant emotion. And she is making this, rather than principle, the operating assumption of her political rhetoric. Thus we need good, quick, “nonthreatening” rhetoric, even at the expense of truth.

Coulter is, of course, an expert at rhetoric. It’s all she’s ever done.

Priebus also assumed the left’s argument when he said “whatever an illegitimate rape is—you know that’s not even something that we could conceive of.”

But it is very easy actually.

Akin was likely relying on the work of physician and former National Right to Life president John C. Willke, who wrote a three part series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy” (3 parts), National Right to Life News, July 17, August 21, and October 9, 1986. This series is condensed at the website of Physicians for Life.

Willke began that piece with what is a well-known position on the definition of “rape” and how it is reflected in statistics:

We should use the phrase “forced rape” or “assault rape” for that specifies what we’re talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape is intercourse with a girl under a certain age, often 16. Statutory rape can be consensual, but it is still statutory rape.

Another category is “date rape”. For some reason, this is supposed to be different, but, forced rape is still rape, regardless of whether it occurs on a date or behind the bushes. If a college woman is raped on a date, she should report it to the police and pursue charges. Further, she should undergo a medical examination and treatment, just as she would in the aftermath of an assault rape. It is not a separate category.

He then added, “Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. . . .”

We’ll cover more on why he concluded this in a moment, but from this much we can see exactly, clearly what Akin meant when he used the phrase “legitimate rape.” He was referring to cases of actual, criminal, forcible rape as opposed to several other conceivable definitions that are not actually “rape,” but only legally, socially, or anecdotally reported so, or claimed as such for whatever reason—true or otherwise.

There is, after all, the distinct possibility that if abortion were outlawed but with an exception for “rape,” that many of the women who buy abortions purely out of convenience today would then simply claim to have been raped in order to procure the legality.

For some reason, even to mention the possibility that a woman may lie about being raped is supposed to be politically incorrect—untouchable. It enrages leftists, and for some reason, therefore, frightens conservatives. Are a woman’s intentions never to questioned—completely off limits—when she claims to have been raped?

The answer is generally yes, but there is a least one major exception to this: When she intends to use that claim as justification to murder an innocent third party, a baby. The right to life trumps the right to privacy.

Liberals may wish us to believe that no woman would ever stoop so low as to lie about being raped. But this simply does not comport with what we Christians know about fallen human nature. We, conservatives, all agree that millions of women annually conspire to commit murder on their unborn babies. So do you expect me to feel it unacceptable to believe they would lie about why? This is political correctness run amok. Why, after all, would someone willing to kill out of convenience not also lie for various reasons out of convenience?

But liberals hate both the idea that some alleged “rapes” are not “rape” in the true sense, and the fact that because this is so, the statistics of rape and pregnancy are not as high as they would like to claim. Thus, some liberal at Slate Magazine blasts Akin: “tens of thousands of women are impregnated by rape annually.” The link takes you to the “proof” of this “tens of thousands” claim.

The Holmes Study

But that proof—also now featured on Fox News and Reuters, among others—is a government-funded report carried out with an eye toward solving what it calls an “national epidemic” of “unintended pregnancy”—with a clear reference to “objectives” from the Department of Health and Human Services in this regard.(1)

And it’s quite flawed in methodology and reporting. On the first count, it’s a purely anecdotal study not supported with any legal, medical, or forensic evidence. The basic empirical data of the number of rapes and victims was collected by a series of phone interviews completed with 3,031 women at random. The questions used to define rape seem legitimate enough, but there were absolutely no critical controls upon verification of the claims. None. As such, this is a purely anecdotal study (relying not only upon honesty, comprehension, and possibly interviewer bias, but in some cases also distant memories).

There was also no control or verification upon whether the alleged pregnancies were actually a result of the alleged rapes reported by these random interviewees.

Even at that, the results are not quite what the study reported them to be. The actual percentage of rape-related pregnancies (assuming they are all verifiably rape-related) was 3.2 percent. This was for the total number of reported pregnancies (20) resulting from the total number of reported rapes (616) among the sampled women.

The report then sorts for age-specificity and finds that for all women in the study 18 years of age or older, the rate increased to 4.7 percent—an unimposing number in appearance, but actually a 47 percent increase.

And then comes another big sneak: The study reports that there is a “weighted prevalence” of 606,690 rapes annually among all adult women (18+). It says nothing about how it derived this figure save to compare it to an equally high number reported for one year by the same “National Women’s Study” within which this rape-related pregnancy study was drawn. The problem here is that this number is extremely high compared to most others. RAINN, the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization states there are around 207,000 annually.

But the Holmes study reports the 606,690 figure, and then also applies its higher 4.7 percentage to that apparently inflated number. This is how it determines that “there may be 32,101 rape-related pregnancies annually.”

So whence the inflated number of rapes, for one? And second, why use the controlled 4.7 percent instead of the actual 3.2 percent which the overall study concluded? Here’s my guess, from later in the study:

With >32,000 rape-related pregnancies occurring each year among adult women in the United Stats [sic], . . . rape-related pregnancy is a significant problem that warrants closer attention. . . .

[T]he occurrence of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest holds important public health and policy implications. For example, policy debates surrounding abortion funding for cases of rape and incest have historically lacked scientific foundation as they have been based on data from the small proportion of reported cases.(2)

In short, this is a classic academic-government collusion to inflate the nature of a problem in order to justify an ideological government “solution,” throw more money into another government program, and pay “closer attention” (translation: fund more academic studies).

But let’s not take my ideological word for it. Hear what an academic peer reviewer published with the very study itself has to say:

When evaluating this study, one must initially consider the difficulties associated with interviewer bias. The interviewer had the discretion to classify an event as a rape even if the woman did not identify it as such, seek medical care, or notify police authorities. In accordance with the wording and interpretation of the questions, some variability in the classification of individual cases could occur. . . .


Dr. Holmes reports that 32% of women who became pregnant as a result of a rape were not aware of the pregnancy until the second trimester. A recent study that used deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] analysis techniques reported that 60% of women who became pregnant after an assault were instead pregnant by a consensual partner. Inasmuch as 64% of the women in this study were either married or cohabitating, it must be assumed that these individuals were exposed to consensual intercourse. Therefore without the appropriate deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] analysis the pregnancies cannot conclusively be ascribed to the rape incident. The issue is further complicated when the reported assailant is either the victim’s husband or her boyfriend and sexual relations were at times consensual and at other times forced. In the latter circumstance it is impossible to differentiate whether the pregnancy was a result of consenting versus forced sexual exposure.

The reviewer has the same criticism I did: the evidence of rape is anecdotal, interpreted and possibly biased, and the claims that the pregnancies resulted from the rapes are not verifiable.

This latter problem is exacerbated by the fact of simultaneous cohabitation which was widespread as this very study notes. Indeed, only 40 percent of post-rape pregnancies were from the rape itself (as 60 percent were from consensual partners).

Taking all of these legitimate controls into account, the number of actual pregnancies that can be said to result for actual cases of forcible rape are much lower than liberals would like to admit. Doing some easy math, even using this study’s questionable anecdotal numbers, we can see that rape results in pregnancy in only about 1.3 percent of cases:

(3.2 percent overall post-rape pregnancy rate) x (40 percent actually resulting from rape) = 1.28 percent.

But this means that rape-related pregnancies do not occur in about 98.72 percent of rape cases. Heck, even assuming the full 3.2 percent is representative, this means rape-related pregnancy is still relatively rare—not occurring in 96.8 percent of cases.

In short, comporting with what Todd Akin said, pregnancies as a result of rape are justifiably be called “rare.”

What about that “female body” claim?

What sounds strange at first, especially when listening only to the mainstream media and the neoconservatives who give the mainstream media too much credit, is the second half of Akin’s claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Again, this statement came straight from the former president of the National Right to Life, Willke, in his series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy.” Willke provided a list of considerations to prove that pregnancy resulting from forcible rape is extremely rare. This list culminates with the “woman’s body” claim as one consideration among many:

  • A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3-6 days of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by 0.3. Three days of 30 reduces to 1 of 10. Divide 133,000 by 10, and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use 5 days of 30, then we have 1 of 6. Divide 133,000 by 6 and there are 22,166 women remaining.
  • One-fourth of all women in the U.S. of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths comes to 10,000 (or 15,000).
  • Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina1, so cut the remaining figures in half. This leaves 5,000 (or 7,500).
  • Fifteen percent of men are sterile, which drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
  • Another 15% of women are on the pill or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
  • Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number now drops to 600 (or 920).
  • In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20% of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).
  • Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation.

What further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor may well cut this last figure by at least 50%, which would make the final figure 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year from forced rape. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

Now probably the most important figure in all of this is that last sentence: “These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.”

Despite such correlation, the liberal at Slate dismisses the “woman’s body” claim as “selective use of numbers and citations” and thus “junk science.” Well, when junk journalism claims “junk science,” consider me less than persuaded. See how that type of argumentation works?

This Slate is the same publication relying on the Holmes study—which we’ve seen is flawed, unscientific, and questioned by other secular peers—for its perception of the problem. Talk about “selective use of numbers”!

I say junk science is as junk science does.

Willke’s study, which correlated with documented (not mere anecdotal) data, could conclude, “So, assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare.”

Indeed, this is nothing short of the National Right to Life’s position. Speaking of “rape, incest, and fetal abnormality” as a group, one publication notes:

First of all it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions do not happen as a result of any of these reasons. In fact, according to a study in Family Planning Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for all of these reasons combined.

If all combined account for 6 percent, then rape alone must account for far less. Thus the same publication can call rape-related pregnancy “a rare but possible occurrence.”(3)

So why neoconservatives are in knee-jerk reaction mode against this position makes no sense—if they truly are pro-life. Akin was not unwarranted in citing these claims, and conservatives should stand with them just as Akin and, according to the Wall Street Journal, Willke himself have done.

Should conservatives make an exception for even “legitimate” cases of assault rape?

Why kill the child?

Again, we expect liberals to lie, spin, and twist, but why should conservatives wage a propaganda attack against a man holding the very position of the National Right to Life on rape-related abortion? Here’s more of that position:

But while society is finally recognizing that rape is an act of violence against an innocent victim, it still fails to recognize that abortion is also an act of violence against another innocent victim. . . .

Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father. Once again the mother is pitted against her child.

Yet, the Romney-Ryan campaign, among others, could not respond fast enough to Akin’s alleged gaffe, not by criticizing the clumsy use of language, but by denying the right to life in cases of rape: “a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” That’s a categorical statement, categorically at odds with the right to life. This is a semi-pro-choice position.

Unlike the moderates on pro-choice, Akin upheld this view faithfully, even in his response to the fear-motivated uproar:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year,” Akin’s statement said.

Akin also said in the statement he believes “deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

Exactly. As emotional an issue as it is, why in the world do we think it’s acceptable to murder a child because its father committed a crime and its mother is physically and emotionally shaken?

Since when does being physically and emotionally shaken give one the right to kill someone else?

If the unborn have a right to life, from what or whom does that right derive? God? Nature? Man? We know it’s God, and nothing else. And what has the God-given authority to take away that right from an unborn child? Man? Circumstance? We know it’s nothing but God. Thus, why would we think we can determine, based on any circumstances, why one child in utero deserves that right and another does not? Again, while the thought of carrying a rapist’s child is an emotionally difficult issue, that fact does not negate the child’s God-given right to live.

And thus anyone denying that right, even in cases of rape, is not pro-life. They are worse, in fact: trying to play God by setting determinations for when that right applies and when it does not.

Thus, those neoconservatives who have blasted Akin and demand he step down have done little more than identify themselves as weak on the pro-life issue—as moderates and potential compromisers, in fact. This is an indication that a Romney admin and its bucket carriers will melt the Republican platform further into moderatism, and thus drift the nation closer to the liberal agenda.

Of course, politicians like Akin, who represent the clear contrast and strong conservatism desired by the tea party, are a real threat to the old Northeastern establishment Republicans like Romney. And thus that establishment savages him—violently and in unison. Call it a political gang rape—a legitimate one.

If more conservatives would begin to realize that the Republican party is nearly being held hostage by these establishment types—who are working hard either to co-opt or suppress the much more strongly conservative tea party types—we would see we have the numbers and power to establish real change for the good, including in the area of abortion.

