Does a woman’s body have a defense mechanism to block impregnation when the attacker is a “legitimate” rapist, meaning in the traditional sense a violent surprise attacker as opposed to, say, the more modern feminist sense of a chosen romantic partner that just won’t accept “no” from the woman when she decides during heavy petting that she doesn’t want to copulate after all? I don’t know, but I’ve heard that is true and it seems to be a reasonable question to ask in a public policy discussion about abortion. It’s pretty clear to me that’s what Akin meant. Is every liberal analyst just such a moron that none of them get this? Or or is this just another example of dishonest “gotcha” politics in which neither truth nor justice matters? I think we all know it is the latter, which indicates that the unified false outrage of both Democrats and RINOs is a far bigger problem for our country than who gets elected to this position.
This is not to say, of course, that the feminist definition of rape is invalid, but when we’re talking about the rape exception to abortion the implication is always the former, not the latter definition of rape. And, of course, the better answer to the question is that a baby should never be punished for the sins of the father, no matter which type of rapist he may be.
