Sunday, August 26, 2012

Republicans shouldn't abandon moral issues because of Akin's gaffe

Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin has been viciously maligned for his interview gaffe about a woman's ability to conceive during a "legitimate" rape. Though he was merely repeating what he's heard from doctors, and has since apologized for his remark, the way he's been vilified you'd think he himself was guilty of something as heinous as rape.

It was a stupid comment. But Republicans are making a mistake in trying to distance themselves from the abortion issue because of it - especially when Democrats are using abortion - a heinous thing in itself - as a moral high ground against Republicans. The truth is, if anyone is on the very bottom of the moral totem pole, it's the Democrats for supporting the murder of innocent human life - and Republicans should be exposing that with all their might.

Instead, we've heard for months now that Republicans are waging a war on women because they believe nobody should be forced to pay for a woman's birth control. We hear that Republicans are extremists because they believe that abortion is harmful to both the unborn baby and the mother. And in the most twisted perversion of reality, we hear Democrats are the party for women because it embraces abortion, artificial contraception, and the forcing of taxpaying citizens to pay for these things against their will. But if anyone is extreme, it is those who think killing babies - and forcing every citizen to pay for it - is something good.

The leader of the Democratic party - Barack Obama - is the most extreme of them all. In 2007, he expressed his opposition to the Supreme Court's ban on partial birth abortion. In case it's not clear, partial birth abortion is when a fully formed, perfectly viable baby on the verge of birth is killed. During the Supreme Court case, a nurse described the procedure by saying, “The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head …”

Our own sitting President of the United States is okay with this pure evil - and the Democrats, especially in the wake of Akin's comments, will use the issue of abortion against Republicans. But instead of fighting back and standing against such immoral acts as abortion or forcing citizens to pay for such things, Republicans are distancing themselves from the issue out of fear of appearing in alignment with Akin, and focusing only on the economy.

Ironically though, the economy could possibly be in such a shambles not only because of reckless spending and debt, but because abortion has reduced the workforce in our country substantially. Over 50 million Americans have been killed since Roe v Wade became the law of the land. This has to have some impact somewhere, right? Since our elderly rely on workers' tax dollars to fund programs like Social Security and Medicare, think how a shrinking population - from abortion and even contraception - will mean fewer workers supporting a larger population of elderly citizens.

Taking an in-depth look at the issue, John Mueller of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written about the impact of abortion on the economy. Mueller estimates that, as of 2000, legal abortion reduced the U.S. population by about 11 percent. Economists say that a reduced population results in reduced economic output. According to Mueller, abortion has cut today’s $15 trillion economy by at least $1.7 trillion.

The Republicans can still focus on the economy - and they should - but given the grossly immoral nature of abortion and its possible impact on the economy - they would be making a huge mistake by ignoring the issue in their efforts to distance themselves from Akin. The Democrats will be only too happy to use the whole gaffe and the issue of abortion in general to paint Republicans as evil extremists who hate women. What a shame to allow the party who supports the murder of children to come off as the ones concerned about morals, while Republicans remain silent out of fear.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. Well, I truly doubt that Akin heard that from a doctor since doctors actually know how bodies work. But, let's consider this. Obviously, Akin is seriously misinformed. The best solution would be to provide him with correct information. It is imperative that we start giving that information to everybody. Instead of just telling kids "Don't have sex," maybe we should actually teach them the mechanics and the consequences of sex and ways to prevent those consequences (including condoms and abstinence). I believe that would drop abortion rates, but it would have to be true information.

    Though, I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely clear on why contraceptives are bad. Condoms prevent sperm entering the uterus, while birth control pills prevent the release of an egg. Even emergency contraceptive doesn't abort anything, it is a hormonal pill that prevents the release of an egg and shouldn't affect an already pregnant woman.

    And please, a child is not a fetus and vice versa. Stop calling democrats "child murderers," because then you are then twisting words to meet your own ends just as you claim the democrats do.

    All in all, my point is this, misinformation needs to be stopped.

  2. Umm, actually, the fact that women's emotional state affects their ability to conceive has been being taught at medical schools for years. And have you ever heard of couples adopting after years of trying to conceive, and then once they adopt, within months they conceive? So, yes, doctors have researched and commented on how women's bodies work under stressful circumstances, whether it be horrible rape, or the pressures they put on themselves to conceive. On top of that, Akin was also referring to the idea of "legitimate" rape as opposed to women who are impregnated and then blame it on rape - falsely - to justify their situation. That is what he meant by legitimate rape. He in no way was saying that real rape is not real. As for contraception, actually falsely and hormonally altering a woman's natural cycle is very dangerous and damaging to women biologically, and also it changes womens' natural chemical configurations which has been shown to affect their basic reactions to men, etc., read the facts on that. As for "emergency" contraception, there are some forms, that actually cause an conceived embryo to dis-attach after conception, and the unnaturally high levels of hormones cause all sorts of health effects in women, ultimately cancer, especially breast cancer. This doesn't even begin to cover the emotional aspects.

    As for abortion not being the murder of a child, did you,
    Anonymous (aka, too cowardly to use your real name) begin conception as a football, or a plant, or a bowl of soup? You know in your heart of hearts that you began at the beginning, but you must use smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth, because you cannot handle the truth - to do so would be to admit that you are ending a life, and even for you, that is too much to take, so you must intellectualize every fact into some lame verbal acrobatic routine. Perhaps your information needs to be stopped, and replaced with facts - that is, if you can handle the truth.