And if we could just get the Todd Akins in that camp to realize that their warmongering and militarism are just as much pro-life issues as abortion, then we might really make so headway.Endnotes:

  1. Holmes et al. “Rape related pregnancy: Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996 Aug; 175(2): 322.()
  2. Holmes et al, 322.()
  3. “Olivia Gans and Mary Spaulding Balch, “When They Say. . . You Say: Defending the Pro-Life Position and Framing the Issue by the Language We Use,” National Right to Life Committee, Inc.()
Print Friendly

About the Author

Dr. Joel McDurmon

Joel McDurmon, Ph.D. in Theology from Pretoria University, is the Director of Research for American Vision. He has authored seven books and also serves as a lecturer and regular contributor to the American Vision website. He joined American Vision's staff in the June of 2008. Joel and his wife and four sons live in Dallas, Georgia.

225 Responses to Legitimate political gang rape

  1. Hadrewsky says:

    To think that it will ever become illegal to abort in the case of rape is delusional…

    Personally, I can understand the feelings and emotions behind the pro-life movement but to deny abortion in the case of rape is simply disgusting… You are creating a family that is likely to have serious problems.

    I dislike abortion and would never advocate it in my own life but I also do not think people have a right to subjugate other women at gunpoint and ram their religious views into their rear while forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term.

    Forcing and subjugating women into pro-life aims via crushing them under the boots of the law is simply contrary to liberty and giving the rights to a mass of cells without a nervous system without reason (Religion and scripture are NOT reasons to create law) is wrong… A mass of cells is not a baby.

  2. john says:

    The fact that you are trying to defend this guy’s statements would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious; actually it is sad and disgusting that you spend the entire first part of your piece with ad hominem attacks against liberals (for instance with your barney frank comment, why don’t you look at the scores of republican politicians who engage in the same indecencies, like Mr. ‘wide-stance’ Larry Craig, who was caught doing the same thing – soliciting male prostitutes – as only one of numerous examples?) without addressing the statement itself, and why it is offensive to people of all political stripes. The fact that Biden says ignorant or repulsive things has nothing to do with what this man said.
    Your solution: when someone does something repulsive, circle the wagons, and it can be “quickly and easily handled with a consolidated response correctly interpreting” the horrible statement or evil act – you are telling everyone to get in line and respond with the same rehearsed propaganda message. Sounds like the pharisees to me – what ever happened to calling out evil, no matter what the source, and standing on principle?
    I bet you respond the same way if a little girl is molested in your church.
    You basically say that we should ‘defend our own’ no matter what they do. I find your article repulsive and un-Christian, not to mention illogical and filled with errors.

  3. R. S. P. says:

    “…liberals care for even the criminals in their midst….”

    Reminds me of someone. Can’t put my finger on his ineffable name though….

  4. Bill Evans says:

    Todd Akin’s unpardonable sin was not bowing to the ‘sacred cow’ of political correctness, namely, a woman’s imaginary constitutional right to have her unborn baby murdered for virtually any reason.

  5. Bill Evans says:

    The firestorm is not about abortion. Congress cares nothing for this holocaust. This is about power. Todd Akin, an unapologetic pro-life Christian who cannot be bought was promptly thrown under the bus, by those who should be his brothers-in-arms, but like cowardly, ravenous hyennas devour their wounded. The GOP machine knows that any of the repulican primary candidates could have beaten Dem. Claire McCaskill, who is virtually joined at the hip to Chairman MAObana. But RINOs don’t want her beaten by a conservative Christian, but would rather have a RINO like themselves who will be a good lil republican, put party first, and leave behind all this foolishness about principle, and absolute truth, and a supposed Christian America. Akin could be marginalized in the larger HOUSE, but was not welcome in the ol boy club, the SENATE. They did not support him in the primary, despite his record and time on capital hill. This is the same GOP establishment that, if not stole, then rigged the nomination process. Both parties love to roast a conservative as a diversion for their own treasonous ineptitude. Akin still has a higher approval rating than congress in general. As far as Todd’s supposed stupidity is concerned, most members of congress are stupid when it comes to truth and the constitution. Most stupidly think the Federal Reserve is part of the U.S. govt., or stupidly think that a reduction in the size of the increase is a budget cut….Mark Twain said, ‘everybody is stupid, just about different things…’

  6. Marie says:

    If Akin loses in Mo. it won’t be nearly so much his fault as it is the Republican Party’s fault. If they had stood by him and supported him, he would probably still win, but they cut their own throats by throwing him under the bus. They always do that to the conservative Christian. If it had been Scott Brown, a liberal Republican who had made a gaff, they would have stood by him. The Republican Hierarchy are the fools!!!

  7. Billsey says:

    It is not really that the woman (or the body, for that matter) is trying to stop a pregnancy. Given everything that is indisputably involved in an assault rape (yes, there IS a difference; whether leftwingnuts want to admit it or not is really quite irrelevant), it, under those circumstances, is nearly impossible for the female body to get pregnant, because the nature of the event has thrown everything all higgledy-piggledy. For most people, it is hard to get pregnant when everything is perfectly set up for the occasion by a truly loving man and woman. How is it that you expect it to be easier when the woman has been brutalised, bruised, battered, stabbed and/or shot????

    Is it possible that all of you are really that stupid, or are you all just that cowardly when it comes to facing down your leftwingnut overlords? At least rent a clue!

  8. Jeannine says:

    didn’t read all the posts, but enough to wonder if anybody reads the actual statements being debated. Rep Akin never said a woman COULDN’T get pregnant from rape, and in fact his very next sentence referred to the wrongness, if she got pregnant, of killing the child for the crime of the rapist. If it’s is okay to kill a baby in the womb for the crime of a rapist, why not let the baby be born and then kill him/her? Much safer for the woman than abortion, which is a fairly risky, invasive procedure. Look up ‘legitimate’. It can mean legal, obviously not relevant here, or valid. Valid as in actual, factual, real. A case of sexual intercourse without the female’s consent, by force, coercion, fear, as opposed to the far-too-frequent cases of consensual sex where the angry, jilted, or caught (by boyfriend, spouse) woman cries rape. Remember the Duke lacrosse team case of several years ago? Something like a legitimate heir, the son who ran the business and took care of the aging parent, but wasn’t the firstborn or the one in the will. Or a legitimate child, one whose father is known, versus an equally LEGAL child of unknown parentage. As to the body dealing spontaneously with a pregnancy, Akin phrased it badly, but the intent was correct. Trauma, stress, fear, all these things have a very deleterious effect on our bodies, from initiating heart attacks to causing asthmatic episodes or a diabetic reaction. The same goes for the lining of the woman’s uterus, if indeed the rape occurs during the brief period of fertility. Anyone who has tried to conceive will be advised by an ob/gyn to reduce stress, relax, not get upset or fearful to create a better physiology for pregnancy to occur. I belief Akin’s statement was originally propagated by planned parenthood or an affiliate back in the 70s.
    Lastly, big deal! Okay, he stepped in it. Once. Out of years of political service. Can we think of anyone else who’s screwed up? Say Obama? Biden? Romney? McCain? The Obama regime would have made up something anyway, if he hadn’t said this. That’s what he’s always done. Akin is a man of principled character, honesty, strong conservative and constitutional values, who is not afraid to fight for what he believes is right, against his own party if necessary, even if politically incorrect. Isn’t that the kind of person we keep saying we want in DC? Or maybe we are actually getting exactly the type of politician we deserve.

    • Jeannine,
      The first time I heard that the uterus tends to “shut down” in the case of rape was during WWII. The media thinks this is “inflammatory,” but, actually, it meant to be comforting, and it appears to be true. In my country, Russian soldiers raped many girls, but few babies resulted from this. While this is anecdotal, I have no doubt that statistical studies can support it.

      You wrote: “Anyone who has tried to conceive will be advised by an ob/gyn to reduce stress, relax, not get upset or fearful to create a better physiology for pregnancy to occur.”

      This is crucial. There can be no doubt that the woman’s state of mind is a contributing factor in conception. For instance, in contrast to forcible rape, statutory rape often results in pregnancy, because underage girls are often physically mature, eager, and willing to be “raped.” While her consent doesn’t exempt the rapist father from criminal responsibility, is it “moral” to murder their innocent baby?

      Murder is taking an innocent life. Even so, not all murders are judged equally. Some cases are dismissed because of “justifiable” circumstances. However, just because some of the murders are justifiable, should we declare that murder is legal? Similarly, we might find exceptions when abortion is justifiable, but those cases should be judged on the individual basis. They do not change the fact that abortion is murder.

      There are many ways to defend Todd Akin’s statement, event tough it is controversial. Therefore, I’m sickened that he rushed to apologize, and he apologized repeatedly ever since. What for? That did not make the media, and the quasi-conservative elements in the Republican Party love him more, but it made his followers disappointed. It is difficult to defend him now. What is his present position? He said: “The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold.” Let’s hope so.

  9. virginian says:

    As a conservative, I found this a stupid article supporting Akin.
    Hasn’t anyone here heard of “ethnic cleansing?” — the whole thing is predicated on rape.
    How many Chinese/Japanese babies were born as a result of the “rape of Nanking” for example.

  10. Eric I says:

    >>But liberals hate both the idea that some alleged “rapes” are not “rape” in the true sense, and the fact that because this is so, the statistics of rape and pregnancy are not as high as they would like to claim.

    Not just liberals sir. By throwing Mr. Akins under the bus, that group evidently includes the folks in republican party who just tolerate the social conservatives within their ranks. They want our votes but are embarrassed by our beliefs.

  11. gray man says:

    August 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    ““If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” there is nothing false in that statement. This isn’t offensive to me and I was conceived in an 8 men rape.”

    So you believe that women who are raped cannot get pregnant even though you were conceived during rape? Were you dropped on your head as a child?

    no you moron, he said the body has ways to TRY, not that it always succeeds. If you don’t understand basic english or comprehend sentences maybe you shouldn’t criticize.

  12. I’m surprised that most of these comments are about whether “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” is scientifically true or not. What does this have to do with anything? If all the politicians who ever made a scientifically unproven statement should withdraw from politics, Washington would be a ghost town. What about the global warming crowd? What about the statement that “women never lie about rape”? Are these proven scientific facts?

    We know that politicians are not scientists; they rely on sources. Todd Akin did not name his source; and thus, he put the blame for this entire gaffe on his own head.

    McDurmon wrote:

    “Akin was likely relying on the work of physician and former National Right to Life president John C. Willke, who wrote a three part series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy” (3 parts), National Right to Life News, July 17, August 21, and October 9, 1986. This series is condensed at the website of Physicians for Life.”

    If this is true, why did he not say so? Why did he apologize? How many people in this country know that Akin quoted from a definite source, and that this whole “theory” did not come out of his own head? Let the writers of this “study” defend their position if it is true, or suffer the blows if it is false.

    Most of the time, I blame the Republicans for not defending their wounded. Mr. Akin appears to be a good Christian man, and I wish they would not attack him. But I’m sorry to say, it is difficult to defend a politician who does not give his Party even a tiny ground for defense.

    • gray man says:

      Maria, just curious, do you remember the source of every bit of information you have ever heard in your life? No? Then your argument is nonsense. If anyone asked him his source I am unaware of it.

      • gray man,
        If you are a serious writer or running for public office, and if you are giving information from a scientific study, you better remember where it came from. Even if Mr. Akin didn’t remember his source at the time he said it, he could have dug it up later, before he apologized. His apology was a big mistake, in my opinion. It did not help him, and it did not help the right to life movement.
        I did not write my comment to criticize Mr. Akin or to glee over his situation. I think this is tragic, but—at least—we should learn something from it. I think we never should apologize, unless we have a good reason for it. We should not give ammunition to our enemies unnecessarily.
        Todd Akin believes in the right to be born, and whatever he said—on the basis of a scientific study—supports this belief. I don’t think he should ask “forgiveness” for this.

  13. Brandon. says:

    And don’t forget. 31 state have it so the rapist can have custody and visitation rights to the child.

    Moms must love when their rapist comes over and they need to hand over their child by law to the man who raped her, for a fun weekend with daddy.

    • gray man says:

      Just for clarity’s sake, just because it is possible by law for rapists to get visitation rights, does not mean that they actually get them, it is done on a case by case basis depending on the circumstance.

  14. TooLongInTheSun says:

    Geez…talk about stupid…from your responses and ensuing dialog, it does not appear as if many of you even bothered to take the time to read the article before spouting off in a brilliant display of your ignorance… Todd Akin is much smarter than most of you may think he is…and most of you are not half as smart as you think you are…. Please do us all the favor (that is, after you remove your feet from your mouth) of reading an article, before making comments about it…

  15. TommyG says:

    The GOP country club establishment types are idiots. Akin was ambushed by a gotcha question and he didn’t give a clearly enunciated answer. So you crucify him for it?!?!? When are the Republicans going to grow a backbone? By doing what they did, they just played into what the Democrats want them to do. I applaud Akin for not getting out. If he loses the seat, it will be because what the GOP did to him, not what he said. The overreaction by the elitists plays into the narrative that what Akin did was tantamount to actually committing a rape! I used to give money to the GOP, but not anymore. Until they grow a backbone and fight fire with fire, that can count on me not giving any support. I’ll hold my nose and vote GOP, but that’s about it.

