Skip to comments.Akin not far off base in rape comment
Posted on 08/28/2012 9:24:06 AM PDT by Perseverando
click here to read article
Wouldn’t it be nice if the female body would only allow conception based upon a conscious decision? No unwanted pregnancies, no “accidents” - every child would be planned and wanted.
If I were a Mad Scientist ... that would be my crime against humanity. Some genetic twist such that the default state was sterilization, and that only with a deliberate, conscious action; conception would be possible. Say, a large dose of Vitamin C (cheap, abundant, non-toxic) taken a few hours before conception.
Great. Let’s re-argue this argument again and see if we can lose the Akin race by 20 points instead of 10 points. There is no value to having this debate at this point. Save it for after the election.
Why do you people keep digging this hole deeper?
The percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy is low because the percentage of women who are ovulating at the time of rape is low. The chances of being raped at all, much less at the precise time of ovulation is extremely low. You probably have more risk of getting hit by lightening.
This is so stupid.
You do not need to say any of this to maintain a 100% pro-Life position. It is just not neccessary and it HURTS the pro-Life cause.
It has been pointed out that stress, such as that caused by a rape, can delay or prevent ovulation. He probably heard that but didn’t get it quite right.
And “legitimate” probably refers to the number of rape cases (the non-legitimate ones) that are buyer’s remorse followed by an accusation.
He was still stupid to put it the way he did, but not with evil intent.
A better way would have been “should an innocent child die for the misbehavior of another person?”
I think they are shooting for a much higher margin of loss ... say 80%.
I listened to an “expert on rape” on NPR last week discussing his remarks. It was an amazing hit piece against him and calling out the absurdity of his claim. What was comical was that she mentioned in passing that she got a lot of calls from doctors who wanted to support what he said but she blew them off.
I thought, “Huh? There are doctors that say there is truth to the ‘shutting down’ comment? That certainly sounds like something a curious person would want to pursue.”
But then, she was not curious. She is a paid attack dog on a liberal and publicly funded “news” source.
—Why do you people keep digging this hole deeper?—
Kind of like the birth certificate thing?
Please let it die.
The enemies of FREEDOM are keeping it alive, why must any of us??
This guy Akin retracted it and said his original statement was not accurate.
It was so stupid to bring up this “theory” about the liklihood or not of rape resulting in pregnancy. Stupid, stupid, STUPID!
Do not double down on STUPID.
Dear goodness... really? Please read post 5.
Hey partner, I just put the info out there for review and consideration. I really don’t have time or inclination right now for a pissing contest. The article is in the news and will be until the election, unless Akin bails.
I’m not in the mood for whining right now. I get enough liberal whining at work. Just deal with it, or go hang out at huffpo. By the way, you may want to get a checkup, sounds like you may be suffering from “low T.”
Please read the last line of that quote. "An experiment to give an accurate figure is, of course, impossible." So how exactly is it that WND can title this piece with the words "Akin not far off base.."? For crying out loud if you can't verify those numbers you cannot make the statement that a woman who endures forcible rape isn't likely to get pregnant. There are so many factors involved in the occurence or non-occurence of a pregnancy, that I would guess that the issue of "forcibility" (or legitimacy as Akin would put it) is not very high on the list.
Those politicians and commentators who are calling for Akins head have signaled where their priorities lie.
Hogwash. Perhaps for politicians and commentators on the left that might be true. For those on the right, it is not about preserving the rape or incest exception, is about removing a pro-choice Senator McCaskill, and ensuring a pro-life majority in the Senate.
I have said this before. Thanks to the media, Akin will go down in history as the guy who tried to argue that there is such a thing as legitimate rape. Whether you think that is true or not, it pales in comparison to the reality that by refusing to withdraw and give up the nomination to someone like Sarah Steelman, he may have just facilitated the rape of the Republic.
The old "move along. nothing to see here" strategy ?
A man's career, the elimination of McCaskill, and the future of Obamacare are at stake, and you imply that FACTS and TRUTH are not really that important?
Save it for after the election.
Rather like the MSM saving the debate over Obama's BC back in 2008 until after the election ?
Apparently, some people just don’t GET that even ovulating women aren’t necessarily going to become pregnant. As the doctor has stated, there is much complexity to this process. It appears as if it isn’t just progressives who get all emotional over certain issues. Nobody is condoning or supporting rape. I don’t know what Akin really MEANT, but fortunately most rapes do NOT result in pregnancy. And let’s face it, the Choice Crowd just uses this as an excuse. Even if we could have a law that said “only in the case of abortion/incest,” they would NOT go with it. They want abortion on demand...when they want it and where they want it.
Not far off base? Is that a backhanded compliment? So he’s still off base, just not *that far*?
Wrong but not far, is that the new “fake but accurate”? That’s a great slogan for a senate campaign, vote for the not far off base guy.
Yes. I have met many people in the pro-life community and worked with pro-life causes...nobody EVER have I met that would not agree with the trauma and horror of rape. We just don’t want to perpetrate a second one.
Wow...sure wish there was an edit button on here. FR needs to get with the times.
So, what I meant to say was that nobody I know in pro-life circles would DENY that rape is traumatic and horrible. We just don’t want to extend the trauma and horror by killing the innocent child.
“The percentage of rapes that result in pregnancy is low because the percentage of women who are ovulating at the time of rape is low. The chances of being raped at all, much less at the precise time of ovulation is extremely low. You probably have more risk of getting hit by lightening.
This is so stupid.
You do not need to say any of this to maintain a 100% pro-Life position. It is just not necessary and it HURTS the pro-Life cause.”
That’s the part of all this that’s really frustrating to me. People are making things up and tracking down fringe “scientists” to back an assertion that we don’t need to make. People are going out of their way to make unnecessary arguments that actually end up hurting our cause. Women get pregnant during rapes. It’s relatively rare, but it happens. It doesn’t make any difference for the sake of our arguments whether it happens 4 percent of the time or 2 percent of the time or .2% of the time or whether its marginally less likely to happen than random unprotected sex with a partner. We have to make the same exact argument at the end of the day. Why are people tripping over themselves and resorting to psuedo-science to defend a useless off the cuff remark?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.