A Baby Fairy (from the Todd Akin collection)
Todd Akin, as I discussed in the recent post, is too dumb to serve in high elected office, and his refusal (at least so far) to give up his nomination for the U.S. Senate after proving it marks him as unethical as well.
Nonetheless, an astounding number of pundits, Democrats and social media users are making fools of themselves and missing the fish in the barrel by concentrating their fire on Akin’s use of the phrase “legitimate rape.” Many of them apparently never read his quote, and really think the poor, silly man said that rape could be “legitimate”, as in “legal, just, valid or proper,” which is what the word really means. He didn’t say that, and he didn’t mean that. He obviously didn’t mean that, and it is unfair and misleading to condemn him on the basis of what he didn’t say.
Here is his quote again, speaking of women getting pregnant after being raped:
“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.”
Akin’s choice of words was sloppy and imprecise—stupid people will do that. By “legitimate” he meant “real” or “genuine.” This is not an uncommon usage of the word, although it is technically incorrect. Thesauruses list words like acknowledged, certain, normal, probable, real, recognized, regular, sure, true, typical, usual, verifiable, and well-founded as synonyms for “legitimate,”and to ignore this as well as the context of his comment to paint him as a monster is wrong. By “legitimate rape,” Akin–clearly—was not suggesting that there was ever a situation where rape was legal or acceptable. He was distinguishing “legitimate rape” from “fake rape,” that is, situations where a woman has consented or otherwise given a green light to intercourse, and later claims it’s rape. What he was saying was dumber and more offensive, in my view, than what he’s being accused of saying, or at least no less so. Why can’t his critics pillory him for what he actually was saying, rather than manufacturing a phony offense? Are they really as stupid as he is?
It’s possible. If you argue that he was saying rape is “legitimate” as in lawful and just (again, he wasn’t), then you render his neat, convenient Baby Fairies theory incomprehensible. Akin was explaining that the Baby Fairies magically know the difference between real rape and when the woman is just crying rape, and won’t let a woman who is really raped get pregnant, so they wave their fairy wands so her body “shuts that whole thing down.” Now, why would the Baby Fairies do that if the rape were “legitimate” as in “fine and dandy”? They wouldn’t, obviously. The reason they shut everything down is because what Akin calls “legitimate rape” is bad. His critics, however, are attacking him for something stupid and offensive that Akin didn’t say, that there are legitimate, as in legal and acceptable, rapes. He doesn’t believe that, or at least never said it. The Baby Fairies certainly don’t believe that, and Akin does believe in them, because he’s an idiot. But not the kind of idiot he’s being accused of being.
I have to say, this kind of thing drives me crazy for many reasons, not the least of which is that it forces me to defend someone like Todd Akin.. This is how a simple example of a man proving himself unfit for office becomes an ethics train wreck, and the real ethics lessons of the incident get obscured and muddled. Already this morning I have received an e-mail asking me if I had read about the Republican Senate candidate who says there are “legitimate rapes,” and doesn’t this just confirm Democratic accusations of a GOP “war on women”? The answers to these questions are “No” and “No.” Nobody has said that rapes are legitimate, in the technical sense, especially Rep. Akin. He’s just inarticulate, and managed to say one stupid and offensive thing in a way that allowed stupid people to think, or dishonest people to claim, that he had said a different stupid and offensive thing. And no, the stupid comment of one incompetent Congressman in Missouri no more defines his entire party than two decades of stupid comments from Rep. Maxine Waters, or four decades of stupid comments from Rep. John Conyers, defines the whole Democratic party.
Any critic of Akin for being an incompetent, unethical fool has my blessing. Critics who harp on his use of the term “legitimate rape,’ however, are either lazy, dumb or unethical themselves, however, and please, tell them I said so.
