I really appreciated the illustration at the end of thisvideo. The fact that a horrible crime like rape has occurred doesn’t justifymurdering the unborn person.
"You're making a false analogy"
I am comparing stupid comments made by democrats to stupid comments made by republicans. That's not a false analogy.
"That unnamed congressman was not trying to base law on his admittedly stupid belief,"
A congressmen writes and votes on legislation. They sit on committees. They make important decisions. If a congressmen believes that an island can capsize, he is unfit for office.
" take a woman's right to choose away from her."
A woman's right to choose to do what? Does a woman have the right to choose to kill her children?
I still maintain that it is obvious from the statement itself. The woman's consent to the sexual contact at the time of the contact would determine whether the supposed defense mechanisms are activated. If she in fact did not consent to the intercourse (that is, if the rape was "legitimate," in Akin's vernacular), then the defense mechanisms are supposedly activated; if she in fact DID consent to the intercourse (the rape was "illegitimate"), then the defense mechanisms would not have been activated.
I don't consider this interpretation charitable, but necessary. Any other interpretation becomes as absurd as Akin's belief in such a mechanism appears to be. Do you suppose that Akin was stating that rapes that don't result in pregnancy are not rapes, because they are "legitimate" in the sense of being permissible? Would it have made sense for him to believe that permissible rape would trigger a defense but impermissible rape would not?
You're making a false analogy. That unnamed congressman was not trying to base law on his admittedly stupid belief, whereas Akin wants to do just that- use medical quackery to defend the position he took when supporting bills that amend the definition of rape and take a woman's right to choose away from her.
"What is a layman to do? He listened to what the doctors told him." I'm not sure if Craig is being willfully ignorant on this point, but just in case he actually is that ignorant, let me clarify: Akin somehow managed to get put on the Science Committee while holding on to a disturbingly inaccurate belief posited by ONE doctor who has been publicly discredited. As a member on a science board for our government, Akin should be held to a higher standard of knowledge and is expected to be able to do basic research, to actually READ scientific materials (research studies, journals) and COMPREHEND the information contained within them. He should be looking at the work of various scientists and medical practitioners so that when he does make a public comment in regards to a scientific or medical perspective, he can a) present evidence of what he says and b) not present himself as an embarrassment to the nation by demonstrating such backward thinking.
Apparently, Karl Rove is attacking Todd Akin. He said, “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!” Roved apologized for the murder comment.
He told politico:
"I know Todd. He's a good man. He has a good heart," Rove said. "But he said a real stupid, indefensible thing from which there's no recovery. And if he really cares about the values of conservatism and pro-life, then he will not go down in defeat with the biggest loss of any Republican candidate for Senate in the modern history."
If Akin decides to stay in the race he has a multi-front uphill battle. He has to fight with both the democrat and republican party plus the media. The republican party has cut off his funding, so he needs to raise money with out their help.
The double standard of the media is another aspect of the story. There was a democratic congressmen who stated that he was afraid the island of Guam could capsize. Did the media plaster his face all over the news and repeat the statement ad nauseum? No.
When a conservative says something stupid, there is wall to wall coverage of their remarks coupled with pressure to resign from office. When a liberal says something stupid, it isn't reported or gets very little coverage.
Dr. Craig wasn't using the bible as rationale for being against abortion. I think Dr. Craig's analogy with the two children answers your question. Are you going to look at one child and say because they are the product of rape or incest, it's morally acceptable to murder them?
I don't know what his position would be if a women was given a high dose of contraceptives or a morning after pill immediately after being raped but if you believe abortion is murder, it would have to be morally wrong to kill a child even if the pregnancy was caused by a horrific event.
Question. I have been of the opinion that rape/incest were permissible in terms of abortion. My reasoning is that the murder of that child would be placed upon the rapist and not the mother. I do believe abortion is murder. Does the law in the OT play that out? I am serious. If my wife were raped, would I counsel give birth to another mans child? Is that fair or even just? I am torn. Lord willing, I will never have to deal with a horrific scenario. Should a woman be forced to have a pregnancy against her will and bring it to term? Is that concept biblical? Honest questions.
He could have chose his words better. So lets talk about Al Frankens and Bill Mahers stupid misogynistic remarks.
