Staff & Sling

Joseph E. Hébert, Ph.D.

98119 N 3745 Rd
Okemah, OK  74859
918 623 3078

Rape & Abortion, Shock & Awe

Missouri GOP candidate to the United States Senate, Todd Akin, recently made headlines by stating that women rarely get pregnant as a consequence of "legitimate" rape. The simple truth is that no rape is legitimate.

Of course, that's not what Mr. Akin intended to imply. And moreover, feigned outrage notwithstanding, there is absolutely no one who actually believes he did. His choice of adjective, as unfortunate as it was errant, was plainly a slip of the tongue, a misstep along that tightrope of political correctness one must walk when surrounded by opponents lying in wait like predators in the tall grass, and every reasoned person understands this.

So why the outcry? Make no mistake, the firestorm of outrage we've witnessed in recent days was never protests of indignation spawned of reasoned deliberation. To the contrary, it was a liberal media-driven public relations version of Shock & Awe, followed by the trained response of RINO Republicans. It was never intended to reveal truth. It was, and is, intended only to bully the public into accepting axiomatically that which can not be established deliberately, and to silence anyone who would threaten to expose the fallacy of those assertions.

After all, who would dare to challenge the "popular consensus" when doing so is deemed social blasphemy, when it would make them anathema? Certainly no one would who was more concerned with being perceived as reasonable than with actually being reasonable. And that is why, after so many years of being diligently trained to respond in exactly this manner to precisely this tactic, our so-called conservative leadership has responded precisely as they did, by devouring their own in a Pavlovian feeding frenzy.

But to anyone who is actually reasoned, not only to those who are the ideological opponents of the liberal left but to anyone who values truth, this sort of tactic is wholly unacceptable. So how do we stand against such an overwhelming affront? The same way we stand against all deceit, with reason and truth.

Now I realize that this first question, a tangential point at best, is not really relevant to the discussion. But it has been raised and, albeit for strictly diversionary purposes, made the focus of this campaign of Shock & Awe. So without conceding to change the subject, let's begin by taking just a moment to ask if women are or are not just as likely to get pregnant when they are actually raped?

You'll notice I did not use the adjective "legitimately." I will stipulate that there is no such thing as a legitimate rape. That said, not all that is called "rape" is actual rape, so let's be clear on this point. When I say "actual" rape, I mean that born of violence as opposed to that born of remorse.

When a person is subjected to violence their bodies respond with all manner of physiological phenomenon, not the least of which is hormone production. Hormones are real chemicals. They are not magic elixirs; they are not the stuff of myth. They are measurable physical compounds with identifiable molecular composition that exert extraordinary sway over the functions of our bodies.

We've all heard stories of 120 pound mothers lifting automobiles to save their babies, and we know the hormone responsible for enabling the feat. It's called adrenaline. And though one might call the feat superhuman, no one would suggest it is supernatural, fictitious or otherwise ridiculous.

So is it truly unreasonable to suspect that, when subjected to actual violence, a woman's body might produce a hormone to act as contraceptive? Or maybe her body shuts down production of a hormone that is crucial to the conception process. There's certainly a Darwinian explanation for such evolutionary consequences. I can easily imagine that brown-haired cave women who bore red-haired cave babies for their black-haired cave men found themselves discriminately and disproportionately excluded from the gene pool.

The point is that it is not unreasonable to suspect that actual rape might physiologically inhibit conception. I'm not going to put forth the effort to research the literature for references because, as I said when we started down this tangent, it's ultimately irrelevant. Still, I suspect the literature is there for anyone who truly wants to know the truth.

Of course, hormones are not the only mechanism involved in conception. Many years ago I saw a program on one of those educational cable networks with upscale production values; I don't remember if it was The Learning Channel or Discovery or ..., it was one of those. The program was a documentary showcasing unprecedented endoscopic photography of the process of human conception, development and birth.

In the course of filming this program the researchers made a discovery about the role of the cervix in conception. It turns out that the cervix is somewhat more complex than a simple sphincter-type orifice. Oh, it is a sphincter-type orifice, but it is situated on a stalk that extends and contracts. The discovery was made when the female subject experienced an orgasm during filming and the camera captured her cervix repeatedly extend into the birth canal and bend downward pressing into a pool of residual semen.