UPDATE: And here is confirmation of the damage that results from lazy critics attacking the wrong issue: it allows the transgressor to try to duck the real issue by apologizing for something irrelevant. In his new rapid-response campaign ad, Akin re-affirms his belief that rape is an evil act—that is, that he never intended to suggest that rape could be “just” or “proper” when he used the word “legitimate.” Well, we knew that already, or should have known. But since so much of the partisan anger has been focused on the phrase “legitimate rape,” he can now claim that he just used the wrong words. NO. He used very clear words to state that he believes the victims of “real” rape don’t get pregnant. He meant that, or he wouldn’t have said it. He cannot apologize now for being a cretin, because he still is one; he can only apologize for having the audacity to run for the Senate when he is a cretin, and the remedy is dropping out.
___________________________________________
Graphic: Templates
Ethics Alarms 
Wait, just a minute. If stupid and inarticulate were disqualifications for office how did Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Debbie Devilwoman-Schultz and Harry Reid get into office?
The same way Akin got into office, I guess. He was elected as a representative.
A lot of foolish people voted for them. Unqualified doesn’t mean “unelectable.” As we should all know by now…
The use of the word “legitimate” has me questioning what he meant. It could be as you said, but because of his belief in the biology of women during a rape, I’m no so certain what his thoughts were in using the term. He simply should have stated, “If a woman is raped….” His use of the term, “If it’s a legitimate rape…” makes me think he means the violence perpetrated by a stranger, not necessarily the other types of rape, such as when a woman isn’t able to give consent or when a husband forces himself on his wife. I do agree, however, that the main problem with what he said is the idiocy of the idea that a biological function spontaneously occurs during a rape in order to prohibit a pregnancy. That’s what should keep him from holding public office.
I don’t doubt that he probably has a different definition of rape than you or I, but if it’s not rape in his view, then he’s not saying that any rape is legitimate. He meant “real” rape, there’s no doubt about it. Lots, and I mean lots, of people still believe that a husband can’t rape his wife (or that Rhett doesn’t rape Scarlett when they go up those stairs). That’s not him saying that rape is legitimate. It is him implying that some things that are called rape are not, and that the Baby Fairies can tell the difference. The term “legitimate rape” as he uses it is not inherently offensive; for example, Wanetta Gibson was not “legitimately” raped, but she sent a man to jail claiming she was. She wasn’t raped at all.
I haven’t seen an example of what you’re talking about, can you provide one? The offense over the word “legitimate” that I’ve seen is not people misunderstanding how he used the word; it’s the implication that some events, which the victims, the law, and most people would consider rape or sexual assault, are not “legitimate” rapes. This is coming from a man who wanted to ensure the word “forcible” was inserted before “rape” in an abortion-related law, which is presumed by many to mean that rape using drugs or coersion, for example, would not count. Are these “legitimate” rapes in Akin’s eyes? I have a pretty good idea, but I won’t presume to answer that question definitively. Regardless, that perception is what’s behind the outcry I’ve seen over the word.
You’re not looking very hard. Here’s a typical one, from a predictable source: http://jezebel.com/5936160/the-official-guide-to-legitimate-rape
See, I read both your link and tgt’s as saying just what I intended: Akin’s language suggest certain events are not actually rape.
Whereas the way I understand what you say they say (wow, that’s convoluted sentence structure) is: Akin’s language says there are certain types of rape that are perfectly okay.
To me, there’s a distinction between the two statements. I agree that the second one would not fairly characterize Akin’s intent. I believe the first one may.
Akin said that anything that is not a false accusation would result in a termination of the pregnancy.
The links are suggesting that instead of differentiating between a rape and accusation of a rape, Akin is suggesting that some rapes have legitimacy, while other don’t.
See the title of Ophelia’s piece. See where she cuts off NYMag. She does talk about the rape occurring vs not occurring, but her quotes, title, and language show what got her.
The focus is on the word legitimate, instead of on Akin’s usage of the word.
The first one does.
Here’s another: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/08/legitimate-rape/
Normally Ophelia Benson is sane.
