Ethics Dunce: Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)…Plus Some Clarifications

/ Jack Marshall

Apparently Prissy told Todd Akin’s family all about the Baby Faries…

To clarify, Rep. Todd Akin, the GOP’s candidate for the U.S. Senate in opposition to Sen. Claire McCaskill, is not an Ethics Dunce because he said, in a recent TV interview, this, in response to whether it should be illegal for a woman impregnated by a rapist to get an abortion:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

No, that statement just proves that he’s an idiot.

Rapists impregnating their victims are rare because the magic Baby Fairies can tell the difference between a woman’s sex with a loving partner or a horny one-night stand, and sex with a man who has a knife at her throat? Can we have a show of hands from all the doctors out there who will cop to that one? The implications of this fantasy, apparently passed along to Akin by family friend Butterfly McQueen, who also told him that if you leave a knife under the mattress of a mother delivering a baby “it will cut the pain in two,” are staggering. It suggests, for example, that if a woman claiming to have been raped gets pregnant, that creates a prima facie case that she was lying about not consenting, since those Baby Fairies are usually pretty reliable.

Let’s also clarify Akin’s subsequent apology for him, in which he claimed his Baby Fairies statement was “a very, very serious error.” He cannot be saying that he didn’t believe the part about the Baby Fairies, and made a mistake by saying something that was utter nonsense worthy of “Prissy.” Why? Because non-idiots never say things worthy of Prissy, even for second, without suddenly shouting out, “What the hell am I saying?” as soon as the words hit their own ears. Akin’s statement about the body having mystical “ways” of preventing pregnancy when a woman hasn’t consented to sex is a matter of signature significance: no one says such a thing, in public, especially on TV, even once if they don’t believe it or understand how brain-meltingly offensive it is. If Akin is claiming he was mistaken to say something he knew was ridiculous and offensive, then he is saying that he was possessed by the demon Pazuzu, just like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.” Well, being possessed by the demon Pazuzu is just as much of a disqualification for the U.S. Senate as being as dumb as a box of hammers. I mean, we can’t have a U.S. Senator vomiting green ooze all over Harry Reid, or spinning his head 180 degrees on “Meet The Press.”

What Akin must mean by “serious, serious error,” is that he made a mistake by letting the world in on the fact that he truly believes in the Baby Faries, since the good people of his district elected him to Congress and surely wouldn’t have done so if they knew he was an idiot, or possessed, for that matter.

The Republican Party, reasonably and responsibly, has told Akin they don’t want him to be their nominee any more, since having either an idiot or someone possessed by the demon Pazuzu as a party’s U.S. Senate nominee is an embarrassment and reduces its chances of taking control of the Senate, Democratic Senator McCaskill being likely to lose to any qualified, non-idiot, non-possessed Republican. Akin, however, has refused to quit. He doesn’t care about his party, or his insult to women and the species of Homo sapiens; he doesn’t comprehend such niceties as loyalty, accountability, responsibility, courage and sacrifice, all of which, indeed any of which, would dictate that he withdraw and let Republicans nominate someone who won’t blow the Missouri race and be a constant millstone around Mitt Romney’s neck in the process. All Akin cares about is his own career, which is in the toilet if he quits and in the toilet if he loses. He figures, what the heck? Might as well take a shot—what do I have to lose? He thinks this way because, like most selfish, unethical people, he doesn’t care about anyone or anything else.

That’s what makes him an Ethics Dunce.

[One more clarification is necessary. Democrats, naturally, are muddying the issue by conflating Akin’s “legitimate rape” fantasy with his position that abortion should be illegal even in the event of rape or incest. That latter position may be unpopular and controversial, but it is neither idiotic nor unethical. It is, in fact, the only ethically consistent anti-abortion position. If a fetus is a human life, it doesn’t become less human or worthy of less protection under the law because of how it came into being, or because of the crime of one of the parents.]

_______________________________________________

Facts: Washington Post

Source: New Statesman

Graphic: Movie Actors

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.

16 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)…Plus Some Clarifications”

  2. That latter position may be unpopular and controversial, but it is neither idiotic nor unethical. It is, in fact, the only ethically consistent anti-abortion position. If a fetus is a human life, it doesn’t become less human or worthy of less protection under the law because of how it came into being, or because of the crime of one of the parents.

    I find that reasoning similar to that of those who argued that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was wrong.

