Akin’s position on abortion inspired some of the controversy, of course. So did his clear implication that some rapes are not real rapes. He managed, however, to add more toxic ingredients to the mix. He claimed, glibly, that women’s bodies can “shut down” impregnation so that rapes “really rarely” lead to pregnancy. The implications: these tragedies are insignificant because of their infrequency; a ban would create no real hardship; women who claim to have become pregnant through rape should be doubted.
Imagine if Akin had instead responded to the question this way:
“First of all, rape is a terrible crime that we must do everything we can as a society to prevent, and I can hardly imagine the horror of a rape victim who finds out that she is pregnant. I believe that, even in this terrible case, the unborn child is an innocent party and its life should be protected. I understand that most people disagree with me, and I might never persuade them to see this the way I do. My plan is to work to provide protection for the 99 percent of unborn children who are aborted for totally different reasons, while continuing to try to change views on this question.”
Afterwords
When it’s pointed out to Ponnuru that the “personhood” concept would require that everyone involved in the destruction of a zygote or embryo be charged with murder, his response is that no one has ever advocated that. In other words, you can’t charge us with inconsistency, because we’ve always been inconsistent.