Thanks; good one. Twitter, of course, has literally hundreds of tweets in the vein.
And here’s The Daily Beast’s Kirsten Powers, in an otherwise on-point essay, going to the cheap shot: “So somehow liberals are responsible for Akin going on television and claiming there is something called “legitimate rape.” Of course, in the way Akin uses the word, there is obviously something called “legitimate rape” a genuine, real, honest-to-god rape, and being genuine or “legitimate” doesn’t make it less of a crime or more acceptable. Why does Powers do this? Because it works, that’s why.
(begin sarcasm) Maybe this is what Whoopi Goldberg meant when she said that Roman Polanski hadn’t committed rape-rape. Maybe they should go on a talk show together and explore this topic. (/end sarcasm)
I’m sorry, I thought this campaign season had hit rock bottom with Joe Biden’s comments that Mitt Romney wanted to enslave blacks. Just when you think you hit the “Toddlers and Tiaras” level with politics, someone wheels out “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo”.
I’m sorry, I thought this campaign season had hit rock bottom with Joe Biden’s comments that Mitt Romney wanted to enslave blacks. Just when you think you hit the “Toddlers and Tiaras” level with politics, someone wheels out “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo”.
That one will keep me chuckling the rest of the day, thanks Michael
Jack,
Thanks for the replay. I will think about your thoughts before coming to a conclusion (or close to one). I still stand by my thought that what should prodclude him from office is his idiocy in thinking the “Baby Fairies” was a reality.
I couldn’t agree more.
Note that Akin serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
To say that his belief in “Baby Fairies” as you put it is a fringe one amongst GOP lawmakers defies credulity. If such a crackpot view of biology, one so deeply ignorant, was exceptional, then he wouldn’t be on that committee, would he?
It’s difficult not to come to the conclusion that he’s being unfairly and unjustly scapegoated by other GOP lawmakers for being too honest. For saying what most of them believe, but know the electorate would not tolerate.
You’re putting far too much weight on Committee assignments. This is, as I told Barry, the smoking gun as far as the partisan plan to make one idiot GOP Congressman a stand-in for the Party–it’s dishonest and unfair, but it has confirmation bias behind it, so I’m sure its easy to believe for some. That’s right, by some miracle, Republican lawmakers are more ignorant and biased than the public at large. No, they aren’t. Some of them are. Your comment is a classic of partisan bigotry. I don’t judge the whole Democratic party by its dimmest bulbs, even though some of the dimmest are in the top positions, like Biden, Reid and Pelosi. I don’t judge the GOP by fools like Akin, Inhofe, Bachmann and West, either. No fair person should.
True, but we can not deny that if Democrats were led by grown-ups, instead of “Biden, Reid and Pelosi”, they would still control the House and Senate.
I frankly don’t believe this “trend” you’re talking about exists, Jack. I don’t think you’re being deliberately deceptive; I think you’ve just settled on a false interpretation of what people are saying, and your conviction about it is preventing you from fairly reading what they actually ARE saying.
You’ve given only three examples, and not one of them, when I actually read the source, was an example of what you claim (that is, someone claiming that Akin intended to say that some rapes are “legal, just, valid or proper”). I’ve read dozens of posts about Akin’s statement from feminists, and not a single one took the interpretation that you falsely suggest is commonplace.
Benson made it perfectly clear, for example, that what she was talking about was the implication that women pretend to have been raped in order to explain pregnancies, and if she’d really been raped then she wouldn’t be pregnant. She wrote:
That is in no way an example of someone accusing Akin of having said that some rapes are “legal, just, valid or proper.” It’s an example of someone who thinks Akin was implying that women often lie about being raped.
Similarly, Powers wrote “That doesn’t really sound like the freak occurrence Willke portrays rapes resulting in pregnancies to be, unless you believe that most of those women are lying, which is the implication in the argument.” Again, how she’s interpreting “legitimate” is very clear – she interpreted Akin to be implying that there are a lot of pregnant women falsely claiming rape. That doesn’t support your claim, Jack.