  16. Scott C says:

    Todd Akin made some incredibly stupid, moronic and insensitive remarks that are indefensible. He subsequently compounded the situation by claiming that the liberal media was attempting to force him out of the race when the liberal media and Claire McCaskill are the only ones that want him to stay in. He’s an embarrassment to his constituency and the best thing that he can do now is step down because he has no chance of winning. John Brunner was leading in the polls up until the primary and has the best chance of beating McCaskill; that’s who should be running. If it weren’t for McCaskill’s minions that voted for Akin in the primary, Brunner would be running, there would be no controversy, and we’d all be better off.

    • gray man says:

      “Todd Akin made some incredibly stupid, moronic and insensitive remarks that are indefensible.”
      Actually the stupid morons that refused to let him clarify what he said, and in fact did no research of their own, just reacted emotionally, are the ones who are indefensible. I think you fit in that category Scott.

  17. Sean says:

    Joel, You may very well be the most deluded and potentially stupidest person I have ever heard.
    -First to make assumptions that someone will file a police report about being raped just to get an abortion… You are a sick human being.
    -Are you aware that pregnancy often occurs AFTER a women has ovulated, that means her body has already released the ovum, following this her fallopian tubes have no way of reversing this process, so if raped during her time of ovulation, there is a remarkably high rate of pregnancy.
    -You are making an assumption that all men are equally likely to rape someone, you say 15% of men are sterile. Now you have to then qualify this as to wy they are sterile, if sterile because of hypogonadism and reduced testosterone, the are also likely less agressive and unable to obtain erection and therefore unable to rape someone, i’m goin to go out on a limb here and make assumptions (why not, you are filled with worthless assumptions throughout your worthless misogynistic and hopelessly uninformed article) and say that most rapists are not people with hypogonadism, hypospadia, severe diabetes, severe peripheral vascular disease, etc.
    -Where do you get your figure that 1/4 of women are either already pregnant or on birth control? Also you would have to figure out the actual demographics of women who are most likely to be forced into sexual intercourse and then find out how many of them are actually sterilized, and further you are likely making an assumption that every women on oral contraceptive is 100% compliant with her pills, when in truth if anyone were to miss even one pill she could ovulate, so therefore where is you error bias in that issue?
    -Do you really think a woman is not intelligent enough to differential between vaginal penetration and not when she is raped? Do you really think that when polled about rape and resultant pregnancy that a women thought “yes he forcibly put his penis only in my mouth and then 3 months later I found out I was pregnant, it must have been from that.” Come on, you have to be kidding me.
    That that you are so deluded is sad. That you are passing off this information as some sort of scientifically research fact is subversive and wrong.
    Regardless of how many women become pregnant from rape, your thoughts are that even those “incredibly rare” few who do get pregnant should be forced to endure the emotional trauma associated with being now forced to carry this horrible human being’s child to term; essentially ensuring that his rapist genes are allowed to carry on and on, all the while being forced to relieve that experience every time she sees her pregnant body, and be forced to see her rapists face and relive that moment every time she sees her child.
    Here is a thought for you, how about instead of trying to decry rape victims as cry babies, which is what you are essentially doing. How about you support them. I have a great compromise for you. For every woman who is raped and gets pregnant, you get to have some power hungry sad excuse for a man drug you in a bar and anally penetrate you. Based on your fuzzy math this should work out for you, I mean women essentially can’t get pregnant from rape right?

    • gray man says:

      Are you saying women never file false rape reports? Talk about stupid and nieve’.
      If you would do a little research yourself (you know about 5 seconds worth) you would know that less then 5% of raped women become pregnant.

      “Do you really think a woman is not intelligent enough to differential between vaginal penetration and not when she is raped? Do you really think that when polled about rape and resultant pregnancy that a women thought “yes he forcibly put his penis only in my mouth and then 3 months later I found out I was pregnant, it must have been from that.” Come on, you have to be kidding me.That that you are so deluded is sad.
      What is sad is your moronic comment, no one said or implied what you just wrote.

  18. InPrayer says:

    Too much anger and judgement! No wonder “legitimate rape” too often goes unreported! If only men could be impregnated!

  19. Jerry says:

    Yes, he made stupid remark, plain and simple. But the problem lies with those such as Coulter who claim to believe in individual freedoms and free speech. Or do they just believe in these things when it suits them. There is little difference between most of the Democrats and the Republicans, both are corrupt and except for a few such as Bachmann most could care less about the American people or America itself.

  20. SoliderForTruth says:

    Thank you for this article. This is the first time I have seen his comment in context. Since I do not have cable, the only news I have seen on the internet about this was that he said “legitimate rape.” I was appalled when I read those words. But now that I see it in context, I see he is upholding legitimate rape, and a woman’s body’s response to the tragic ordeal, NOT diminishing a woman’s claim to rape.
    And for a lot of you on here claiming Akin is stupid, did you read this article??? This article proves with scientific facts what Akin was trying to convey. And he did not claim it is impossible for a raped woman to get pregnant, he said it was rare, as the facts in this article show.
    Sure he used incorrect wording, he should have said assault rape. But Biden runs around opening his mouth and spews forth much worse things than this. And what happens? It gets swept under the carpet.
    LORD, this nonsense cannot go on much longer. Please come for us. We are waiting.

    • You are right. This article explains Todd Akin’s words in context. Too bad Mr. Akin did not clarify his own statement but panicked and apologized. He should not be blamed for quoting a scientific study, stating that “Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. “
      The point is that we should not make national policy by bringing up extremely rare cases. And it is not the baby’s fault that his father is a rapist. Why should the baby get the death penalty?

  21. Doug Hazel says:

    This is terrifying. Your lack of logic is appalling in every sense. It is hard to know where to begin. Remember God is Love. All you people are so full of hate and prejudice. Jesus wouldn’t recognize any of you as Christians. Take off your blinders and read the Bible without prejudice…. you are using Jesus as a rationale for your lack of compassion,education and understanding. I truly feel sorry for you and will pray tonight that God releases your blinders.

  22. Drew says:

    I see two major problems with the “list of consideration” math:

    1) “A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3-6 days of a 30-day month…”

    But sperm can fertilize an egg up to 5 days inside a woman, so 3-6 days should really be 8-11 days.

    2) “Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy…”

    Adding this to the equation is a logical error. The length it takes a couple to achieve a pregnancy is based on the factors already in the equation (fertility rates of the couple, the length of the woman’s fertile period each month, etc). You’re essentially factoring in variables you’ve already factored in.

    If you fix these two logic mistakes the numbers go up. However, the fact that your math is bad doesn’t really matter though, you’re all still fools.

  23. carcomad says:

    Don’t worry, he won’t get pregnant. His body will “shut that whole thing down”.

  24. jj says:

    Given that Akin and his supporters are reading from a “moral” code to life that includes such memorable laws as:

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ESV / 19

    “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

    Is it any wonder that these fundamentalists think the way they do? The Bible says all sorts of horrible, immoral things, thank God we don’t live in a theocracy where if our daughters are raped, we sell them to the rapist for silver. Disgusting.

    • Beth says:

      Yes, I love the way the right wingnuts pick and choose which Bible verses to use as their armor. If they’d only stick to the teachings of Jesus, they’d be a lot more tolerable.

  25. RightWingLiberal says:

    What a load a malarkey.

  26. Don Confalone says:

    Not only can she not abort the baby, she must marry the rapist, right? Let the truth be heard, don’t be afraid.

  27. iowamom says:

    This isn’t a surprise. The establishment republicans didn’t want Akin to be the candidate during the primary. Since he won in spite of their attempts to stop him, they were thrilled to have this opportunity. Of course they are going to “turn” on him. They were never for him in the first place.
    What’s pathetic is they would rather put up some half-baked establishment candidate who won’t win (in the same vein as Romney) rather than someone that people can trust and can actually vote *for*. And all of this when taking back the Senate is imperative.

    • RightWingLiberal says:

      The republican party is what’s pathetic. They lost any credibility when buybull thumping teabaggers hijacked the party and ran to the furthest right wing extreme ever ensuring moderates won’t ever vote for them again. This is nothing new though. Remember the Whig Party?

  28. Lori says:

    “But this simply does not comport with what we Christians know…”

    I would not know you were a Christian from this article. Where is Christ in your article? A pastor this past week spoke of the tendency of some to use Jesus as not much more than a mascot in their word-wars. I can see that here. Jesus as your mascot, not your example. I’m a Christian, you do not speak for me or “we” at all.

    • RightWingLiberal says:

      I wish more moderate, rational, christians would speak up and louder to let the rest of us, the non christians, know that these extremists don’t represent the average christian’s views.

      • Lori says:

        I no longer identify as conservative or Republican and have never been part of the extreme religious right (or even the leaning religious right), and I correct anyone who mistakenly refers to me as an “Evangelical.” I’m a Christian, though. I was actually in the process of giving up on church completely, so disgusted with the christianists and the dominionists–but then I decided to take it back. It belongs to me, too, they don’t get to hoard it or spew it out as something unrecognizable. We don’t follow the same teachings anyway–their god is apparently a puny angry thing who needs constant defending. Beyond the political religious right are so many churches and people who actually follow the teachings of Christ and try to make the world a good place for the poor and marginalized. I try to find them online and in my community because things like THIS (above) happen so frequently now, and they are actually lately getting easier to find. Maybe they’ve always been loud, but now I’m adding my voice. Hopefully we’ll all just get louder.

  29. Neo-Theonomist_12 says:

    FYI – Akin is now down 10 Points in an election he should be leading by 10 Points.

    Why? It has nothing to do with the issue of being Pro-Life in the cases of Rape and everything to do with saying something Idiotic and Offensive about there being “Real Legitimate Rape” and other not so legitimate Rape.

    Of course as anyone knows, McDurmon doesn’t care about Electoral Politics, or Akin or the Pro-Life issue on this subject. He wants to Divide and Conquer the GOP and hopes for a Societal Collapse.

  30. Harry Theo says:

    Doug Wilson on the Evils of Joel McDurmons favorite Anarchist: Ron Paul who prefers we legalize the Abortion Pill and have Rape Victims free to Kill their babies in the womb and as he’s wrote at length about any “Very early pregnancy”


    “In response to this question, Ron Paul said that a woman who is raped should go to an emergency room immediately, and get a shot of estrogen, which would prevent the implantation of a conceived child in the uterine wall. Further, he said that he would administer that shot of estrogen. Piers Morgan, astonished, said that he thought Ron Paul believed life begins at conception. Ron Paul said that he did, but that we don’t know at that point whether the woman is pregnant.

    This, in effect, was saying that if we don’t know if someone is living in a room then it must be okay to fill it up with poison gas. This example might seem beside the point because, if we did that, we would eventually have to carry a dead body out. But, in the case of this small victim, nobody ever needs to know. But, speaking frankly, and just between us, “nobody need ever know” is not exactly a pro-life rallying cry.”

  31. Mia Nameah says:

    You’re comparing a guy having other criticism his opinion with someone being gang raped?

    Being criticized for one’s opinion is NOT the same as having multiple people force themselves upon you sexually, potentially causing disease, internal damage, pregnancy, an inability to have children due to damage to the uterus, a lifetime of emotional trauma, among other things. One would hope Mr. Akin or anyone else would never experience such a thing. But it does happen. And it’s much worse than having someone call you stupid.

    • RightWingLiberal says:

      The irony of the title isn’t lost on me either. The author of this article is of the most questionable intelligence indeed. Even attempting to rationalize such stupidity is just as stupid.

  32. Olivia says:

    I know this is a futile endeavor since none of you care to hear what I have to say anyway, but since this article almost made me slam my head into my desk in anger and sadness I just have a few questions:

    1. Basically the author is saying that Akin shouldn’t be thrown under the bus because he was just distinguishing between types of rape (awful…if you don’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed to speak about rape) and, of course, because some women might lie about rape to get an abortion. Of course, some women might lie about being raped. But like, two. The vast majority of rapes actually go unreported because guess what? Rape is still so stigmatized as the victim’s fault in this culture that, believe me, NOBODY wants to report being raped, especially if they don’t have to. It changes your life. And nobody conspires to murder their “unborn children” (i think you mean fetus), abortion is also a decision that is taken extremely seriously and usually made out of economic or health necessity. So to deny these things and just assume rape victims who abort are lying sluts is completely awful and misogynistic.