    1. AKA, my parents taught me not to give out personal information on the internet. You don't need to know my name for my opinion to be valid.

      In order then:

      Akin said "legitimate rape" rarely resulted in pregnancy, saying that "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." So, that if you were raped you couldn't conceive because of...something. Which is obviously not true. He may have worded it differently in an apology but it's pretty clear what he originally said. And sure, there are some women who are awful creatures and lie about things like rape, but a majority do not and it doesn't make it easy for victims to come forward when people have this mindset. Really, it's a wise move for the GOP to distance themselves from him if they want to stand a chance.

      Emergency contraceptive does not dis-attach embryos. It prevents the joining of egg and sperm. What you are thinking of is an abortion pill, which is not OTC. There is a difference.

      Oral hormonal contraceptives have shown conflicting results in studies about links to cancer. Also, in this day and age, what doesn't give you cancer?

      And as for how birth control affects a woman, well, that should be between her and her doctor.

      Abortion, by your logic then, is also the murder of adults which could have been employees or doctors or murderers or pedophiles. I can play with semantics too. Abortion is a personal, private decision between a woman, her doctor, and maybe the man and God (I say maybe God, because I can recognize that not everyone shares my religious beliefs).

      Why are you saying I can't handle the truth? Are we in "A Few Good Men?" I would prefer the truth over all these politicians and talking mouths telling me "the truth." I look for evidence on both sides before drawing my own conclusions. My conclusion thus far: I don't know everything and refuse to say that I do.

  3. Did "Anonymous" pay attention to the part of this article that said partial birth abortion kills babies fully formed and, as the nurse said, kicking and grasping? I think Carl was right- pro-abortion people have to totally deny the truth in order to justify their pro-death positions. How else can they justify anything? Unborn babies - or as liberals are more comfortable calling them - a fetus - have heartbeats. That means they are alive. So when it comes to abortion, you are either for letting that "fetus" live, or making it die. Those are the only two choices: life or death. Justify it all you want with mindless semantics - the truth remains the truth.

    1. Did "Jesse P." notice that Anonymous didn't say they were in favor of abortion - just birth control?

      Also, don't many Republicans (including Romney, if I'm not mistaken) favor abortion in the case of incest or rape? If it is truly murder, why is it okay in these circumstances?

    2. Same anon. as the first post.

      The technical, medical term is fetus, that's not playing with words. That's what it is.

      But what if my truth is different from your truth? What about the Jewish population which believes in protecting the mother's life? As much as I would love for all of this to be black and white, it isn't. Life isn't easy, it's complicated and doesn't always make sense.

      Additionally, I am not in favor of abortion if it can be prevented. The only times I think that it can be valid is if the mother's life is in danger, incest, or rape.

  4. For the record, fetus is the medical term for the preborn, while neonate is the medical term for the newborn. If we began commonly referring to the newborn as neonates, would that give us the green light to end their lives? Those who support abortion hide behind words and slogans because they don't want to look at the truth of abortion. For instance, a "woman's right to choose." Choose what? Choose what school to send her children? Choose what to eat for dinner? Or choose to end the life of her preborn child? A woman's right to choose.....??? Please finish the sentence. If abortion was not such an abomination, people would have no problem finishing the sentence. The lack of ones ability to finish the sentence speaks volumes.

    1. If I might ask, Pam, do you feel that abortions should be allowed in any circumstance (e.g. rape, incest, risk to mother)?

    2. That depends on if you believe God created that human life and, if so, does that human life deserve to pay the price with his or her own life for the sins of the father (in cases of rape or incest). As for risk to the mother, the cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life — including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies — are very rare - and don't require abortion.

      It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans direct abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the preborn baby's life. In other words, nobody is going to just let the mother die because of the baby, since the two lives are of equal inherent worth.

      The most common situations that involve the mother's and the yet-to-be born baby's life are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary.

      In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," doctors must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, for instance, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate ending of the baby's life (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

      So you see, "abortion to save the mother's life" isn't even a real thing, so it's a moot point to bring it up.

    3. Let me make clear that I'm not being confrontational - I just want to understand your point :)

      What do you think about medical situations that can only be resolved with a direct abortion? In particular, I'm thinking about a high-profile case a few years ago where a woman presented to the ER of a Catholic hospital with primary pulmonary hypertension, with which pregnancy is generally contraindicated. The only solution was an abortion, and someone was excommunicated for the decision because it didn't fulfill the double principle effect - the abortion wasn't a side effect, but the direct action. That person was restored to the church later, but the Church cut ties to the hospital. What do you feel should have been done in that case?

      Also, what about incest/rape?

      Again, I'm not arguing or being confrontational - I just want to know what you think.

  5. Great points, Pamela Ann! Love how the person who responded completely ignored what you said and just went with the cliches. They can't answer your questions because they know deep down that truth is not on their side so they can only rely on the incendiary questions as forms of escaping the crux of the real issue. As for rape, incest and the life of the mother, Daniel G. brought up the same points I was planning on noting. Thanks for saving me the keystrokes, Daniel G.

    1. Lorraine, I just want to know someone's opinion on an issue - it was a inquiry, not a counterpoint. Have a great day!