I think you’ve gotten this one completely wrong. Out of hundreds of thousands of bloggers and tweeters, maybe a handful took the interpretation you suggest, but it’s not commonplace or the norm. What people really are saying is that the phrase “legitimate rape” implies that there are tons of apparent rapes out there that are not actually rape.
On the contrary, your comment and interpretation is dishonest, and obviously so.
Why is “legitimate rape”, often with a question mark, being used as the headline and catch phrase across the media, if the critics are accepting the obvious meaning Akin intended? You don’t see that alone as misleading? What does all the “what is a legitimate rape?” mockery mean? The implication is that Akin claimed that some forms of rape are “legitimate”…if not, then the word is tangential to what made his statement objectionable, and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion…and it shouldn’t be.
And you are cherry-picking. Here’s another quote from Baker’s piece: “Why is it wrong to think that Akin meant to say “legitimate” when he literally said “legitimate”? Why should we spend a millisecond of our time analyzing Akin’s deep thoughts on the “science” behind the female body’s ability to “shut down” if she’s being raped? Why does Akin deserve the benefit of the doubt at all? Why is a Politico reporter more concerned with all of the mythological crazy ladies out there claiming fake rape than with the fact that a state representative who sits on the House Science committee doesn’t understand how pregnancy works?” She is specifically arguing the interpretation of “legitimate” that you say nobody is saying, and that I am imagining. Similarly Powers: “So somehow liberals are responsible for Akin going on television and claiming there is something called “legitimate rape.” Explain any interpretation of that sentence that doesn’t square with my interpretation. If Akin’s use of the word means “true,” then we know there is “such a thing” as legitimate rape; if it means “lawful or just” then she’s right: there’s no such thing.
Oh, I know why this is going on, and why you are defending it. Having the issue be one idiotic statement by one dumb Congressman isn’t a weapon…this had to be framed as code for a general Republican position, or it doesn’t fit the Obama “war on women” fantasy. “Legitimate” must be code for “forcible”, the term used by the House in its bizarre abortion bill, so now all Republicans can be said to believe that some rape is “legitimate.” I know how the partisan deceit works, on both sides. Sorry to blow the whistle, but I’m thoroughly sick of it. It is intentionally deceptive and unfair, and I resent anything that makes me have to defend an unethical fool like Akin.
Jack, I’m finding our disagreement here so bizarre that I wonder if I’m misunderstanding your view.
As I understand it, you’re saying that the primary, common critique of the term “legitimate rape” is that the term implies that some rapes are legal and just — that there are good rapes which are actually rape.
I’m saying that the critique of the term “legitimate rape” is that it implies a that many rape claims are NOT legitimately rape – perhaps false claims from lying women, perhaps acquaintance rapes, etc — as opposed to “legitimate rape,” which Akin used to mean “real rape” (or, as Whoopi Goldberg infamously put it, “rape rape.”)
Is that an accurate summary of our disagreement?
No.
I see nothing in Akin’s use of “legitimate” that suggests a Whoopie-like qualification in which some rape isn’t rape, but that’s a great clarifying yardstick. Whoopie, in fact, was using the equivalent of the first and formal meaning of “legitimate”—Polanski’s Hollywood pals don’t think he committed rape that should be punished at all, that a child rape when the child consents on the casting couch is, or should be, legal, even though everyone outside of Hollywood calls it rape. Why? Because they do it all the time—it’s standard practice.