    2. I respect everyone’s right to practice their religion and hold their own beliefs about abortion. The great thing about being pro-choice is that you have the option of CHOOSING….and a lot of Christian women will choose to keep their unplanned pregnancies and not abort, for reasons I listed above. But you need to understand, we live in a democracy that is based on religious freedom. You cannot impose your religious views on others who don’t share them, even if what they are doing seems wrong, if they aren’t actively harming your liberties. Sorry. If you want a theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia.

    I respect everyone’s opinion on abortion, but I don’t respect articles like these that demonize women and correlate a white male in power to having been gang raped politically. That is disgusting, and frankly, quite unchristian.

    • Beth says:

      Thank you, Olivia. You said what I WANTED to say but in a much more eloquent manner.

    • Neo-Theonomist_12 says:

      Some of us don’t think Joel actually believes what he wrote, he wouldn’t be a huge Paul fan if he did.

  33. Gary DeMar says:

    I wonder if some of those who are commenting read Joel’s article.

    • R. Scott says:

      Are you kidding? That would require reason vs. emotionalism.
      You need to get more in-touch with your feminine side.
      Then, you can obtain the rank of Reactionary.

      • Beth says:

        R. Scott: That is a very insulting comment to all women. You are obviously a white male republican. Figures.

    • Neo-Theonomist_12 says:


      Have you read American Vision News lately? Or as I’d call it: “American Pravda”?

      • Gary DeMar says:

        I didn’t know we were talking about American Vision News. I thought we were dealing with Joel’s article on the Akin issue. Maybe you need to read Joel’s book “Biblical Logic.”

  34. Dan says:

    Great. We have one idiot (Joel) supporting another idiot (Akin). Christian conservative men – the American version of the Taliban. Once they’re done taking away womens’ choices about their bodies, perhaps they will then ask them to not work and cover themselves in proper dress?

    • Beth says:

      Over my dead body! But I get your point–this is indeed a slippery slope.

    • Neo-Theonomist_12 says:

      Except Joel went out of his way to spread Propaganda to this day for Ron Paul: Who is on the Polar Opposite side of this particular Issue as Akin.

  35. Beth says:

    What gives any of you the right to tell me that I have to carry a pregnancy to term? You republicans are all the time screaming that you want less government in your private lives, yet you insist on making MY body YOUR business. Roe v. Wade has saved thousands, maybe millions, of lives of women who once had to resort to back-alley abortions. It made abortion SAFER, not more frivolous. If it were to be overturned (which it will not be), this country would be back in the dark ages and no doubt your loved ones would be affected in some way. Or do you think you’re immune to unwanted pregnancies, no matter how they occur?

    • R. Scott says:


      The last time I checked we still have freedom of speech/press, in this country.

      Why so much intolerance of others’ views? Why is your speech filled with so much HATE and mean-spirited defensiveness? Can you not love others? Be a loving person, okay? No one is forcing you to do anything, here.

      If you take the notion to ram a stick into your eye, I would be the first to defend your right, to do so. I think it would be rather dumb! But, if that is your pleasure, go for it! I will applaud your right to do whatever you please, to your own body. But, what you do to your eye and what you do to another human being (like a baby in the womb) deserves mindful consideration; not emotional ranting.

      • Olivia says:

        Yo dude–
        Freedom of speech doesn’t mean she has to listen politely to what the menfolk say, and don’t criticize her for being “emotional.” Are you kidding me? Yes, women are emotional over this, because guess what? It’s frustrating that a bunch of rich white guys are making laws governing our reproductive organs. Abortion is a complicated issue and I understand you see a fetus as an unborn person. But guess what? Women are actual, already born, living people, and pro-lifers sometimes forget that. Why do they matter less than a fetus? To be clear, abortions don’t happen out of “convenience.” Why someone would want to force a child into the world when, say, a mother knows she can’t take care of that child, is beyond me.

      • R. Scott says:


        I’m just not feeling the love, here.

    • Beth says:

      R. Scott: that’s not hatred you see, that is pure unadulterated passion. You, as a male, should be automatically excluded from having any say about what a woman can and cannot do to her own body. Until men can become pregnant, they are not allowed to participate in the anti-choice movement. Or at least they shouldn’t be.

    • gray man says:

      the whole “back alley abortion” argument is nonsense.

  36. Tammy says:

    So many comments I’m probably repeating someone. “Great Article” I think this situation shows that the GOP big wigs aren’t really pro-life they are pro-choice. The GOP is going down hill fast and it’s time to support pro-life candidates not the party.

  37. Todd Akin could easily nip this in the bud by saying that by “legitimate” rape he meant to distinguish between true rape and false claims of rape. He could say that he honestly believed that in cases of true rape, pregnancy is extremely rare. He could say that we must not make national policies by bringing up extremely rare cases. Some people might violently disagree with this, but no one could call him stupid.

    The problem is that Mr. Akin panicked and apologized. It is difficult to defend a politician who cannot defend himself.

    Generally, Christian conservatives are not politically savvy. Christians are not trained to fight with wolves. But when Christians enter politics, they must straighten their spines, because they are not fighting for themselves, but for the righteousness of Christ. This should make them not only resolute and heroic, but even shrewd.

    On the other side, there are people who fight for the right to contraceptives, abortion, and sterilization on demand. On this side, there are people who fight for the right to be born. This is a clear issue. There is no need for apology on our side!

  38. I liked this part and had myself a great little Southern Hee Haw: “We expect leftists, liberals, and other miscreants to pounce opportunistically, to lie, cheat, and twist (all the while drooling) over a phrase like “legitimate rape” when uttered by a strong conservative Christian politician. But should we expect the same from alleged conservatives?

    We no longer have a conservative party my friends, it no longer existed the moment when the drooling over and support of Willard Romulus Rohm Romanius Assimus III began, we do not exist, conservatism is dead dead dead!

    The seconds following Willard the Rats unbelievable interview where he himself said that he would install Muslims into our courts as Judges, in Schools as Teachers and into his administration he proved that Joseph Smith wasn’t kidding when he said he would be the 2cd Muhammad and he still kept his support, conservatism died, except of course for those who do not, but that is now another party all of it’s self.

    He went on to say he would pass a bill that would build Islamic Charter Schools for Muslims never minding of course the old extinct adage of you must assimilate into our Nation and that damn well means our schools!!!!

    So…I can see why supposedly Conservatives are attacking Akin, it’s simply because they are not Conservatives!

    • Arrow says:

      You are absolutely correct. People get really mad at you when you point out that the Republican Party has become far-left liberal. But that is what George W. Bush was, as well as John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan. But people listen to brainwashers like Limbaugh and Hannity, who repeat over and over the words “conservative” and “Republican” as though they are synonymous, thousands and thousands of times, and cannot see reality. Likewise, the constant refrain of Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama has created the illusion that he is somehow worse than the Republicans when in actuality their policies are identical.

  39. gray man says:

    August 22, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    You don’t think it is stupid to say women cannot get pregnant from being raped?
    No Dave,
    The one who is stupid is the person who thinks he said that. That’s not what he said.

  40. stanchaz says:

    “Legitimate” rape??
    If the Republicans win, the rich will abort Medicare and Social Security,
    as they rape this COUNTRY….”legitimately”.
    Lyin’ Ryan and More-mon-ey Romney are the Conservative Caviar Candidates.
    They’re the DREAM team for the super-rich – they want it ALL!
    But they’re the NIGHTMARE team for seniors, the middle-class , women’s rights, students receiving Pell grants, and the rest of us who are struggling …. while the big corporations send jobs and profits overseas, and the super-rich like Romney avoid paying their fair share.
    Romney-Ryan can fool some of the people some of the time.
    But no more – we’re ON to you guys!

    • Bustleton1 says:

      We’re on to you too lib; and particularly to your Kenyan-born, muslim, socialist President. At least not much longer for him as he will be retired in November.

      • d hazel says:

        Bustleton, you are a sad and ignorant person. Obama was not born in Kenya. He is not a muslim. Who are you? Surely not a Christian in the sense that most of the world recognizes Christianity. You are a bigot. A sad, ignorant bigot.

      • bustleton1 says:

        D hazel; truth hurts don’t it? I am 10 times the Christian than our so-called President that you defend. You are either a fool or part of the fraud; whatever. You’re defending the likes of this man by calling me a bigot; I will wear as a badge of honor! Thank you.

    • gray man says:

      d hazel
      August 23, 2012 at 6:04 pm
      Bustleton, you are a sad and ignorant person. Obama was not born in Kenya. He is not a muslim.

      d hazel, you are the sad and ignorant: obummer made claims to both being born in Kenya, and being a muslim. You are defending a liar.

  41. Barry Reese says:

    I read this article at the suggestion of a longtime friend who happens to have had an abortion as a younger woman, and has since come to believe the right to life position. In the 21 years plus that I’ve known her, neither she nor any other person espousing right to life views has been able to explain to me what good bringing unborn children to term, be they conceived in love or by force, does society as a whole when humanity is plagued with already living people who want to work but can’t find jobs, would like to live indoors but are homeless, would like to feed their children but are essentially told that God’s will dictate they starve.

    Show me the respect and concern for the plight of the already living, or concern for potential life, whenever it starts, is so much hypocrisy.

    • R. Scott says:

      Man is not God.

      God, alone, gives life. God, alone, owns the right, or authorizes the right from Scripture, to take life away.

      All reason comes from God. The natural man’s mind will always struggle to get it.

  42. Juliette says:

    What’s the big deal? When he gets pregnant the gang rape was not legitimate, just a loving relationship gone wrong. And if he doesn’t it means his body just shut down. Anyway one looks at it, no support for Akin!

  43. R. Scott says:

    Kudos go to Romney, Ryan, Bond, Danforth, Palin, etc., for showing their true liberal colors, dividing their liberal Party, and handing-over the White House to four more years of Obama and the DNC:RNC-Lose:Lose political machine.

    It is all quite laughable, really!

    True conservatives better wake up.

    Protest the DNC:RNC. Vote third party!

  44. Bustleton1 says:

    Akin by his ridiculous comments is just too stupid to be US Senator; he makes all conservatives look bad, and he threatens our ability to take back the US Senate from Obama’s playmates-God forbid if he helps Obama against Romney. He must go-period!! Lastly, since he accepted campaign funds from Missouri Democrats in his primary race, I am beginning to question as are some others if Akin’s self-destruction was a planned inside job to deliberately hurt the GOP? This should be investigated.

    • R. Scott says:

      “hurt” the GOP? The GOP is nearly as corrupt as the Jackass Party.
      It is already beyond “hurt” and has been for a good 30 years, at least.
      Let’s put the diseased elephant out of its misery and move onto something, better.
      New wine put into such an old, fouled-up wine skin is a waste of time, talent, and treasure.

      • Juliette says:

        New wine? Its the same old energy…greed and discrimination… and it belongs in the old wine skin.

        Why don’t all you biblical folk start asking for integrity in the political system?

  45. Bud and Nancy Williams says:

    Our family was quite disappointed in the lack of support for Mr. Akin by members of his own party. Yes, we understand that he made a poor word choice (for which he has apologized). But, yes, his comments were also taken out of context. And, despite the fact that “higher-up” Republicans are trying to pressure Mr. Akin to withdraw from this senatorial campaign (via so-called deadlines), his loyal office has issued this courageous statement: “THE ONLY DEADLINE IS … NOVEMBER.”

  46. tsam says:

    Well, since it’s a “legitimate” rape, at least Akin won’t get pregnant.

    • gray man says:

      Do you really not understand what he ment? I think the stupid person lives in your mirror, go look for him.

      • Arrow says:

        Gray man,

        I think Akins remarks were pretty accurate factually, when analyzed. I think they were politically stupid. The challenge is to find a way to speak the truth without compromise in a way that is tactful.

        If your wife tries on a dress that makes her look fat and asks you how it looks, you can say “it makes you look like a fatso”, or you can say “it’s a bad dress, it does not fit you well”.

        Akin said, in effect, “you look like a fat pig in that dress”. Nothing wrong with his principles, but pretty bad politics. I’ll take principle over politics any day, but you see what happens.

  47. CajunPatriot says:

    Decisions have to be made on an individual basis about for whom to vote. I do not know of a Democrat candidate running for office anywhere where I have family or know anyone who is a candidate I would support or vote for. Then we are left with Republican and other candidates. Most Republicans I cannot vote for because they are statists and most do not have true Christian core values. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia does, his predecessor Rep. Charlie Norwood, a dear family friend, did. There are others who have core Christian values. This criteria I offer to all Christians who are considering a candidate for office, whether it is for local, regional, state, or national office.