    Might as well take a shot—what do I have to lose? He thinks this way because, like most selfish, unethical people, he doesn’t care about anyone or anything else.

    The electorate’s record for rejecting such candidates is spotty, at best. They rejected Alan Grayson in no small part to his “Taliban Dan” ad, while electing Richard Blumenthal despite his lies about serving in Vietnam.

    Reply

  3. I was wondering if you would pick this one up. I cannot figure out where he was going with his train of thought, it is just so absurd. Good call

    Reply

  4. If abortion is unethical in case of rape, then it means one can not kill to defend one’s own body from an intruder.

    It follows then, that one can not kill to defend one’s own home from an intruder. This is because an intrusion into a home places a lesser burden than an intrusion into a human body.

    Or someone else’s land from an intruder.

    Or in retaliation for someone else attacking one’s, or someone else’s property.

    It would thus mean that the Castle Doctrine is wrong.

    It would thus mean that it would be wrong for the U.S. to order troops to kill to defend someone else’s land, nevermind the land of the U.S..

    And it was wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Others have made this comparison .

    It does appear that the only people who can credibly argue that “abortion should be illegal even in the event of rape or incest” are some of the the Code Pink and LewRockwell.Com types.

    Reply

    • I’m sorry, Michael, but that’s beyond a stretch. Calling one’s own child “an alien invader” is tortured logic. An illegal alien may be an invader, but the child he or she has while in the US is a citizen. The same here. The unborn child has no choice in the matter—all the other invaders you describe are 1) hostile and 2) intentional. You remove an innocent “invader”—you do not and cannot legally or ethically kill him. Terrible analogy.

      Reply

        • There is a reason why rape is psychologically and emotionally traumatic. Why Men Rape.

          Analysis of the data showed that young women suffered greater distress after a rape than did children or women who were past reproductive age. That finding makes evolutionary sense, because it is young women who were at risk of being impregnated by an undesirable mate. Married women, moreover, were more traumatized than unmarried women, and they were more likely to feel that their future had been harmed by the rape. That, too, makes evolutionary sense, because the doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support

          …

          [T]he psychological pain that rape victims suffer appears to be an evolved defense against rape. The human females who outreproduced others and thus became our ancestors were people who were highly distressed about rape. Their distress presumably served their interests by motivating them to identify the circumstances that resulted in the rape, assess the problems the rape caused, and act to avoid rapes in the future.

          If abortion is outlawed in case of rape, then we would be in essence, going against human evolution, against the behavior of our ancestors. We would be nullifying the purpose of the psychological and emotional trauma caused by rape, which is to defend against rape to defend female choice in a mate. And in the case of married women raped and impregnated by men not their husbands, we would be destroying their marriages due to :”doubts about paternity” which can lead husbands to “withdraw …[their] support”.

          Make no mistake, prohibiting abortion in case of rape would lead to more divorces, more broken families. We do not need that.

          On the National Organization of Marriage blog, I frequently post to defend marriage. For me to support laws against pregnant rape victims having abortions would be to go against what I have argued for so many years.

          Reply

      • The unborn child has no choice in the matter—all the other invaders you describe are 1) hostile and 2) intentional. You remove an innocent “invader”—you do not and cannot legally or ethically kill him. Terrible analogy.

        And if innocent invaders put themselves in a position where they would die if they were removed…

        Reply

  5. I fear you’ve been a little hard on the man. Conservative Judges and state representatives have said similar things for years.

    Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Stephen Freind for example:

    The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are “one in millions and millions and millions,”

    http://articles.philly.com/1988-03-23/news/26277205_1_freind-woman-secretes-luigi-mastroianni

    North Carolina Republican Representative Henry Aldridge testified before the House Appropriations Committee that:

    “The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant,” … “Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Lawmaker-Says-Rape-Can-t-Cause-Pregnancy-3036411.php#ixzz24AWWMKYR

    Federal Judge James Leon Holmes and leading Arkansas anti-abortion activist said:

    “concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”

    http://forward.com/articles/7642/in-judicial-twist-republicans-seen-stalling-bush/

    Now Todd Aikin is being made a scapegoat for what many religious anti-abortion Crusaders truly believe. Jerry Falwell being just the latest.

    This kind of statement is not new. How was he to know that it would cause such a fuss? It doesn’t need evidence, it’s an article of Faith, a religious belief, so shouldn’t be questioned. What makes this one different?

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.