The problem with the birth control vs abortion comparison is birth control stops the woman's body from getting pregnant before hand. When a women gets an abortion she is already pregnant.
If a woman is pregnant there is life in the womb. There isn't life in the womb when the woman is taking birth control. You are comparing apples and oranges.
It looks like Akin was getting his information from Dr. John C. Wilke, the former President of National Right to Life and founder of the International Right to Life Federation. Wilke wrote the book, “Why Can’t We Love Them Both.”
His rationale for low pregnancy rates for rape victims is emotional stress can effect hormone levels, which is true to an extent. Because stress can effect hormone levels the emotional trauma of a rape leads to a disruption of hormones and leads to a lower pregnancy rate.
Notice he did not say that there is some kind of naturalistic built in mechanism in a woman's body to fight off a pregnancy from rape. However, Wilke apparently didn't cite any studies to back up his position. Critics also cite studies showing Wilke is wrong.
He also wrote in an article:
"First, let’s define the term “rape.” When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase “forcible rape” or “assault rape,” for that specifies what we’re talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape can be consensual, but we’re not addressing that here."
It appears with the term "legitimate rape" Akin was attempting to articulate Wilke's position as well. I think you can give him a pass on the legitimate rape comment. He was clearly attempting to differentiate between statutory rape and forcible rape.
It also appears that that he was attempting to mirror Wilke's position on stress effecting rape but grossly misstated it to the point where his comment was absurd. I don't think you can give him a pass on that part of the statement.
The left of coarse jumped all over this. While they will attack anyone who opposes abortion, in this case the Presidential election is driving the attack. President Obama has nothing to run on. The economy is the main issue of this election. He needs to change the subject.
During the Republican primaries, liberal moderator George George Stephanopoulos asked a question about contraception that came out of left field. A month after that, the left wheeled out Sandra Fluke. It is transparently obvious that they are attempting to change the narrative from the economy to the fake war on women. Akin gave them ammunition to resurrect the war on women narrative.
What he was saying is that women can lie about being raped, so it's not legitimate, meaning it's not what the law allows. I don't think this is outrageous, mostly because I live in a country were abortion because of rape is allowed, and pretty much you need is to tell authorities you've been raped and get a occurrency report (boletimd de ocurrência), so most girls simply cheat the system that way.
But even if you consider he is wrong, abortion because of rape still wrong because is the killing of a human person, if the mothers' life is not in peril, abortion should not be allowed because of that ( http://issuesetc.org/2012/08/2... ). And the oddest thing, is that the arguments for killing the baby, could be used to kill the victim of rape! Sadness and depression from a tragedy that occurred in the past should never be a justification for death.
And you could apply his same argument to any form of birth control. Take any woman who had an unplanned pregnancy that resulted in a child. Craig is saying that birth control should be illegal, because if this woman had taken birth control back then, these people would not be alive and it would be equivalent to killing them right now.
No, it's not equivalent.
I have always been pro choice. This does make me think however.
The guy that graduates at the bottom of his class in medical school is still called Dr. I have heard pastors say heretical things that would have theologians dropping their jaws. I'm sure there are doctors out there that agre with akin. I even remember a junior high teacher teaching the same viewpoint as akin 40 years ago.
Uh, it's not obvious from the statement, because it's immediately followed with the claim that "legitimate" rape somehow activates a defense mechanism that prevents pregnancy. So even with your rather charitable interpretation, it's still a monumentally asinine statement and it's embarrassing that Craig is defending it.
"Legitimate" rape = actual rape.
"Illegitimate" rape = (as someone has already stated) alleged rape to which the woman, in fact, consented.
I thought this was pretty obvious from the statement itself.
WLC is so dishonest it never ceases to amaze me. His commentary on McCaskill's comment is nothing more than a straw man. Then again, that seems to be his M.O. The mental gymnastics that he will employ to defend his point of view are impressive....moronic and sad...but really illustrate some serious intellectual dishonesty/mental flexibility.
Wow, WLC. Wow.
What's he supposed to do besides trust "doctors"? Firstly, you're taking him at his word that he actually heard that from doctors, since there's zero medical data that indicates that rape triggers a defensive response from the body that somehow prevents pregnancy. Maybe Akins could have spent a few minutes on Google Scholar.
The problem is with the word "legitimate". What the heck is "illegitimate" rape? It's RAPE.