    1. Will the candidate reject any bill or any policy which is not in agreement with the Word of God?
    2. Will the candidate reject any bill or any policy which is not in agreement with the U.S. Constitution?
    3. Will the candidate reject any bill or any policy which is not in agreement with the constituency he/she represents.
    If #1 rule is satisfied, then go on to #2 and #3. I did not originate this evaluation, Dr. Paul Broun did. It reminds me of the time a pollster asked me why the matter of anti-abortion was so important to me. I responded that I was not anti-abortion, I was pro-life. If anyone stumbled on this point, there was nothing else to discuss. If they were pro-life also, then we can get to other matters such as border security, cutting out government programs, lowering taxes, decreasing the power of government, appointing just judges that are “originalists,” foreign policy, and all the rest. But if I agree with you on all the rest and we cannot agree on life, what do I have? no life, no other matters to discuss.

  48. Tmf says:

    the term legitimate rape was first used by the Guttmacher Institute — the very people instrumental in the formation of planned parenthood — in 1973. They also concured that a pregnancy will rarely occur from such a rape. How interesting it is, that a conservative uses the very terms coined by the uber liberal organization and he gets lynched

  49. Winghunter says:

    Excellent explanation of the entire situation.

    An important reminder:

    “If liberty is worth keeping and free representative government worth saving, we must stand for all American fundamentals—not some, but all. All are woven into the great fabric of our national well-being. We cannot hold fast to some only, and abandon others that, for the moment, we find inconvenient. If one American fundamental is prostrated, others in the end will surely fall.” – Albert Beveridge 1862 to 1927

  50. Smitty says:

    Since demographics is what drives the economy, I believe that biggest source of the economic problem is the abomination of law passed by seven, unelected, bigoted, immoral, liberal supreme court justices called Row v. Wade. Since the passing of this law FROM THE BENCH, over 56 million little, defenseless babies had their heads crushed and their brains sucked out just because women could not keep their legs crossed, because some found that having a baby was inconvenient or because Planned Parenthood talked people into abortion in order to increase their profits. (They should NOT receive federal funds.)
    Roe v. Wade was passed in January 1973, so those aborted would have been 0 to 39 years old. They would have required that schools were built, roads were updated, required a larger energy grid and that at least 20 million more homes/apartments were built. They would have gotten married, had children, raised families, bought a house or rented an apartment, bought clothes, bought food, bought refrigerators, computers, cell phones, books, washers, dryers, dish washers, furniture and many more products that would have caused more factories to be built to manufacture these products and more stores to sell them in.
    Now, because of Roe v. Wade, we have had over four years of recession with no sign of an end. In fact, we are looking forward to ten to twenty years of more of the same.
    To fix the problem, we need to reverse Roe v. Wade and it would help to instill better morals in all our citizens. GOD is punishing us through the use of simple economics. The application of Keynesian economics IS NOT the solution!

  51. Jacqueline Owens says:

    I am so glad to have read this article, I agree totally, and I am ashamed of the GOP cannibalism. I pray that Mr. Aiken will win by a wide margin, and then perhaps he should put the GOP on notice, that since they did not support him, he will not give them a block vote, but they will have to come to him to ask for his vote on their agenda. If there were another place to go I would leave the GOP over this, but I can never be a Democrat, and I have always looked upon independents as a nebulous group of people who cannot commit to a set of principals, sort of like loose canons.

  52. alex alexander says:

    Every time I read this there are fewer and fewer comments.
    And where’s Bo?
    I’m going to join him…

  53. alex alexander says:

    Hmmm. What was it that Whoopi Goldberg said a while back?
    Oh yeah, I remember: “It wasn’t rape-rape.”
    According to ethics expert Whoopi, there’s rape… and there’s (real) rape.
    The fact that’ Whoopi is black, female, famous, and a Democrat supporter is ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY irrelevant to the way the media gave her a pass on that.
    The fact that Todd Akin is white, male, (now) infamous, and a Republican is, I am sure, absolutely and completely irrelevant to the way Mitt Romney has *issed on him from a very great height.
    Alex A
    NB: “piss” is a biblical word.

    • gray man says:

      I don’t like Whoopi, but at least she was smart enough to know that just because something is classified as rape, doesn’t meen it is all the same, there are differences. Something a lot of morons who want to rip Akins to shreds don’t seem to grasp.

  54. Michael says:

    How can the Republicans wage a war on women, when the Republican are all vaginas? I would have used the other word, but perhaps VAGINA, is more acceptible?

  55. Anthony Orwell says:

    It amazes me that Akin is being defended and that the article uses the analogy of gang rape to defend him against conservatives. There is no end to which people will defend their own political identities.

  56. Daniel from TN says:

    Okay, Akin put his foot in his mouth. Name me a politicain who hasn’t at least once. A single gaffe should not require him to drop out of the race. Has anyone looked at his voting record? Is anyone aware of what ELSE he stands for? Check those before demanding he drop out of the race. BTW. Akin has apologized for the comment. I’m going to leave this discussion with two quotes.
    The first is from the Bible and is well known. A group of people brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus wanting his approval to stone her, the required penalty at that time. Jesus agreed that she should be stoned but made an interesting comment; “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
    The second quote is my own statement I’ve made several times over the years. It is based on personal observations. “A good leader is not determined by IF he (or she) makes a mistake; but what he does AFTER he makes a mistake.

    America or obama this November! You can’t have both!

  57. Anthony Orwell says:

    It amazes me that Akin is being defending. None less using the analogy of gang rape to defend him. This is pretty amazing that personal identification of one’s politics can shield them form the realities of the world.

  58. Ken Griffith says:

    I have an unmarried friend, who is a Presbyterian, who was raped at a bus stop in a foreign country last year, and conceived.

    She carried the child to term, God bless her, and has the full support of her parents.

    Your arguments (and Akin’s) that conception from forcible rape is rare – IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Because it happens.

    The correct answer is that a child is not to be condemned for the crime of her father. And a woman who has been raped has enough troubles without adding the emotional burden of murdering her own child on top of everything else.

    My friend who had the baby is enjoying motherhood, despite the horrible circumstances under which she became a mother.

  59. ABUTOM says:


  60. john cummins says:

    These, “alleged conservatives like Ann Coulter, Scott Brown, the Romney-Ryan campaign, and the RNC itself. “We’re not associated with him!”” are merely RHINOs and we need to hunt them down nationally as we have started in Tennessee already: http://www.icontact-archive.com/FEgdUq2-3KhVnIWd7rSXv34sAAn50kkO?w=4

    • Daniel from TN says:

      PLEASE tell me Lamar Alexander is on that list of people to be replaced. Alexander represented the people of Tennessee well when first elected to the Senate. However, in the past two or three years he has definitely become a RINO. I wonder if he plans to make another run for the White House and is trying to gain the favor of the Republican establishment. I believe when he is ready to run he will find the TEA Party has taken control of the Republican Party: The TEA Party will not support Alexander at that time.

      America or obama this November! You can’t have both!

  61. MillicentO says:

    The Republicans think Scott Akin has “political leprosy”. He made an uninformed statement and has since apologized for his “medical error”. I wish I was a Missouri voter, I would still vote for a pro-lifer like him, who was willing to admit his mistake. The rest of his record looks OK to me. He would be sacrificed by normally logical conservatives (well, all except the congressional elite) for the “good of the party”. PHOOEY!

  62. Wil Johnson says:

    Medical science indicates that Akin has a point. Further, law enforcement of false claims is not prosecuted enough to make a differntial to the point. This world of judgment, political correctness, for those who follow the bible, is a sin, in false witness. Christains do nothing but shake thier fist at GOD with this kind of crap. Yet you are told that justice is in the hand of GOD, and not yours to deliberate. Therefore every judgment you make you will be held accountable for willing or not. You claim Jesus was all about forgiveness, your actions,are the reason Jesus gave up and committed suicide!

  63. reggiec says:

    Was Aken’s statement clumsy and illadvised? Yes, but it is a perfect example of the idiotic political correctness insanity supported by both sides. It has got to the point that just about any time a person makes a statement if they do not want to be villified, they need to spent five times the time it took to make the statement explaining what they meant exactly and then supplying supporting studies and refferences to support that statement. Stray even a bit from the form and content of the approved talking points of your party and stand by for massive critisism.

  64. Tionico says:

    Joel Mc Durmon, thanks SO much for gathering this all together in one place. I KNEW he was right, understood his intended meaning, and have thought his pillorying at the hands of media and the GOP party hacks to be appalling.

    Send a copy of this article to Todd Akin, to the Missouri State Republican Party, to TEA party leaders in MO… oh, and send one to that dinosaur hot-shot Ann Coulter.. I THINK she can still read…… whether she will or not, well, another matter altogether.
    Oh, and send a copy to Tad Cronn, over at Politican Outcast… he needs to read this, after his article on Akin being out to destroy the GOP, perhaps bought off by the Obama campaign. Seems their address is the same as AV……..

  65. Dan Frascella says:

    The actions of the “conservatives” do not suprise me given their looking the other way when our president is violating the Constitutional requirement of separation of powers almost on a weekly basis; entering executive orders, laws and directives. Most of our Congress care about looking good, getting re-elected and not finding themselves in the shape that Akin is in. The “conservatives” are not protecting our Constitution nor our laws. They too, like the president, are in violation of their oaths.

    • Mitchell says:

      Separation of powers was part of the Constitution for a reason. The more I see what is happening now, the more prophetic the Founding Fathers appear. What we need are politicians willing to use those checks and balances.

  66. Erik says:

    “Coulter and her likes in the party are assuming that most people vote purely on mindless, uninformed, ignorant emotion.” – I don’t know, I would have to say that most voters do seem uninformed and rely more on gut feeling, or they vote based on what that politician will give them. This is why I prefer caucuses over the regular dive-in and vote method, it helps weed out those not committed to the process or can even help inform the uninformed. I just wish there was some way to integrate a caucus type voting method into the general election, or instant runoff voting but that’s a different discussion.

  67. Jean says:

    I am so happy to read your comments about Todd Akin. I don’t know the man, but we all know that people, especially politicians do make faux pas when having to speak so often. But I think it is time for Americans to look at things for what they are. I believe Todd Akins remark was not good but I don’t think he should be thrown to the wolves for what he said. It thrills me to hear that his polls have not dropped off the charts as I’m sure some of the dems and those unwitting repubs have so wished. I do not agree with what he said…I don’t think he agrees with his remark either…just a major case of ‘foot-in-mouth’…hopefully he can survive!!

  68. Joel, bravo! I’ve been waiting for someone to put this in its proper perspective. I should have expected you to do so. Thanks!

    • Frank Knight says:

      what I love about this article is its full-on misogyny, without apology. wow.

      • gray man says:

        What I like about your comment Frank, is that you’ve proven yourself a retard for the world to see, and it will be there forever.

  69. Robert in VA says:

    U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) has the right to say whatever he wants to say about so-called “legitimate rape” and abortion. In doing so, he showed himself to be an idiot, unfortunately selected by others who were — I don’t know what.

    I think it is fortunate that he spoke his mind. Now, we can see what an idiot we most likely would have elected and hopefully avoid electing.

    So it goes with the current candidate for the President of the US. He too is an idiot – albeit a rich one, who sole qualification for the job is wanting to be President. I put that just one level below community organizer, or US Senator.

    Oh well. Maybe next time we will nominate a real candidate.

    • Jean says:

      Oh, Robert! I certainly hope you feel better by posting such venumous remarks that are totally untrue. Mitt Romney is not my candidate of choice, but he is what we have and he has been wise enough to chose the right running mate. And with all the good Romney has done for himself and the people he has represented in other public and private places shows me that he is a leader…something we certainly do not have now.

    • john cummins says:

      Robert, go back and read Joel’s article, it seems by your comments that they are just comments lacking a reading of the article. Think before you blather!

  70. Joel, good job! I’ve been waiting for someone to put this in proper perspective. I should have expected that you would do so.

  71. Richard Kellar says:

    I’m from Indiana but will donate to Mr. Akin because we all make a mistake at times and we don’t need people like coulter telling us wwhat we should think. She is part of the so called establishment that wants to tell us how to think. I don’t pay any attention to her or the so called leaders of the party. Thia is the problem with this Republican party and the people in Washington. They want to tell the average American or middle class, how we should act and think and I didn’t buy or read any of her books. You people don’t speak for the Missouri voters. You will vote for Akin if you want to save our country and be a true AMERICAN. Akin don’t join the WIMPS in Washington.

  72. Dick Grace says:

    I hesitate to wade in on such a convoluted subject with a simple question. Can anyone tell me where in the Bible abortion is mentioned as acceptable by God under any circumstance. I have not found it. If this is the truth the entire abortion debate is nonsense for those that consider themselves “Christian”. “Christian” supporters of abortion, homosexual rights and other present hot topics should recheck their “Christianity” it appears that they may not be “Christian” at all but the children of the bondwoman, Galatians 4:21-31. If that is the case the GOP and their lackeys are the ones in error and not congressman Akin. Who hasn’t said something at one time or another that we wished we could take back.