Who knew that the cervix played such a major role in the process of conception. I suppose it makes evolutionary sense that preference would be given to the more desirable mate. It certainly explains a lot about how ..., you know what? Never mind.

The point is that of all the circumstances that must come together to realize the relatively improbable outcome of conception, female orgasm plays a not insignificant role. And since I suspect few victims of actual rape experience orgasm, even within 72 hours of the violence, it is indeed quite reasonable to expect that women rarely conceive the child of an actual rapist.

Is it impossible for a woman to conceive as a consequence of even actual rape? Clearly it is not. But it is improbable enough that even after scouring the nation for years, looking for a single case of a woman who had conceived the child of an actual rapist, the ACLU were ultimately forced to settle for a woman who was willing to lie about it, specifically Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v Wade).

And just in case you're still inclined to yield unquestioningly to such a tactic of deceit, I would point out that when they did settle for a lie, they didn't just settle for a child conceived by rape. Their chosen lie made it a child conceived when a bunch of black men gang raped a white woman. That's right. The pro-choice movement has a history steeped in racism. It goes back at least to Margaret Sanger and her devotion to Aryan eugenics. And that says a lot about why they're forced to employ tactics that stifle deliberate reason.

So, tangential though it was, we now know that it is both reasonable and empirical that conception as a consequence of actual rape is highly improbable. Moreover, we've even gotten a better glimpse of the reason the liberal left are forced to resort to such tactics of deceit in order to achieve their agenda. When subjected to reason and deliberation their assertions fail. But if all of this was just an irrelevant distraction, what truth was it intended to obfuscate?

Simple. The truth that even if her father is an actual rapist, the daughter doesn't deserve to be killed. In point of fact, the liberal left would rail at the suggestion that even the actual rapist should be put to death. How then do they rationalize that the child, the perfectly innocent child, should be deserving of no less?

To make the hypocrisy even more pointed, let me ask this. If the child of a rapist deserves to be killed, what can I do to you if your father is an actual murderer? What if he's a just a tax cheat? What if he's caught speeding? Why (and this one is NOT just rhetorical) do you rationalize exempting yourself from the very same judgment you would bring to bear against an innocent child?

Finally, there is one more question to ask, one more point to be made, and it the most important. Why should we risk scorn to stand against this tactic of Shock & Awe? Simply put, because the price of not doing so is too high.

Think of past instances of this tactic being employed. The most recent that comes to my mind is when Rush Limbaugh had the unmitigated audacity to point out that Sandra Fluke is apparently a whore.

In her testimony to Congress, Sandra Fluke asserted that she expects to spend $3,000 on contraception in four years of law school. That implies that she is burning through an average of 1,250 condoms per year, over 104 condoms a month, or on average more than 3 condoms on each and every one of all 365 days in each and every one of those 4 years.

I don't care if this near-middle aged woman is married to a 17 year old boy, he's not going to maintain that pace for four years. Only she's NOT married to a 17 year old boy. She's not married to anyone, and yet she's going through 1,250 condoms a year, for 4 years in a row? So what do you call an unmarried woman who burns through 1,250 condoms a year?

Okay. She doesn't like being called a whore. It is ironic, but even women who have no objection to being a whore don't like to be called a whore. And Sandra Fluke might even adamantly insist that she's not a whore, but the math and her Congressional testimony say otherwise.

Okay, but why make a big deal? Why not choose our battles? I say we absolutely should choose our battles, and when we see this tactic of Shock & Awe employed that tells us this is a battle they can't win. It signals that they're trapped in a position that will crumble around them, if we only have the courage of our conviction to stand firm for truth and reason.

And what are the consequences of yielding to the bullying, of ceding these easiest of battles? Well, for example, we now have a federal bureaucracy that defines procreation, a process that is part of the very definition of a healthy organism, as a malady that we all must pay to remedy, even to the point of providing abortion and abortifacients. And if anyone has a moral or religious objection, too bad.

It turns out the liberal left only objects to us imposing our morality and religion on them. As in the case of the child of the rapist, they have no similar objections once they've turned the tables. And this tactic of Shock & Awe is precisely how they turn such patently indefensible tables, by peremptorily stifling dissent.

So this is why it is imperative that reasoned people who value truth must find the courage of their convictions and stand up to such tactics, even at the risk of personal cost. Because the alternative is even more costly.