That meaning of “legitimate rape” is offensive and absurd, but that is what the naked term “legitimate rape” conjures up, and the naked term is what is on headlines everywhere. If the term is not meant to signal an oxymoron, then why would it be the catch phrase? But Akin’s use was not the oxymoronic one. Surely you are not denying that there are accusations of rape that are not based on reality—I have a file of such cases. Akin’s “legitimate rape” is “real rape”—sex without consent. Does he limit that to “forceable rape”? I have no idea, but that’s not what he said. “legitimate” was not the part of his statement that was offensive or ignorant—there ARE non-rapes, and the adjective was superfluous to what he was talking about—that in a rape, women don’t get pregnant. Instead of concentrating on that, which was the substance of the statement, the media and commentators are flogging “legitimate” which 1) misrepresents what he said 2) bypasses the substance of his stupidity and 3) lets him wiggle off the hook by saying “I used the wrong word.”
Let me address this first:
This is why we can’t have nice things, Jack. This sort of “if you disagree with me you’re an insincere liar” attack is why American political discourse, on both sides, is so horrible.
To answer your completely unjust, utterly bizarre, personal attack: No, I am NOT being intentionally deceptive and unfair. And for you to make a personal attack like that is totally uncalled for, totally rude, and totally incompatible with civil disagreement. You owe me an apology.
(Nor do I think this even matters, from a partisan point of view. Voters in November aren’t going to remember a gaffe from August. The media makes a big deal of gaffes because it’s what they’re good at reporting, as opposed to reporting on substantive policy issues, but that doesn’t mean that gaffes matter.)
Regarding our disagreement: I don’t monitor the headlines. But I can say that I’ve seen absolutely no one criticize Akin on the grounds you claim — on the grounds that he was intending to say that some rapes should be legal, or that some rapes are legal and just.
One thing you may be missing here is context. Nearly no one denies that there are some false rape accusations; but there has been an ongoing debate over how common false rape accusations are. There is a long-abiding stereotype that women commonly lie about being raped as an excuse for being pregnant, or because the guy didn’t call them the next day, or just because women are mean. There are also many liberals and feminists who have counter-argued for years that false rape accusations are proportionately no more common than false accusations of other crimes. This is an argument that often becomes quite heated. It’s quite natural, when liberals and feminists see a term like “legitimate rape,” it calls to mind this long-ongoing debate.
In that context, many liberals and feminists saw Akin’s quote and blew a gasket (and I’d say rightly so), because they correctly saw it as implying that a huge number of rapes — such as the tens of thousands of rapes annually which lead to pregnancy — are false rape claims. People claiming rape after-the-fact when in fact the sex was consensual. That sort of thing.
Now, you may not think that’s a sensible interpretation of Akin’s quote — but it is, nonetheless, how feminists and liberals have been genuinely interpreting it.
You’ve offered three examples of writers who you claim are misinterpreting Akin as suggesting that some rapes are legal and just (or should be legal). In all three cases, reading what they wrote in fact supports my interpretation, as I’ve shown with quotes from two of them.
To that, you claim – without the slightest bit of supporting argument or evidence – that I’ve distorted them by quoting them out of context. No, I haven’t. The quotes I provided are quite clear, and reading the full context does not change their meaning. “…there’s lots of illegitimate rape where actually she totally wanted it but then lied afterward” is obviously a reference to false rape accusations; what possible context do you believe makes it something else, Jack?
Similarly, when Powers said “unless you believe that most of those women are lying, which is the implication in the argument,” she is clearly and unambiguously talking about the prevalence of false rape claims. What context do you think changes that?
You then provide a quote from Baker:
And you say Baker “is specifically arguing the interpretation of “legitimate” that you say nobody is saying, and that I am imagining.”
To which I respond: No, she isn’t.
The “literal” definition of “legitimate” can go either way; it can mean “lawful,” as you are interpreting it, but it can also mean “authentic” or “genuine,” which would support my interpretation. (See the dictionary definition, here.)
At the end of the quote you provide, however, Baker says something that clearly shows that she’s talking about the prevalence of false rape claims: ” all of the mythological crazy ladies out there claiming fake rape.” So the quote is another completely unambiguous example of an author interpreting Akin’s comment as being about false rape accusations.
