Todd Akin's Rape Comment Was Pseudoscience, But What About The Morality of Abortion? - Part 1

When , the intention was not to offend, but in his mind, to save the lives of babies.  Of course, that is the problem with ignorance, when you don't know any better, you don't realize how offensive something can be.  

(As a side note, Akin unwittingly made a case for natural, or evolutionary contraception, which would undermine his arguments against man-made contraception.  Unfortunately, his "science" was just a misinformed meme.  The "legitimate" science on rape and pregnancy is that the conception rate is the same as any other single completed sexual encounter.) 

So what about the "end" to his "means?"  Was his grander purpose (grander in Akin's mind) to stop abortions by redefining rape worth his misogynistic offense?

Basically, is abortion morally wrong in all circumstances?  Let me start with the fact that I am a father of a four year old daughter.  If someone where to rape my daughter, all morality is out the window for me.  The perpetrator better hope that the law gets to him before I do.  Second, if she were to become pregnant, after a considerable amount of counseling, the choice to abort the unwanted pregnancy, or not, would be hers.  Obviously this all assumes I know anything about the rape and subsequent pregnancy to begin with.

That said, in setting laws, the idea are to appeal to the better angels of our nature when we are of a sound mind.  Good government sets a framework for morality within civilization at a time when the emotions related to a particular offense are not a factor.  Or, more simply said, we make laws in a secular government with reason and logic in mind.  (Although that is often not the case as Todd Akin and Paul Ryan have shown.)

Back to the question on the morality of abortion.  First, it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution to appeal to any particular religious text (the most obvious one in this case is the Christian Bible) for guidance.  The Christian Bible is an interesting set of writings that originate with a particular middle-eastern culture for 20 to 60 centuries ago, but there is no empirical evidence that the writings are divinely inspired.  Basically, there is a very human history to the books of the Christian Bible, and it has all the flaws and contradictions you would expect from a moral code written by humans.  Especially humans recording stories that started with illiterate middle-eastern shepherds scores of generations before 20 centuries ago.

Since we have no verifiable omniscient, all-powerful master authority to appeal to, that leaves the morality of abortion up to us, a government of the people, by the people.  If you want to make the case for or against the morality of something, it needs to be done in a more rational or scientific manner.

Obviously there are people on one side who say that without a doubt that all abortion is immoral, evil, and murderous.  There are people on the other side of the spectrum that say that whatever happens in a woman's body is completely under her control until it is no longer part of her body and whoever says otherwise is encroaching on their freedom to choose what is best for her.  (Many of them would tell me to my face to shut my trap because I am a man and what I think doesn't matter either way, and I respect that.)

My true opinion is that I don't really know and that I am glad I am not the one that has to make that choice.  But, my more nuanced look at the matter of the morality of abortion will come on Friday.  Stay tuned until then for Part II.