Legitimate Rape and Other Colloquialisms

The use of the phrase “legitimate rape” has rocked some boats lately. Apparently, the use of such a phrase and, agreeably, some of the incomprehensible language that accompanied it, has deemed the speaker, U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), unfit to serve as a United States senator…in the eyes of many.

Maybe you’re familiar with Democratic Sen. Al Franken’s time on the long-running Saturday Night Live television series. Back in 1995, in one of his SNL skits, the esteemed senator thought it acceptable to joke about raping and sexually abusing TV journalist Leslie Stahl. Granted, it was back in 1995, but has Mr. Franken ever issued an apology for his insensitive comments about Ms. Stahl in particular and all women in general? Has Mr. Franken ever been called to account for thinking that joking about a woman being sexually abused and raped was the stuff of television comedy? Do any of those participating in the cacophony calling for the head of Todd Akin care about Mr. Franken’s comments? Surprisingly, the words and actions of Al Franken, that are far worse than those of Mr. Akin, did not disqualify Mr. Franken from the office of senator.

Can anyone say “double standard?”

Maybe you remember Crystal Gail Mangum. She not only ruined the reputations of three Duke University students, but cost their families and the state of North Carolina hundreds of thousands of dollars by alleging a rape that never occurred. Now, I’m not sure of exactly what Mr. Akin was referring to when he used the phrase "legitimate rape," but, while I might have chosen a better set of words, I can’t get that excited over it because I really don’t think he was trying to excuse the crime of rape. His was a classic case of stupidity.

It has been said that rape is primarily about power and violence. Admittedly, with the use of drugs in many instances today, the lines in this area have definitely been blurred. Without making a morality play of this, I would like to point out that the sexual mores that came out of the 1960s make the possibility of nonconsensual sex much more common today. We live in times where group sex is not that unusual and one-night stands have proliferated. And so the lines between consensual and nonconsensual sex, or rape, blur even further. Have you ever heard of the five-second rule? Would you think that “I should be going home now,” in the middle of coitus means “Stop!”?

For lack of a better reason to imprison him, Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame is being accused of rape…maybe. It’s confusing but the best I can make out of it is that a woman went home with Mr. Assange and the two engaged in consensual sex. As some are want to do after such strenuous activity, one or both fell off to sleep. The woman in question states she then awoke in the middle of a repeat session and, according to Assange, gave consent to continue. She afterward claimed there was no condom used and this, from the best that I can understand, might actually be at the base of a rape charge in this situation.

Given some of the stories I’ve read in my research for this piece, it’s not that hard to ask what might or might not be considered "legitimate rape." Actually, that is, admittedly, a really poor choice of words and the question really revolves around the differences between consensual and nonconsensual sex. It’s not, however, really my plan to resolve this topic; I guess we'll leave that to the courts, but I would like to leverage this topic to segue into something related. Allow me to draw a parallel to the criticism levied by my friends on the left of the term “legitimate rape” and attempt to get at who really opened the floodgates here with the use of the word “legitimate” as, say, opposed to “illegitimate.”

One idea that has been used in the argument to establish a right to abortion is the idea that the unborn child is not a “legitimate” person. Well, imagine that. One hour before exiting the womb you are "not legitimate" and an hour later you are (actually this may change in the near future as we continue to push the boundaries of who deserves a chance at life).

When informed by my wife each time she was pregnant, and my oldest daughter as well, I can attest that I could come to no other logical conclusion than the fact that my wife was carrying one of our children and that my daughter was carrying my grandchild. There is no question as to the legitimacy of any of these children. In each of these instances, my wife, and my daughter, had passed the stage of carrying only an unfertilized egg and advanced to the stage of carrying a living human being. Does anyone wish to argue that a fetus (from the Latin meaning “offspring”) is non-human or not yet human? A newly conceived child is not to be compared to an organ in a woman’s body; it is a separate, living and growing human being. Unless, of course, it dies prenatally at which time we pronounce it stillborn and dead because it was once alive but has ceased to be so.

If we consent to the fact that the new life within is not a "legitimate person," it is only to allow a woman to reduce the standing of her child to the level of chattel thus granting ownership of that person to the woman so that she alone can determine the fate of such person. Didn’t we resolve that issue during the Civil War and with the subsequent passage of the 13th Amendment?

So, on the one hand we are incensed because someone used the phrase "legitimate rape" to raise a question as to what might have taken place in a given instance of alleged nonconsensual sex and if, in fact, a forced criminal act might actually have occurred; but we have no problem assigning such language to a human being in the womb.

In fact, the whole argument over Akin’s comment is really about the fact that someone might think to deny a woman the right to abort an unborn child based on whether or not she was raped. I am castigated because I do not think the ending of human life through abortion without the victim’s consent is acceptable. I am further castigated and painted as an inhuman monster for not agreeing that rape or incest changes the matter.

From the aspect of the newly created and developing human being, how does the fact that conception occurred through rape change anything? How is it we then consent to make this innocent a criminal deserving punishment as if he or she had done something worthy of death?

Given the fact that the definition of rape has evolved, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing for the need of such, we now understand that rape can occur between a husband and wife. We would thus be naïve not to realize that thousands of us walking around today might have actually been conceived in rape and would thereby today be the target of the abortionist’s knife.

We recoil in horror when we hear of parental abuse of children and argue for abortion as an answer to such thus making every child a "wanted child." How can we be so naïve? Do we not understand the connection of child abuse to the ultimate child abuse: termination in the womb? Is there anything more violent from the perspective of the newly conceived child than an abortion? Have we lost all ability to reason logically? Or do we just not care to think it through because it might inconvenience us?

I will be called a hater but welcome anybody that can logically make a case for the ending of human life through abortion without the consent of the victimized child. The Declaration of Independence informs us that government occurs only by the consent of the governed but we cannot perceive that the growing human being in the womb has any say in his or her future. There will be those who will read this piece and attribute my words to a strictly religious argument, but I deny the connection and affirm that this is a matter of human morality and basic human dignity.