To make sure, I emailed Baker and asked her to clarify. She responded: “No, I definitely don’t think Akin meant that there are legal and just rapes.”
That quote, out of context, could square with either of our interpretations. In the full article, however, she refers unambiguously to the issue of false rape accusations (and how common they are). She never once refers unambiguously to your interpretation – and, in fact, as she herself clarified in email, she didn’t mean your interpretation.
I’ve now provided three unambiguous examples — all from writers chosen by you — of writers interpreting Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment to be about the prevalence of false (or “illegitimate”) rape accusations. Which is, by the way, exactly how I myself interpreted it, the first moment I saw the quote reported. It never even occurred to me to interpret it as “some rapes are, or should be, legal” until I read your post days later, even though I had read dozens of posts about Akin’s quote by then.
In contrast, you haven’t provided even one unambiguous quote to support the way you mistakenly claim liberals/feminists have commonly misinterpreted Akin’s quote. Please quote someone saying “Akin meant that some forms of rape should be legal” or “Akin meant that some rape is legitimate, that is, legal and just” or anything unambiguous like that. My strong suspicion is that you can’t find a clear quote like that.
At this point, a reasonable person should at least begin to entertain the possibility that he might be mistaken.
I wrote:
Well, actually, that IS a sensible interpretation of Akin’s quote, in your view (as you’ve stated it here). If I could edit that bit, I would.
1. I do apologize. I do believe that the use of “Legitimate rape” is cynical and intentionally misleading by many; I don’t blame you for it, and believe you are defending what you are in good faith. But the argument still annoys me, because it seems so obviously contrived.
2. “Regarding our disagreement: I don’t monitor the headlines. But I can say that I’ve seen absolutely no one criticize Akin on the grounds you claim — on the grounds that he was intending to say that some rapes should be legal, or that some rapes are legal and just.” This is where we diverge. If they are not saying that, then they should not be flogging “legitimate rape” as an absurdity or an unnecessary distinction. I was a prosecutor, and determining what was or wasn’t rape was damn hard when it involved a acquaintances. “Legitimate rape” is a fair description, though not a technical one, when the alleged victim is telling the truth or correctly characterizing her lack of consent. If you mock that phrase, either you believe every rape accusation is true (see Duke Lacrosse) or that Akin was suggesting that some forms of rape are “legitimate,” as in “OK.” When a pundit say, “What in god’s name is a “legitimate rape”, which is she referencing? It seems pretty obvious, though you deny it.
3. I believe Baker, and also believe she was pandering with a cheap shot. As I just explained, “claiming there is something called “legitimate rape.”’ is NOT susceptible to multiple interpretations. Come on, Barry. The phrase “claiming there is something called “legitimate rape.”’ suggests that there is NOT such a thing, which can only mean that, for the purposes of that cheap shot, at least, she was embracing exactly the definition of “legitimate” that she told you she was not. How else can you read it?
4. If Powers was not playing this game, why the “legitimate rape” as the focus of her title? Ditto Baker. This is the dog-whistling I object to.
5. There are no pieces that are so open and honest as to actually say “Akin meant that some rape is legitimate”, because that could be addressed. Instead, they write things like “What’s a “legitimate rape”? That means exactly the same thing, because if that’s NOt what it means, the question answers itself. A legitimate rape is a real one, obviously, and a real one isn’t “legal or just.”
6. If the commentators are really trying to say that there is no such thing as phony rape accusations, shame on them. Maybe I’m giving them too much credit.
7. I said in the original post that Akin’s suggesting that pregnancy disproved rape was both stupid and offensive. But the term “legitimate rape” doesn’t connote that.