    • Andrew McNeil says:

      It does not really matter what the bible says because we are not governed by a book of mythology, written by many many different men over hundreds of years to control people through a lot of fear about hell-fire and brimstone. The “liberal left” is not demanding that women abort a fetus resulting from pregnancy, rather they are letting women choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I do agree with the idea that an abortion rape exception should not be an issue. This is because abortion is a right for women to control their own bodies.

      • Ed says:

        The unborn child is not the woman’s body. Even at conception, the unborn child has its own unique set of human DNA. Just because the infant is totally dependent on that woman’s body for life, doesn’t lessen the legitimacy of that life. That would be
        Iike saying someone on life support is less human and has less of a right to life. This is not about women’s right to control their body, but their right to take a human life. For a woman to decide to take the life of a child that absolutely dependent on them for sustainment of life is the biggest outrage and act of betrayal I can think of. We are saddened and sickened when we hear of parents murdering their children. The same people who are grieved at these news stories should grieve about the millions of legalized abortions.

      • gray man says:

        Even if everything you said was true – which it isn’t. The problem is the “liberal left” wants to use my tax money to pay for abortions. This is what conservatives do not want.

  73. Norm Farnum says:

    Joel -

    Thoughtful article on a very controversial subject in a convoluted time in history. Whatever the cost, we must stand firm for the Biblical World View. God bless you as you strive for His Government here, now!

  74. R. Scott says:

    This whole circus does nothing but further expose the pseudo two-party system (actually, one party); RNC-DNC: two-sides of the same coin. It’s the same, tired old thing.

    Unless true conservatives wake-up to discover they have been had (for 30 years+ that I have actively observed), leave the RNC-DNC good ol’ boy establishment, and support/vote a third party conservative, the slippery slope will only get slipper. The world is heading toward hell at break-neck speeds because foolish conservatives refuse to cease bowing to an elephant vs. The Cross.

  75. rusureuwant2know says:

    What I would like to know is what constitutes “legitimate rape”? If a woman does not resist in order to avoid getting beated or killed and shows no sign of physical truama, then it’s not considered “legitimate”? Does she have to end up half dead or dead for it to be “legitimate”? It’s like the term “forcible rape” (a redundant term); all rape is forcible. I do understand that some women would lie about rape, but I think those cases are few and far between as so many cases of rape go unreported due to risk of being victimized again by the system (and make no mistake, that happens more than you realize – no matter what the crime).

    • Mitchell says:

      The word “legitimate” means “according to law.” It is popularly used to mean “true.” As in a legitimate claim to the throne.

      Every day some 2,000 claims of rape are made in the US. Some of those are false claims, illegitimate claims.

      Some verifiable, or legitimate.

      Akin might have more clearly said “legitimate CLAIMS OF rape” to indicate that some claims might be false.

      I’m guessing that in some presentation that Akin attended someone used either the “according to the law” definition or used “legitimate” to mean a claim in which a crime was actually committed as opposed to someone falsely accusing someone of rape because they got mad at them. (A very small percentage, but people do sometimes falsely accuse someone of a crime out of anger.)

      What you need to understand that in law terms are very precise. If someone is caught in a stolen car they can not be charged with stealing that car unless someone can place them in the area from which the car was stolen. They will be charged with possession of a stolen vehicle. Just listen to news coverage of any crime. Even if the suspect is filmed committing the crime the news outlets will call them “alleged” to avoid being sued.

      In the case of rape there are several categories as explained in the article. In some states rape is classified as sexual assault with 4 degrees. The law is complicated that’s why the attorneys make the big bucks. (Or is that lawyers, solicitors, barristers, etc. Even those words have subtly different meanings.)

    • gray man says:

      Actually, statutory rape is not the same as forceable rape. That is just a matter of age. There are different classes of “rape”

  76. Suzy says:

    I absolutely agree with Romney and the RNC. We expect the Democrats to call people out when they are wrong, we should do the same. I am an absolute pro-lifer, BIG time. But, I think what he said was repulsive and doesn’t help the cause, so yes I think he should step down. You don’t keep a seat because it’s what the Dems would do, and you don’t do it because you are afraid that we will lose if he does. Sorry, but the right thing to do is the right thing to do.

  77. Tim Brown says:

    Problem is Joel, we should now expect this from neo-cons. We have very little conservatism in Washington. We have liberalism and liberalism light, that masquerades as being conservative. The current state of the Republican party will move more and more left. I’ll give it 15 years and they’ll be right were the Democrats are. They’ll be defending abortions, homosexual “marriage” and the like. Heck they’ve already voted to install NDAA, allow deficit spending of more than a $1trillion over the past 3 years, give TARP money away, support the candidacy of an open homosexual by the name of Tisei. Like I said, for the most part they are CINOs (Conservative in name only.)

    • Sean T says:

      “the current state of the Republican party will move more and more left.”

      jeebus. what world are you watching where you think the repugs move LEFT on anything? the only thing repugs are anywhere close to left on is a hearty and constant defense of keynesian economics for DOD and only DOD spending.

  78. Java Toomey says:

    The left and the right politicians are no more than rhetorical
    antagonists. They have united commonality in their
    lust for tax and distribution cash flow streams. They have no
    comprehension, collectively, of restraint nor budget reduction.
    Our country is bring destroyed from within by an arrogant elite
    political class. The pundits who guide the lemming voters are no more
    than pilot fish feeding from the scraps, huge as they are, strewing from
    the remnants of political thieves. Even these mildly entertaining articles
    are no more than fluff to the charade of differences pretended by all with
    a horse in the race. Direct and focused honesty at any level is non-existent and
    resultant solutions to our integrity and debt crisis as this outcry of bipartisan
    political rape. It perfectly indicates the sense of priority all the political players,
    pundits, advisors and supporters have in truly fixing the mess created, perpetuated
    and IGNORED !

  79. Scirel says:

    Wow, Joel – to churn out such an article that is so full of wisdom in such a short time is pretty impressive. Thanks.

    The realities of crime are tough issues to deal with indeed. I guess the thing that impressed me is the idea that there are crimes that have long term consequences other than rape. Murder is the obvious, glaring example. Not much a victim can do to rectify that crime. I think what we are dealing with here is a desire to give a victim of a crime a chance to rectify a crime by giving them the power of “choice” in the matter. But when you think about it, this is a mischaracterization of the situation, and you spoke quite well to that. I can only hope that there would be enough bankable Christian in any area to support someone who would have to deal with this. But like you showed, the chance of it happening in any county would be very small to begin with.

  80. Mitchell says:

    EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY FOR THE LAST THREE DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Joel you got it right and I don’t even care if you misspelled a word here or there.

    The responses to my comments were to call me names. No one was willing to examine the logic and the factual nature of the statement.

    Not one radio host bothered to ask what Akin’s source was or what he meant. Yes it was a dumb, awkward statement but logically and factually TRUE!! I understood exactly what he meant the first time I heard the statement. And all those “conservative” commentators simply put their mouths in gear before they even performed an act of journalism (as Rush would say).

    Unfortunately politics (news and even life) isn’t about facts, it is about perception. And the attitude of the majority of voters is “don’t confuse me with the facts.” I doubt Akin has enough money to hit back hard enough to win. But when the Republicans come calling for a donation I’m going to tell them I already gave mine directly to Akin.

    • gray man says:

      unfortunately, Rush was one of them.

      • Arrow says:

        Sure. Limbaugh is a whore for the GOP bosses, or to use his own description of himself, a “water carrier”…he saw which direction they moved and ran as fast as he could in that direction.

  81. DJ says:

    Unfortunately, the Republican party is fighting within itself, between “moderate” Republicans, who have been in charge of things for years, and Tea Party conservatives. If it feels like it doesn’t matter who you vote for, this is the reason why: Many in the Republican party aren’t really much different than the Dems. And it’s also why character counts: doesn’t matter which party you’re a part of if you aren’t honest and aren’t trying to do your best to be a good steward of public money.

    • Arrow says:

      Sure. And if the “Tea Party Conservatives” vote for Romney, they will have defeated themselves.

  82. ansonheath says:

    Since when has being righteous become the excuse for being stupid? Let’s see now, how does this go? Wise as a dove and harmless as a serpent? No. Or was it serpent as a dove? No. Wise as a harmless? Harmless as a wiseass? I’ll get it sooner or later, just give me time to sort it out before…….. Oh, the train left the station? Wwwwwaaaait…………!! Too late? Well. I tried!
    (Satire – for those in Rio Linda and maybe the Big Mo?)

  83. Jorge says:

    The issue is not abortion, the issue is how stupid Akin is. It scares me that someone as ignorant as he obviously is could be a Senator. I rank him right alongside Biden for the two dumbest people in politics. I think Akin may be the dumbest. Woe is Missouri with the two choices they have been given. The can choose an Obama bootlick or an ignoramus.

    • Tralala says:

      In what way is he stupid?

    • gray man says:

      Jorge, the problem is how stupid the people busy judging Akin are. Most of them can’t seem to comprehend what he said, and certainly have no knowledge of the issue intellectually. They are just responding with emotion – much like the progressives always do.

  84. Jorge says:

    Akin is just plain stupid, I am a conservative and do not support abortion but to make the statement that he made is downright stupid. The guy is ignorant and I believe that if we do not retake the Senate because he loses what was an easy race to win for a Republican then I believe and hope that their should be consequences of a Biblical nature for him. I hope he wins because he would deserve our utter contempt for all time.

    • S. flinn says:

      Jorge, if you say that are defending the unborn, you should take another look at this article and where Rep. Akin stands on this issue “under no circumstances.” Rep. Akin is not stupid for what he said. Have you looked in the mirror lately? If you truely had principles & values instead of looking to win a Senate seat, you would be supporting Rep. Akin. I think perhaps you will have utter contempt for all time, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” and you are falling in my opinion GOP Rino!

      • daves says:

        You don’t think it is stupid to say women cannot get pregnant from being raped?

      • Jorge says:

        @ S. Flinn. I have never voted for anything other than a Republican in my 40 years of voting. I have never voted for an Independent or less so a Democrat. It is the so called Christian Right who are johnny come lately to the Republican Party after having been ensconced in the Democrat Party for generations. Frankly I do not really care about the abortion issue. I am against abortion but not in all cases. I certainly favor abortion for victims of incest and rape. It is ancillary to my true Republican issues which are low taxes and strong defense.

        My comment below regarding Akin’s obvious stupidity is the assertion by him that women somehow have the ability to spontaneously and naturally block a fertilized egg. Also he is a first class ignoramus because he called it a “legitimate rape”.

        How stupid is he. And another obvious point is that his main support in the primary was the one and half million dollars spent supporting him by Democrat affiliated PACs. That should tell even someone as brilliant as you S. Flinn that something stinks in Denmark (and the Akins camp). Finally the best way to limit or prevent abortion is to have a Republican controlled Congress (House and Senate) and the White House. So let me explain what that means to someone who seems to be another ignoramus (you S. Flinn). If we (Republicans) do not take over both the Executive Branch (The Presidency) and the Legislative Branch (Congress) the economy will worsen and abortions will increase.

        Ipso Facto, Republicans must win all three bodies to effect change. Therefore we real Republicans (fiscal and defense being the most important issues) accept and welcome you true RINOs (single issue constituency, e.g. abortion).

      • Michael Payne says:

        Jorge, I never seem to meet such bold people as yourself in face to face discussions. I wonder why??? Sir, if economics and defense are the core, my question is why? Why should we care about economics? Why should we care about defense. We could just surrender to our enemies and have a new boss. You make your assertions based on your faith, which admittedly is unchristian. You sir, think it is ok to suck the brains out of a child because he/she was a rape victim. Have you met any of these beautiful people that are birthed from rape? Would you say to them: I would have been fine if your mommy had killed you! As to Christians being johnny come lately, the dominant worldview in America since early 1620 was Christendom. Even at the time of the war for independence it was called: a Presbyterian rebellion. Why? Men like John Knox, Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie penned works that gave us the biblical justification for the war. Well over 40% of the continental army came from Presbyterian stock. Christians dominated for hundreds of years, thus we received our property laws, tort laws, criminal laws right out of common law, taken out of Exodus 20 and the rest of the Old Testament. Conservatism never conserves anything, because it is not principled. It merely looks at the status quo and says lets conserve it. When they lose a battle, they don’t fight to retake the ground. They just include the previous enemy in its ranks. That is why the ranks of conservatism are frankly, rank! Today, humanists seem to have the upper hand, thus sodomy is legalized in man’s eyes. If humanism continues to dominate, incest and bestiality won’t be far behind. Now I will tell you that I don’t believe it is unbelievers like yourself that are to blame. I believe it is Christians that have quit the playing field and think there going to be ruptured out of the earth. The early American church was largely post millennial, so they took dominion. Today my ranks are defeatists that leave their faith in the closet and take on the faith of humanists. That is why many of my brethren will vote for a cult member this fall. They have lost principle, because they have lost God’s requirement for obedience. Help us!

