You know what is kind of like learning that your daughter has been raped? Finding out that she’s pregnant even though she isn’t married. The only difference is apparently that the shotgun is used for a different purpose.
In this case, the comment came from a wingnut who has no chance of unseating Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. And, believe me, Sen. Casey is no prize when it comes to reproductive rights. But he would never suggest the kind of equivalency his opponent suggests here:
MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?
TOM SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.
SCOLFORO: Similar how?
TOM SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.
SCOLFORO: That’s similar to rape?
TOM SMITH: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.
Notice that he didn’t even address the real issue. Mr. Smith’s daughter exercised her choice. She wasn’t told to do anything against her will. She wasn’t impregnated against her will and she didn’t have the baby against her will, and her father didn’t try to force her to do anything against her will. The question was about a situation where this freedom of action has been eliminated.
But, seriously, do Republicans have some bizarre ideas about rape, or what?