8. I have no reason to defend Akin—he’s a disgrace. I was calling attention to what I see as clear partisan over-reach, and sloppy over-reach at that. What Akin said was bad enough on its face, but the critics are using word games to try to make what he said worse. It is very clear to me, but obviously a lot of intelligent people are falling for it, which is why it is effective. It’s absurd for you and I to be arguing about this when we agree that 1) Rape is rape; 2) Akin is an idiot and 3)he should not be accused of excusing rape by making a distinction between actual rape and non-rape, even though his basis for that distinction is polluted with his ignorance.
9. Again, I apologize for the personal attack, which was unwarranted and unfair.
1. Thank you for the apology; I appreciate it and accept it.
2. I didn’t intend to imply that you were, in any way at all, defending Akin; sorry if you got the impression that I was implying that.
3. You write ” If the commentators are really trying to say that there is no such thing as phony rape accusations, shame on them.”
That’s not what they’re trying to say. Virtually no one says that there is no such thing as a false rape accusation.
However, there is a major and ongoing argument (in some circles) regarding how common false rape accusations are. The commentators took Akin’s comment to be endorsing the false stereotype that women lie about rape all the time.
As an analogy, if someone says something that implies that Jews are especially likely to be money-grubbing thieves, I’d find that objectionable. But that doesn’t mean I’m trying to say that individual Jews are NEVER money-grubbing thieves; obviously some are, just as some individuals of all groups are. It just means that I object to the stereotype that this is what Jews are commonly like.
4. All the rest of the arguments, I’m willing to let lie as they are. Best wishes to you!
Thanks. You are gracious, as always.
Actually, I’m certain that women don’t cry rape nearly enough. And I suppose if one is inclined to believe that a conservative Republican thinks most rape accusations are hooey, one could read that into the phrase “legitimate rape,” but my God, talk about piling assumptions on presumptions. Liek most Americans, I was barely aware of Akin’s existance before this. From that standpoint, “legitimate rape” seemed clumsy but innocuous.
He used very clear words to state that he believes the victims of “real” rape don’t get pregnant. He meant that, or he wouldn’t have said it. He cannot apologize now for being a cretin, because he still is one
Back in my college days, a female fellow student and fellow parishioner, passionately argued (over my skepticism), the case that conception from rape virtually never happens… in other words, Akin’s argument. Apparently this idea was once TAUGHT in unversities, and Akin himself asserts he was told this by doctors. He didn’t just invent the idea out of nowhere, he heard it from what SHOULD have been reliable sources, and he’s not an “idiot” for believing them.
Today, we have a lot more data. Thanks to the inevitable rotten fruit of the sexual revolution, the rape rate is sky high and has been for several decades…. And we now know that rapes often DO cause pregnancy. (One of the most beautiful and charming women I ever met, back in my single days, was the product of her mother’s rape.) But one cannot call Akin a moral monster just because his knowledge base was out of date. Misinformed? Yes. Cretin? No. Unethical? No.
Unethical, yes. He is a public figure, and on the science committee—he may not be that ignorant in his position, and it is unethical to spread his ignorance to others. Incompetence is unethical. Lack of diligence is unethical. It was not taught in respectable universities, and, you were skeptical for a reason—it makes no damn sense. It you want to maintain that an intelligent person over the age of 11 would believe in the Baby Fairies, fine. I tend to believe that I (or you) could defeat such a person in Scrabble by 300 points with half our brains tied behind our backs.
Unethical, yes. He is a public figure, and on the science committee—he may not be that ignorant in his position, and it is unethical to spread his ignorance to others. Incompetence is unethical. Lack of diligence is unethical. It was not taught in respectable universities, and, you were skeptical for a reason—it makes no damn sense. It you want to maintain that an intelligent person over the age of 11 would believe in the Baby Fairies, fine. I tend to believe that I (or you) could defeat such a person in Scrabble by 300 points with half our brains tied behind our backs.
It’s just confirmation bias for Akin.
Intelligent people often hold ridiculous positions. I think the issue comes down to inquisitivity (?inquisitiveness?). The magic baby fairies fits his desired beliefs, so that’s that.