      • Debi Hawk says:

        Mr. Akin is INDEED STUPID for his comments. There is NO SUCH thing as “legitimate rape”… RAPE IS RAPE! This man should step aside and let someone with some degree of intelligence take his seat. The fact that he has refused only shows that he cares only for himself and not his constituents. I cannot believe that this organization has defended and made excuses for his stupidity. Trivializing rape is not acceptable, and the man is a pure idiot for even entertaining the thought that a woman’s body can “shut down” or prevent a pregancy due to the trauma of the event. What a moron.

      • dee says:

        Anyone who believes women cannot get pregnant from “legitimate” rape is a fool. If that were true, I wouldn’t be alive.

        Unless I was actually the product of immaculate conception…

        Either way, as a child of strict Christian parents, I can say with absolute certainty that anyone who dares to belittle a terrible crime committed against an innocent woman, or any human man who believes he knows more about the inner workings of the female body (GOD’s creation) than the woman or God Himself, is certainly damned and will burn in hell for believing they know more than He does.

        I will sleep peacefully tonight knowing that I won’t be spending my afterlife with someone so ignorant & small minded as Todd Akin.

    • Arrow says:

      “…if we do not retake the Senate…”


      Who is “we”?

      • Jorge says:

        @ Arrow This website seems to be chock full of morons (such as you). If the Senate is now controlled by Democrats and has been since 2006 (Mid-term elections) and since this at least until now has been a two party system it just leaves Republicans (the party in which I have been registered and voted every single time since 1972 at the age of 18 (that makes me 58 Einstein)) as the we I am referring to in retaking the Senate.

      • Arrow says:

        That’s what I figured, Jorge. I’ve been a Republican for longer than you. But the GOP gaining a majority in the Senate is not something that, from my perspective, I would call “us”.

        It might be better not to use “us” that way, since you lump in people like myself who could not care less whether the GOP controls congress, since they have proven themselves to be altogether as rotten as the Democrats. There is NO advantage to having them in control.

        Speaking of morons, I still cannot figure out why people considering themselves to be “conservatives” support Paul Ryan. His PLAN…HIS PLAN for the federal budget is NOT to cut it…it is to (the old Democrat trick here…) cut the RATE OF INCREASE…to 3.1%!!!

        The budget is $44,000 for a family of four…that means that HIS PLAN is to ADD $1200 per family per year. Why not just let the Democrats do it…at least they are honest about it.

    • daves says:

      At least we know this victim will not get pregnant.

    • john cummins says:

      I suspect the keyword is “alleged”, any alleged conservative is very likely a RINO in conservative clothes, Joel!

    • Juda says:

      Akin is far from stupid. All the information given over decades have pushed that pregnancy from rape is rare. That was widely accepted. So when Akin said “It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” he said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” there is nothing false in that statement. This isn’t offensive to me and I was conceived in an 8 men rape.

      I work with women and children of rape conception in what may be the only organization of its kind. I’ve met hundreds of people with a rape conception story. I’ve also met three women who lied! So there ARE said rapes that are not legitimate. But that is rare.
      Now the real rare thing is that people like me rarely talk about it. Studies do not take that into account. I can just about guarantee there are more than the 200 cases per year.

      I am saddened that you have fell for this feeding frenzy. I am grateful for this article and people who get it.

      • Rose says:

        The largest study done ASKING ACTUAL RAPE/INCEST SURVIVORS what THEIR thoughts on abortion are, show that the majority of women who have actually been in that situation are prolife. It is a myth, a bad assumption, a lie that ‘erasing’ the baby ‘erases’ the rape or incest. http://afterabortion.org/2004/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths-3/
        Republicans/conservatives who claim to be prolife and do not even consider the voices of women who’ve actually been in that situation need to re-examine whether they are truly prolife or not.
        This COULD HAVE been an opportunity to bring those voices into the public discussion and policy. But, the so called ‘leaders’ of Republicans were more viscious than liberals against their own.

      • ryan says:

        ” “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” there is nothing false in that statement. ”

        I think that quote speaks for itself.

      • dee says:

        ““If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” there is nothing false in that statement. This isn’t offensive to me and I was conceived in an 8 men rape.”

        So you believe that women who are raped cannot get pregnant even though you were conceived during rape? Were you dropped on your head as a child?

      • gray man says:

        August 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm
        ““If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” there is nothing false in that statement. This isn’t offensive to me and I was conceived in an 8 men rape.”

        So you believe that women who are raped cannot get pregnant even though you were conceived during rape? Were you dropped on your head as a child?

        no you moron, he said the body has ways to TRY, not that it always succeeds. If you don’t understand basic english or comprehend sentences maybe you shouldn’t criticize.

    • Tim Brown says:


      have you no grace at all? Those are pretty harsh words in light of his stand.

    • Judy says:

      I totally agree with you. His statement about a woman being able to control whether she gets pregnant or not when she is raped is really ignorant. If he ends up responsible for Obama getting elected just because of Missouri and we end up with more liberal Supreme Court Judges, pro-life will be a thing of the past because of his stupidity and stubbornness. In addition polls today showed that he is now down 10 points to McCaskill so it already looks like he will lose the Senate seat to McCaskill.

      • gray man says:

        once again the problem is morons who have basic comprehension problems, he didn’t say women could control it. He said the body has ways to try to stop the pregnancy, which is true.
        Have you ever seen a rape victim – a real rape victim? someone who has been beaten, kicked, raped multiple times? when that happens, quite often the woman has complications and can’t get pregnant because of it. Only 5% of raped women get pregnant. There is a reason for that.

    • Bullhead says:

      di you read this article?? Think not or you would have abetter understanding of the issue .

  85. scott says:

    They say his comments are disrespectful of woman.OK, then let the women of Missouri decide his fate at the ballot box.I’m sure there are many women who agree with Akin but I suppose their opinions do not count.I’m a lifelong republican and I abhor what the mainstream GOP is doing to this man.The Tea-Party (which I am a member) needs to support Akin and tell the GOP to hit-the-road on this issue.Remember,they didnt want Akin to win in the first place.In my opinion,should Romney lose this election the Tea Party needs to look at possibly forming an alliance with the Libertarians as a 3rd party.Remember,it was the Tea Party that was solely responsible for winning the house, yet, all you hear from the GOP is how we cost them the senate.

    • Jorge says:

      While I support the Tea Party in so far as it is a group that cares deeply about a true Republican issue, lower taxes and cutting spending I object to the asinine statement that the Tea Party “was solely responsible for winning the house”. Let’s examine that ridiculous statement in its entirety. There are 66 Representatives who identify as Tea Party supported and are members of the Tea Party caucus within the House. There are 435 Representatives in total. There are 191 Democrats. Now Einstein lets examine those numbers closely. I will ask you a question and you will answer it. Is 66 greater or less than 191. Correct it is less. Now lets look at the number of Representatives who are Republicans. The number is 240 (there are 4 vacancies). Let’s subtract the 66 self identified Members who identify as Tea Party members from the total 240 Republicans and the answer is 174 non-Tea Party identified Republicans. Now is 66 greater or less than 174. Correct it is less.

      Therefore Einstein let’s see if we can figure this out. There are almost three times as many non-Tea Party Republicans as there are Tea Party Republicans. Therefore it is impossible for Tea Party Republicans to be solely responsible for any success.

      If you had said that the support of Tea Party Republicans was crucial or important to the Republicans (we for Arrow above) being able to take over the House I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you but in your misguided hubris to claim “solely” I will vociferously disagree and point out that for Tea Party members to have any voice they need the non-Tea Party Republicans to give them that power and platform.

      As to your assertion that the Tea Party align itself with the Libertarian Party and then to bring up the Tea Party in a discussion on the stupidity of Akins’ comments on abortion makes me realize that you have no idea what either the Tea Party or the Libertarian Party stand for.

      • Arrow says:

        First, there IS NO “Tea Party”. There are all sorts of different groups who call themselves “Tea Party”.

        Some are good and understand what is going on. Some are ignorant folks with attitudes who just support the GOP anyway. Some are entirely co-opted by the rotten, corrupt GOP establishment.

        Despite a few serious shortcomings of the Libertarian Party, I also think it would be interesting to see the TP people to tell the GOP to take a hike and join up with the LP. Not so sure I could endorse all that but anything that hastens the demise of the stinking rotten corrupt worthless GOP will get a chuckle out of this life-long Republican.

      • grandmajanrn says:

        Jorge: Not sure what happened to your last post: “Rape is rape”~~ According to the LAW, that is not true. It classifies Sexual Assault, 1st Degree Rape, 2nd Degree Rape, etc.

    • Reverend Bluejeans says:

      Hook up with the Libertarians? Forget it!
      The Libertarian Party is is a futile and frivolous attempt to wed constitutional and economic issues with hedonism!

      The only 3rd Party God will sanction or bless is the Constitution Party because its the only one that stands up for authentic biblical principles.

      Let Christians awake and come out of the Republican Party. And, let Tea-Partiers wise-up before its too late!

  86. lpadron says:

    Even if completely correct on all counts Sen. Akin failed to understand that how you express something is as is important as what you express. In this day and age of well known media bias his mistake is inexcusable. He should have been well prepared for this kind of question. He wasn’t.

    • Tionico says:

      the man was in a live interview, no idea what sorts of questions might assault him. Consider as well such things are always tight on time. How about we start behaving like adults of at least voting age, and give the man a chance to clarify his intention, and to back his statement up with facts, as found in this article. Instead, the ruling elite in the GOP are knee-jerk (or maybe just the jerk part) reacting to pillory one of their own. Let the People or Missouri decide whether this man will represent them satisfactorily. I know a number of Missourians who WILL vote for this man, glad to have a strong pro-life candidate for a change, rather than the spineless wimps on offer in the recent past.

      • lpadron says:

        I sympathize. He was put on the spot without knowledge of what would be asked. All the more should he have been prepared for hot potato questions such as this one. It remains an inexcusable reply.

    • Mathias says:

      I wonder if Akin’s comment was a “Freidan slip” Perhaps he engaged in unwanted sex with someone underage and thinks that it is not legitimate rape. My family is Republican and I see this man as being in public office too long and out of touch with reality and the public need. I am tired of his references to God and would appreciate if he left the Heavenly Father God out of politics. After all God will judge his heart. It is for his own good and salvation that he repent and get out of politics. I will pray for him. I will not select his name and vote for him on the ballot

      • gray man says:

        I wonder if your comment was a freudian slip, perhaps you are a moron pretending to be smart.

  87. Jill says:

    This lengthy article as evidence, the rape/pregnancy/abortion issue is an extremely complicated issue to educate the masses about. I didn’t say it’s complicated for conservatives to understand, but that’s quite a different thing than getting other unlike-minded people to see.

    Who is going to wade through this stuff other than pro-life conservatives? That is why I think it was so terribly unwise for Akin to even bring it up. Better for him to speak vagueries, get elected, and work quietly in his sphere for the unborn, than to utter things the general public does not understand and lose the election.

    He has given pearls to swine when we needed him to save those pearls for his work in congress. Those who are calling for his withdrawal understand this.

    • suelex says:

      He needs to simply stick with.. No abortion at any time, for any reason. This trying to soften that by his pseudo science (that magic that keeps women from getting pregnant if they don’t, really, deep down, consent), or worse yet, explaining that he believes a lot of rape isn’t really rape, clued in a lot of people to the fact they don’t agree with him.
      He’s not new to this. He’s a congressman. But he isover confident and used to preaching to the choir and talking to his buds, all of whom agree with him about the difference between rape and real rape. But you are right.. he should be like most politicians, lie like crazy (by omission) and do what those who paid his way in want him to do later.

      • Jorge says:

        @ Suelex “difference between rape and real rape” Hey moron rape is rape.

      • Nutstuyu says:

        @suelex and @jorge,

        Did you not read the article? He wasn’t talking about “magic that keeps women from getting pregnant”. He was talking about medical journals that show there is a lot going on with hormones under traumatic situations that certainly CAN prevent a woman from getting pregnant–i.e. the same chemical reactions that cause miscarriages under traumatic situations. @jorge, do you not understand the difference between “sexual assault”, “statutory rape”, and “forcible rape”?

