If Akin is in, it is up to Republicans to defend Life.

Google Akin and for pages and pages you will read headlines that say, “legitimate rape victims don’t get pregnant,” and “legitimate rape victims can’t get pregnant,” and “no pregnancy from rape.”

And he never said it.

Yet you can read scores of shocked campaign gurus and bloggers and pundits and elected officials express outrage and disagree vehemently with Akin’s remarks he never made.

This is exactly what Akin said,

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. 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 — you know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Akin didn’t defend his comments, so it matters not if I do, except for the fact that if he’s in it to win it, the good people of Missouri ought to know where his comments come from.

In 1979, a rape counselor named Dr. Sandra Mahkorn did a study of 37 women who had become pregnant via rape. In the study, though a small sampling, Dr. Mahkorn concluded that approximately 15% of the women elected to have an abortion.

In 1988, the Alan Guttmacher Institute held a survey of 1900 women who had elected to have abortions, and of that sample, only 1% said it was because they had been raped.

The question posed to Akin was about what he thought. Let’s keep perspective here, that he cannot do anything about the laws on the books that reflect Roe V. Wade.

So, because the media has lied outright about Akin’s remarks, it does not do justice to the national conversation to ignore the fact that all women who are raped do not elect to have an abortion.

So, the numbers then, would be significant to prove that Akin is not alone in his defense of life, even after rape.

In 1996, as linked in Michelle Malkin’s post, “The Todd Akin Mess,” and in the Blaze, a study was done to try to discern how many women got pregnant as a result of rape. Their results say that nationally, the number is about 5%, and the numbers break down thusly:

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

The physicians involved with the 1996 study then concluded, “Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency.”

Now, if it is insensitive to say that upwards of 95% of all rapes in the nation do not end in pregnancy, so be it. I would conclude that pregnancy after rape would then be “rare.”

What I am attempting to point out, is that Akin’s comments are not over the top, and many fervent pro-lifers believe the same things he said. I cannot find, online, the origins of the argument that trauma prevents pregnancy, however, it has been an “old-school” argument for a very long time. I remember the argument dating back to the mid-80′s. Many media sources, since Sunday, have found physicians that conclude there is no foundation to the idea that rape cannot end in pregnancy, but that is again, not what Akin said. What is more acceptable to me, as a defense, is that Akin did not say for certain that the woman’s body has the ability to shut it down, he said, “as I understand from doctors,” and then assumed it was a faulty premise. In the studies I have read, the reasons that, for instance, all rape does not end in pregnancy, is because all women who are raped are not in their childbearing years, nor at the height of their cycles.

It is completely plausible that Mr. Akin formed his opinion on the matter of rape and abortion a very long time ago, and had not looked into newer studies, of which, I might point out, still support his claim that pregnancy from rape is rare.

The abortion debate in this country has now been going on since the Supreme Court decided Roe V. Wade. We have two major political parties in this country, one sides with life, the other sides with abortion.

Yet it is said that the one that sides with life is anti-woman and the one that sides with abortion is pro-woman.

I vehemently disagree with that characterization. I am pro-life, and so are a multitude of people in this nation, and we will defend our stance when asked.

When the president came out and denounced Akin on Monday for being a man who should not legislate for women, it must not be ignored that that argument is now the standard for the left, and the entire Democrat party.

In that argument, you are told as a pro-life man, that you have no right to an opinion. That is anti-American.

Take, for example, what happened in the Michigan legislature in June of this year. While trying to pass bills that would work to curb the frequency of abortion in Michigan, a Democrat named Lisa Brown argued against adopting the legislation, and pointed her comments toward the men in the legislature saying,

“I’m flattered that you want to get in my vagina, but no means no,”

Brown said that men have no place legislating abortion, accepted by the left as “women’s rights,” and then took the comment further using a date rape reference, “no means no.” Brown was told she would not be able to speak on the House floor the following day, and she, along with the rest of the Democrats cried censorship for saying the word, “vagina.”

The Michigan newspapers carried the Democrat line that Brown was being told to shut up for uttering the word, when, in fact, the Republicans in leadership were justifiably upset that she would suggest they wanted something to do with her vagina, perhaps rape.

The following week, Eve Ensler and the Democrat women in the legislature took to the steps of the capitol to read the Ensler play, “The Vagina Monologues,” to show solidarity against the ‘knuckle-dragging’ men of the party who they erroneously accused of being offended at the mere mention of the word “vagina.”

The left will not stop trying to silence and ostracize men who hold the pro-life stance. Missourians will remember how they treated Santorum, and they are going after Ryan as well.

The Republican party, in its interest to get rid of a messy situation, have for the most part, called for Akin to get out of the race, and pulled its support of him, directly and indirectly, of financial means. If Akin does not get out of the race, it is said, by 5pm tonight, we will have ceded the Senate seat to a pro-abort woman.

My biggest concern here is the abortion issue, and how, as a party, we are to defend life.

Akin defended the life of the mother and the child, and wished for justice upon the rapist. What is wrong with that?

The question posed to Akin on the talk show was about what he thinks should happen in the case of rape, and if he would approve of abortion in that case. Akin proved to be stridently pro-life.

What Akin believes matches pro-lifers everywhere, most of whom side with the Republican party. The Republican party has for decades assured voters that they will side with life, and targeted both pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans in their quest for election. When do we as a party defend it?

Let’s not forget what happened in the budget battle of last year. With a newly-elected congress of tea party Republicans, the left defended abortion by saying that the men in the Republican party wanted to kill women. Along with withholding payments to the military, the Republican party caved to Democrat demands and refused to articulate their stance to the nation.

My congressman has said that he believes life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Many Republicans seeking office say that, but when asked about their personal beliefs, according to the Republican strategists and establishment, and now, unfortunately some conservatives, they are not supposed to say what they actually believe, and if they do, the whole world will crash down upon them.

The question in Missouri, is if the people who believe in rights given to them by God, the first of which is Life, will forgive an inarticulate moment, and strive to beat the incumbent Democrat Senator.

We are the party of life. They are the party of death. We are the party of justice. They are the party of injustice. We are the party of the goodness of the individual. They are the party of control of the individual. We are the party of liberty. They are the party of ever-sliding tyranny.

On the campaign stump, Mitt Romney cites our God-given rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

When a person says that they are pro-life, they should mean it, and we should defend it.