Rape and the Magical Female Body

by Jason Stotts

By now I’m sure you’ve heard about Representative Todd Akin (R-MO).  He’s pretty “famous” for saying:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [abortion in the case of rape is] really rare,” Akin told Charles Jaco of KTVI. “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.”

Most people are attacking this because of his use of the term “legitimate rape.”  What is legitimate rape?  Does he mean forceful rape by a stranger?  Does he mean as opposed to “pleasant rape”?  Who can understand the crazy?  Even though I find that disturbing, I want to focus on something else.  Akin’s apparently insane idea of how human reproduction works.

His position follows completely logically from his christian beliefs: that the only time a woman can get pregnant is when she’s in love and gets married to a man and they share a special “bedroom-hug” and then god goes into her uterus and ensouls an egg, turning it immediately into a tiny single-celled person.  And if you believe that nonsense, that there is a god, that he hates the human body and all things related to sexuality, and that he has to ensoul eggs to make them into tiny persons, then Akin’s beliefs make perfect sense…in the completely insane kind of way.  If only god can ensoul eggs, and he’d never do that for a dirty rapist, then pregnancy cannot occur in the case of rape.  QED.

The fact that the people of Missouri elected a man who has no idea how human biology and reproduction works should really make them ashamed.  The fact that we still have people believing in magic and gods in this day and age should make us all ashamed.

Surprisingly, the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from this travesty of ignorance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s is telling Akin they will not be contributing any money to his campaign.  But, really, why should they distance themselves?  They, too, don’t believe that abortion should be legal because they believe that their god thinks it’s immoral.  How is that any crazier than thinking god ensouls fetuses only in marriage?  They’re equally crazy and for the same reasons.

Paul Ryan (who is a deeply religious catholic and in no way an Objectivist), the running mate of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (who is a deeply religious mormon), was a co-sponsor of Akin’s “Sanctity of Life Act” last year that sought to grant personhood to fetuses the moment the christian god magically ensouled their tiny single-celled selfs: which, would obviously make all abortion murder. It’s funny that one person with an insane belief is crazy, but lots of people with insane beliefs are “religious.”  Why can’t we have a candidate who is really fiscally conservative and socially liberal?  By that I mean a politician that would respect rights across the board.  Why can’t we have that?

Oh wait, Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson is the first real candidate in a long time who isn’t just the choice between the evil of two lessers.  Sure, maybe Romney is less evil than Obama.  Maybe.  But why not support a good candidate instead?  Voting for the less bad candidate hasn’t exactly been great for our country in the past, that’s how we’ve arrived here.  Why don’t we instead try a candidate who is pro-women’s choice, pro legalization of drugs, pro individual rights, for less government, for fewer taxes, and who seems to have a good understanding of individual rights?  Why not give a good candidate your vote?