Personally I've spoke with my wife about this before, and we came to the conclusion that in the case of rape we would still have the baby. We feel that it is the moral thing to do. It is still a life and it should be protected. However, we do not at this time believe our opinion should be law, and support exemptions for rape.
This is reasonable and rational. Thank you. Anyone that wants to keep a pregnancy, because they feel that it is the right thing to do, is exercising their right to choose what to do with their life, by using their intelligence, their conscience and their religious and cultural beliefs to do so. This is wise.
The problem with the abortion debate is that what has happened is that most of the pro-life camp has decided that their moral choice, based on these decisions, is the only one, and so they ignore the complications of rights (ie: if the baby is a person, then that person has a right, so whose rights prevail? The answer they are choosing is that the baby's rights prevail, but this is absurd, because without the mother, the baby cannot live, while without the baby, the mother continues to live--ergo, one is a person and one is a proto-person, otherwise known as a fetus, and does not have the rights of a person), creating a law not on legal principles that govern things as best as possible and allowing for individuals to operate according to their own personal beliefs within, and they then try to force their own moral beliefs upon the entire populace. See also: gay marriage.
The problem with Akin is the problem with the Republican party as a whole (which isn't to say all Republicans)--it's rhetoric is focused on freedom (from taxes) whereas its policy is of government restrictions on what people can do as people (getting married, giving birth). They are using morality as a blunt weapon to gain control over other people. It is painful to watch and it is frustrating entirely.