  88. Conservadiva says:

    This is a somewhat similar situation to the remark made by Sarah Palin about Paul Revere, the he “warned the British.” This turned out to be historically true, although very few people know that he did this. Here again, we have a statistic that very few people know about, low fertility rates in the case of rape, based on stat numbers. I think from the article they admit there is no exact knowledge of how hormones do this in the case of emotional trauma, but that does not mean that because we can’t explain it, that it does not happen. Medical science finds correlations in countless conditions that medicine as yet, cannot explain. But I find it to be unwise of Mr. Akin to bring up an unknown argument. Perhaps it shows that he is very informed, but the electorate is profoundly ignorant and so unless you want a firestorm like this situation has produced, I suggest spoon feeding the public, as they have learned to live on sound bites. Then after he is elected, he can sponsor a seminar on the finer points of fertility and educate his constituents. But please invite a medical doctor to come and explain it all.

    • Tionico says:

      Thanks for reminding me of Palin’s supposed “gaffe”.. she is correct, on two counts: first, Paul Revere DID indeed warn the British, he “told all” to the British army patrol that arrested he, Billy Dawes, and Samuel Prescott, as they rode from Lexinngton on to Concord. Fact is, HE knew all the details of the powder raid and the British guards knew nothing. Second, at the time of Revere’s alarm ride, ALL the colonials were British Citizens. It was not until later, the afternoon of 19th April, after Lexington and Concord, where the colonists began firing, unprovoked, upon the retreating British Regular Army, thus formally rejecting their British citizenship and heading into open rebellion: the war was on, starting at Mirriam’s Corner. By the bye, Revere never said “the British are coming”. The term he used was the accurate one, the REGULARS (the commissioned British Army under orders from their Commander in Chief, Thomas Gage) are coming.

      History has proven Palin to have spoken accurately. This article proves Akin spoke accurately. This pillorying of an honest man speaking the truth is tantamount to rejecting a candidate because the haircut he has is considered “inappropriate”.

    • Arrow says:

      Maybe Akin now has some remote idea what it must be like to be Ron Paul. When Paul speaks to a general crowd of GOP followers, such as in the debates, about 49% of the people don’t possess the intellect to grasp his concepts and ideas, another 49% all that plus they are offended that anyone would challenge the thieves who run The Party, and 2% go away with something to think about.

      When the 2% grows to 11% things will change.

      • Neo-Theonomist_12 says:

        yeah, like his desire to have Babies of Rape killed early on with the Abortion pill

      • gray man says:

        They possess the intelligence to grasp that 9/11 was caused by islam and that islam is the problem not the US. Moronic Paulites don’t seem to grasp that.

      • Arrow says:

        Gray man,

        Some people are too simple-minded and childish to understand what RP is talking about, and resort to juvenile accusations. We elect politicians who reflect the character of these voters, unfortunately.

      • Carolina says:

        and it is via the last known address, it gets sent there, if you havnet lived there, they will say you still got it. and bang your still liable.It does not matter if he was on vacation, was confused, or (as often happens) didn’t even receive the summons, or if he simply treated the complaint’s deadlines with the same lack of urgency people routinely exhibit toward jury duty summonses — he’s now the dad. “In California, you don’t even have to have proof of service of the summons!””They only are obligated to send it to the last known addressIn fact, a March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that “most noncustodial parents appear to be served by ‘substitute’ service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served.

    • Donna says:

      One thing to keep in mind is that correlation is not the same as causation. Simply because there are low fertility rates in rapes (correlation) doesn’t mean that rape thus will not cause pregnancies (causation).

      Besides, that list of considerations doesn’t take into differing percentages within certain populations. I.e. sterile men may be less likely to rape, etc. It’s far from properly done statistical analysis.

      • Nutstuyu says:

        No one said there was causation. And why in the world would sterile men be less likely to rape? “Sterile” doesn’t mean you have less sex drive.

      • gray man says:

        No one said rapes will not cause pregnancies. There seems to be a comprehension problem among his critics. He said the incidences of pregnancy among rape victims is low. It is. 5% is low.
        The female body quite often fails to get pregnant after a rape due to injuries of the female body.

  89. Grateful4RonPaul says:

    Yes, the GOP is devouring Rep. Todd Akin for his strong stance on abortion (because it shames them for their own complacency) and because he made a verbal fumble, just like they did Rep. Ron Paul. The GOP simply doesn’t like candidates that expose their short-comings.

    If the GOP had supported Ron Paul, it would have led to the de-funding of abortion with federal money (Ron Paul was the only Republican presidential candidate who consistently voted against federal funding of abortion), and it would have led to the constitutional illegalization of abortion. Ron Paul wrote:

    “I believe the federal government has a role to play [in addressing abortion]. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.


    Ron Paul also stood firmly against abortion when he wrote:

    “To permit abortion at one day of gestation justifies it at two days; if it’s permitted one day before three months, it’s justified one day after three months; if it is permitted at one day before ‘viability,’ a nebulous term that has no meaning, it is justified at any time. Allowing abortion at six months gestation minus one day precludes an argument against abortion two days later. Attempting such an argument is a legal joke, a medical impossibility, and a moral hoax. Just as a pregnancy of one week cannot be put aside as ‘insignificant,’ claiming it is only a ‘touch’ of pregnancy, abortion, regardless of the reason, cannot be downplayed as only a limited and qualified disregard for human life. Disrespect for life and liberty, once planted, grows rapidly.”

    Ron Paul, Abortion and Liberty from http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

    So anyone who takes certain statements by Ron Paul out of context or twists some of his words to make it look like he was pro-abortion is committing the same kind of uncharitable and dishonest mischaracterization against him that many are committing against Rep. Todd Akin now. Shame on them!

    • Neo-Theonomist_2012 says:

      “Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.”

      Ron Paul – “Liberty Defined”

      We should dump Akin and promote killing babies with a pill instead, with Paul he publicly says the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect unborn babies and the Declaration of Independence and God’s Law has no bearing.

      Ron Paul wants it to be legal to kill babies of Rape and any other Early Pregnancy at the Federal, State and Local Levels via Pills and shots of Estrogen into the womb.

      • Grateful4RonPaul says:

        You know that quote is lifted out of context. Ron Paul was not describing his own policy on abortion when he wrote those words but rather the possible policy of others if the constitutional principle of federalism was followed. Anyone who has read the whole chapter he wrote on Abortion in “Liberty Defined” knows that he did not hold to that policy, and if there is any doubt, all you have to do is read the two quotes I shared above and look at his voting record.

        Neo, you are not being intellectually honest about Ron Paul. Shame on you! It’s no wonder people like you are not making traction to help end abortion. You are shooting your own who would be the bravest at working to support that effort.

        Shame on you.

      • Neo-Theonomist_4ever says:

        Uh, several times in the GOP Debates and on Jay Leno he advocated using the Abortion Pill to Kill babies of Rape and any other “Very Early Pregnancy”

      • Neo-Theonomist_4ever says:

        Word for Word from Liberty Defined and repeated on campaign trail

      • Malth says:

        Um, the morning after pill prevents conception. It is not an abortion pill. It works exactly like the birth control pill does, you just take more of it. Conception doesn’t happen immediately after sex.

    • Edward Hughes says:

      “And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law. . . .” means Ron Paul favors state rights on the abortion issue, just as Democrats did on chattel slavery in antebellum America. He is okay with regulating abortion on a state-by-state basis. He therefore partly favors the protection of life for the unborn, not wholly.

      • Arrow says:

        Not that this excuses that…but, do you have anyone better in mind? I’ll back them.

      • Robert Davidson says:

        Yeah, let’s not cut the number of abortions in half now by turning the matter over to the states…let’s wait (maybe another 40 years) until Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    • Reverend Bluejeans says:

      Good Grief!! If the Republican Party, or, the American people wanted Ron Paul, don’t ya think that after having been exposed to him all these years, that if they truly wanted him they’d have him by now? Look how many times he ran for President and got nowhere. Can’t you get it?

      What’s it going to take to get through to you folks? When it comes to Ron Paul the answer is an unequivocal….NO! Bemoan it as much as you like, the answer is still….NO!

  90. Look, Akin made a foolish statement that is likely to cost him the election. Remember what the media did to Dan Quayle because of his potato spelling error, or Sarah Palin’s claim to be able to see Russia. He went from a double-digit lead over McCaskill — who absolutely must be defeated, and could have been — to a single digit lead that is likely to be lost as he is ridiculed unmercifully over the next 75 days. All of us who are concerned about taking the Senate have to be worried now and Akin’s refusal to understand why he should have bowed out for the good of the country demonstrates really poor judgment.

    • DiRT says:

      Akin should not only bow out of the race, he should apologize. There’s no way to spin this to make it correct or legitimate. Even if you don’t think abortion should be legal in cases of rape, saying what he did is inexcusable.

    • Tionico says:

      so, he still has a lead. Let a couple of weeks blow by, you KNOW how ADD the media and the American sorry excuse for voters are…… in two weeks, if he stands firm and does not waver, this will be somewhat akin to Biden’s gaffe about chains. Perhaps Adkin will also somehow find an opportunity to clarify his statement, getting at the root of it. He IS correct…. conception in cases of true, bona fide, assaultive, real, actual, forcible, legitimate rape (as opposed to other categories of activity often called rape for various reasons) ARE extremely rare… as cited in this article, perhaps about two hundred per year. AND, Akins’s position is that even THOSE conceptions due to rapes should not be aborted. After all, is it the child’s fault his sperm donor was a creep, a perpetrator, sick? If that “justifies” abortion, how about kids who are conceived through consensual sex who also have sperm donors in that category? Can we abort them as well? How about those whose sperm contributors are only a little creepy, and perpetrate other crimes than rape, and are sicietal misfits in other ways? There will BE no end to abortion until we MAKE IT SO.

    • gray man says:

      just a note: Palin did not claim to see Russia. tina fey imitating Palin claimed to see Russia.

  91. Diane says:

    Can we try and stay focused on the really big issues instead of some morons putting his foot in his mouth. Two really stupid people running tbeir mouths.
    Akin and Biden Really…..?

  92. Arrow says:

    Of course the GOP hacks and especially the Romney campaign jumped all over him.

    Does he not realize that as a Republican politician he is not to be actually concerned about unborn babies, rather should work to keep abortion rolling along as a lucrative campaign prop?

  93. aCultureWarrior says:

    Ann Coulter is nothing but a fag hag.

  94. Jason Mauney says:

    Joel, this was a very helpful article. Thanks for taking the time to dig through the research so the rest of us could be enlightened!

  95. Chris "Bahnsen" King says:

    Actually I am outraged by this article. The entire article presupposes the Biblical worldview.

    We “know” from the “science” of evolution that all “rape” is legitimate because rape “is”. This means it must confer a survival benefit to the rapist.

    I mean really who is going to protect the “evolutionary rights” of the rapist.

    The above is Satire.

    • Lan H says:


      You’re reading a Christian website. The articles are going to tend toward the “Biblical” worldview, a view which is sorely lacking in this nation over the past several decades. You are free to switch to another website at your leisure. Maybe Salon or MSNBC would be more your speed.

      • Erik says:

        Really, did you not read the last line disclaimer – “The above is Satire”? He was just using sarcasm to make a point.

    • Norm says:

      I got it… and appreciated your satire.

  96. David Smith says:

    Too many of us for too long have confused Republican with Conservative (and been caught up in the false dichotomy of Liberal Democrat vs. Conservative Republican). Perhaps the grassroots during the last several decades – to include Tea Party types and of course Ron Paul – could make that claim. But at its heart and in its structure, it has never been and I doubt ever will be truly conservative.

    Let the GOP go the way of its predecessor, the Whig party, and die the death it so richly deserves. I believe we’ll all be a good deal better off in the long run.

    • Arrow says:

      Couldn’t agree more. The GOP is the biggest obstacle to freedom in the USA, because it diverts the efforts and resources of the people who would be fixing the problems into the hands of the enemy. Too bad most of them cannot see it.

      • gray man says:

        “The GOP is the biggest obstacle to freedom”????
        Are you on crack?

      • Arrow says:

        Were you capable of reading the entire sentence? I explained my reason, and the explanation is solid.

  97. Carmon Friedrich says:

    Good points, Joel, except I thought Ann Coulter was a “paleo-conservative.” :-)

  98. Cromwell says:

    you have no idea what you are talking about.

    • BMoore says:

      I think he explained it very well. I notice you didn’t give any reasons for disagreeing, therefore I surmise that you are a liberal. Try this: put one had over each ear, close your eyes, and shout loudly “nah,nah,nah,nah,nah,…”.

      • Sean T says:


        i presume you have a well established history of this very thing by your own well thought out response

Back to Top ↑