Concerning the imaginary girl and boy you trot out, conceived in an act of rape: you conclude that it would not be acceptable to kill them just because of how they were conceived. But what if Yahweh commanded you to kill them? That would make it acceptable, even laudable, wouldn't it?
Re:"it could be argued that the pregnancy resulting from rape is one thatshould never have happened, even in the eyes of God, and so abortion isjustified. At least it is the lesser of two evils, the other being thecompulsion of the victim to carry the offspring of her rapist."
WhenI was much younger, not yet married, and dating, I would sometimes (Perhaps often)think about how an unplanned pregnancy would destroy my life. My future and everything that I was planningwould be lost. I was only thinking aboutunplanned pregnancies, not rape. I wasfond of everyone that I dated. I didn’tdate people purely out of physical attraction. A pregnancy that was the result of rape is so much worse. It is hard to even think about all the pain,trauma and stress that come the way of a rape victim, no doubt, affecting them,and people around them for their lifetime. A pregnancy resulting from a rape multiplies and magnifies things evenmore. So much more that it would take too much time and space to even begin totouch on all the ways it devastates a person’s life.
Iwould like to give an illustration to help look at a very emotional situationobjectively. Again, I want to emphasisthat I am not making a comparison of two situations and saying that one isworse than the other. It is just anillustration to see it from a different perspective.
~ A young college student is hit by a drunkdriver. The student is seriouslyhurt. The injuries will affect the restof the student’s life. The physical and emotional pain is very high. Injuries include scars across her face thatwill last her lifetime, Injuries to her eyes that leave her with poor vision. Her hopes for the career that she wasstudying for are gone. The man she wasplanning to marry can’t handle it. Heleaves her. She will walk with a limpand have some degree of pain for the rest of her life.
Althoughshe can never alleviate all of this pain, someone convinces her that there is away to make half the pain go away. But,to alleviate half the pain, a person will be randomly picked out of thephonebook and executed as they sleep.
Everyoneagrees that she should not have been injured by a drunk driver. People should not drive whileintoxicated. Even God would want us tonot be negligent in such a way that could harm others. So, is the execution of the person from thephonebook justified? Is it the lesser ofthe two evils?
If Godloves everyone and it is God’s desire that everyone come to him of their ownfree will, how would God view these situations? If his desire is that everyone use their experiences, good and bad, tobe drawn to him (Including the rapist, the drunk driver, the rape victim, theaccident victim, the person in the phonebook and the unborn child), how wouldhe view these things? It doesn’t seem tome that he would want a life cut short, leaving no opportunity for someone tocome to him of their own free will.
why doesn't the lying bible-thumping bastard mention the fact that rate of impregnation from rape is identical to that from consensual intercourse?
Doesn't Craig know that it was better for all those children to die? They're in heaven now, while on earth they would have been neglected and lead lives of misery, just like all the Canaanite children the Lord ordered the Jews to slaughter. Craig says so himself.
That might be possible, except for his repeated legislative attempts to make a separate category of forcible rape, which is clearly what he meant. This is all double think to let them pretend that the rape exception would serve no purpose.
Here's my take on it: http://aviewfromtheright.com/2...
What is it about opposing distressed women from committing murder in their distress that is misogynistic? It is not like Craig supports unsafe abortions- he opposes them all, in fact. It's highly disturbing that those who desire to protect a sacred right to commit murder paint themselves as advocates for women.
//The study he was referencing did NOT differentiate between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape.//
Contrary to the above statement Akins said, "... from what I understand from doctors," which seems to suggest that he isn't referencing a particular study but rather what he has been informed by doctors. As Dr. Craig mentioned, Akin as a layman did what any other layman does and took that information on face value. Whether or not he was given incorrect information is another issue.
//that suggests that the acute stress of rape can actually induce ovulation//
Can you refer me to that study because I'd like to see how this study was conducted. They obviously can't measure a woman's body whilst the stress of rape is occurring (immoral to induce a participant to experience that).
The rest of your post was nicely addressed by Richard Statham however one final note:
//Either way, he's basically been caught in a lie that could cause negitive attitudes to be projected upon rape victims and cause additional emotional harm.//
I don't think saying that in certain rape situations, a women's body CAN protect itself against pregnancy (notice he pointed out that a women is still able to get pregnant in a legitimate rape). This says nothing about the rape victims and doesn't question their legitimacy as you seem to suggest.
//What Akin was saying was that any woman who claims to have become pregnant through rape is lying. It obviously couldn't have been 'legitimate' rape, or she would not be pregnant. She must have enjoyed it, or her body would have 'shut the whole thing down'.//
But he also said that a woman could get pregnant if in the legitimate rape category...
Also he doesn't claim that illegitimate rape isn't rape. As Dr. Craig points out, Rep. Akin was only trying to make a distinction between rape situations.
//Also, I think it could be argued that the pregnancy resulting from rape is one that should never have happened, even in the eyes of God, and so abortion is justified.//
But abortion doesn't "undo" the act of rape. All that is achieved is the innocent death of a child just because of the way that child was conceived.
I believe Akin meant "Legitimate" to mean "actual" as opposed to "alleged".
It's none of Dr Criag's damn business whether or not women who become pregnant as a result of rape terminate their pregnancies or not. If anyone ought to be compared to vicious hyenas, it is men like Akin, Ryan and indeed Craig, who would consign women to unsafe coat hanger, fish hook and Drano abortions with their opposition to safe, legal abortions performed by licensed doctors. Shame on each and every one of them!
Dr. Craig is almost as inane, insipid, and misogynistic as Todd Akin is.
What Akin was saying was that any woman who claims to have become pregnant through rape is lying. It obviously couldn't have been 'legitimate' rape, or she would not be pregnant. She must have enjoyed it, or her body would have 'shut the whole thing down'.
Also, I think it could be argued that the pregnancy resulting from rape is one that should never have happened, even in the eyes of God, and so abortion is justified. At least it is the lesser of two evils, the other being the compulsion of the victim to carry the offspring of her rapist. Giving the baby up for adoption is not as easy as some people (men) seem to think.
I think you are making a statement that you can not verify. You state that "NO" doctors are saying that "REAL" rape reduces fertility. How can you know that? Have you questioned all doctors on this issue? I hardly think so. This unverifiable statement leads you you make further assumptions by calling Akin a liar. Do you have solid evidence that this is the case? Again, I hardly think so. You are suffering from the same problem so many others have who jumped on the band wagon of outcry. We all need to give every one the same innocent until PROVEN guilty right.
The main problem I think is the word "legitimate" preceding "rape". The study he was referencing did NOT differentiate between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape. Furthermore, that doctor's attitude is fringe and while the rape pregnancies are low overall, it has little to do with the woman's body's reaction to the acute stress caused by the rape itself as he suggested. In fact, there's evidence that suggests that the acute stress of rape can actually induce ovulation.
The reason people conjecture about Akin's attitudes is because NO doctors are saying that that "REAL" rape reduces fertility, so his motives for the fabrication become suspect. He's either getting non-doctor sources and attributing them to doctors, or he's conjecturing the ideas himself and attributing them to doctors. Either way, he's basically been caught in a lie that could cause negitive attitudes to be projected upon rape victims and cause additional emotional harm.
It reminds me of the same "blame the victim" attitude that people had when they claimed that mothers of autistic children caused them to be that way by being emotionally distant or cold.
Good comments. Cal Thomas has a good column about the situation, and does comment about the politics along with the morals (below). Needless to say, pro-lifers need to be defending Akin--a Christian and committed pro-life advocate. He shouldn't resign; his position on rape was known by all Republican primary voters who gave him the nomination. The media uses these situations in creating a narrative pushing a pro-choice position.
Receive our free Newsletter
Get Dr. Craig's newsletter and keep up with RF news and events.
Dr. Craig’s new TV series Reasonable Faith begins Monday, Oct 1st!
Read more →
Get the free Reasonable Faith App for iPhone, iPad, & Android!
Scholarly ArticlesArticles published in peer-reviewed journals
Popular ArticlesIntended for a general audience
DebatesSelect transcriptions of Dr. Craig's debates
Q & AWeekly question and answer
Video / AudioDebates, Talks, and Interviews
Reasonable Faith PodcastConversations with William Lane Craig
Defenders PodcastClass on Christian doctrine and apologetics
Current Events BlogAudio commentary on current events
Copyright Reasonable Faith. All rights reserved worldwide. Reasonable Faith is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.