I say Akin was right; and AIN'T I A WOMAN?**

the conservative circular firing squad | August 22, 2012 | me

[shhrubbery!]

First, I'm a woman. (Seems to be an important qualification if one is to be allowed to have an opinion on "womens' bodies.")

I'm used to being attacked by the harridans of the Left, who claim that if you're a pro-life, then you're NOT A WOMAN.

But I'm not used to hearing conservatives knee-jerk to the idea that something is "idiotic" just because it's politically incorrect ... according to those same rabid harridans of the Left.

I think, like Akin did, that a woman's endocrine system CAN sometimes "shut down" the process of conception, or implantation, as a result of traumatic stress suffered by the woman.

It so happens there are respected physicians who believe this is possible too: Dr. John C. WIlkie, MD, OB/GYN. And there is some research that tends to back this up (see references at bottom of this page.

We may never have a 100% dispositive study that proves that pregnancy as a result of rape is rare. Real numbers are hard to come by. And sadly, any researcher who attempts an objective study is going to be excoriated like Mark Regnerus (who studied homosexual parenting) or Jay Belsky (who studied the effects of putting children in day care).

But many women know, intuitively, that what Akin said is not "imbecilic." Many women have experience with their endocrine systems going awry, due to stress. I myself have carried four pregnancies to term, but lost one, probably due to stress that caused an endocrine malfunction.

** "Ain't I a woman" is a quote from Sojourner Truth, a strong Christian black woman. She wasn't going to stand for her opinion being shut down because she was (a) a woman and (b) voicing ideas that weren't popular in some circles. And neither am I.

[PhxTM06]

Fortunately science has answered that as well, the miscarriage rate in pregnancies deriving from rape is 15-20%, with the norm being 10-20%, so once again, Willke is full of it.

As I said before, the man never did a single peer-reviewed study, in science, if you're not doing peer-reviewed studies, your thoughts are basically worthless if you can't back up what you're preaching.

[PhxTM06]

Actually he did imply that, any impartial person will agree with it and that's where the firestorm came from. Maybe that is not what he MEANT to say, but once it comes out of your mouth, it's out there and that is what the vast majority of people took it to mean.

IE........words have consequences.

[Melas]

What is it about women that they feel such an irresistible need to jab scissors into a defenseless human's head and kill him or her?

If you call that spot on, then you are as messed up as he is.

[DallasSun]

And I you, Onyx. You are an angel. I am going to try to behave more...well, some.

[Pearls Before Swine]

What about women who become pregnant after a rape who decide not to abort and to carry the child to term? His comment is insulting these woman as well ... implying that they were not “legitimately raped” because their bodies did not “shut that down”.

I think we can agree he's a self-important, judgmental, and insensitive ignoramus. I've heard he also thinks his campaign is "providential." Puh-leeze, Todd!

[PhxTM06]

Read his statement again, he was referring to a woman getting pregnant in the first place. All pregnant women can go through stress, that's irrelevant, what he was insinuating is that there's some secret hidden function that can differentiate between rapist sperm and normal sperm. It's something that started as a mainstay of the pro-life movement in the 1970s, ended up becoming entirely discredited but some of the old-timers are still spouting off on this old time nonsense.

All he should have said was "I don't feel that the baby deserves to be punished more harshly than the actual rapist" and then shut up and moved on. He'd still be up close to 10 points today.

[spacejunkie2001]

You need a lesson in what Free Republic stands for; among other things this is a PRO LIFE site and we believe that life begins at conception, not some arbitrarily picked date that some stealth liberal, such as yourself, wants to impose on people.

[Melas]

You mean to say that you found two guys aired on a midnight slot (literally) who are on the wrong side? You’re grasping at straws.

[shhrubbery!]

As I said before, the man never did a single peer-reviewed study, in science, if you're not doing peer-reviewed studies, your thoughts are basically worthless if you can't back up what you're preaching.

And there is a problem with the "peer review" process, too.

Ever see the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein? If so, did you see the editor of a journal who was fired by the Smithsonian for the audacity of publishing a peer-reviewed article -- an article that merely surveyed the topic of Intelligent Design?

You know that touching on certain politically incorrect topics in academe means career suicide.

And that, as I pointed out in my original post, is the reason we are not likely to ever see an objective study on the likelihood of pregnancy occurring after forcible rape.

[Swirl]

Having looked at the replies, I find it quite bothersome that many on this site sound like democrats, and appear intolerant of Akins views on abortion. I have no issue with those who want to argue that perhaps Akins does not understand modern politics, or is prone to mistakes. For this reason, I might even be convinced to your suggestion that there may be a much better candidate. However, many of you appear to be attacking him on his abortion stance. This drives a lot of us towards supporting Akins. Maybe now we understand why we have a Romney as our Republican candidate. If this continues, kiss the republic good by, it will not be around much longer.

[Lorianne]

Oh yes they do.

If he did not mean to imply that, that’s his own heart and no one can say ... but that’s what he did imply. It was extremely creey and Sharia-like.

Like I said, his best defence is that he is just stupid ... too stupid to run for Senator.
He doesn’t strike me as a person who would admit that.

[Melas]

If Reagan’s pro-life stance is now not welcome here, then please, ping Mr. Robinson and have him show me the door. Like Ronald Reagan, I would like to see an end to abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. The day that’s no longer welcome, I’ll gladly leave.

[reasonisfaith]

This whole fiasco shows exactly where lots of conservatives can go into full blown politically correct mode, almost in the blink of an eye.

It’s kind of strange—these conservatives are by nature not inclined toward political correctness.

[shhrubbery!]

Actually he did imply that

You are misconstruing the word "imply." Akin absolutely did not imply the demeaning extrapolation made by the poster. But she, the poster, absolutely did infer it.

Yes, words mean things. You should use the word "imply" carefully.

[onyx]

LOL. I don’t think you misbehave! That’s nonsense!

[exDemMom]

Instead, he made the dumbassed argument that legitimate rape usually doesn’t result in pregnancy ... thus implicitly questioning the ‘legitimacy’ of any rape that did result in pregnancy. That’s just not a defensible position.

It is clear to me that he misspoke and what he meant to say was "bona fide" or something similar. There are plenty of "rapes" that aren't--just Google "false accusation of rape" for stories on that.

As a person who often says the wrong word, I would be the last one to rake someone else over the coals for using the wrong word.

[JediJones]

There is no magic protection against pregnancy from rape, period. That's a scientific fact at this point, the only people who dispute it are the ones who still wonder if the earth is actually flat.

By dismissing a theory without proving it to be false, you are actually the one behaving like the people who insisted the earth was flat. "Nonsense! You haven't proved the earth is round, therefore it must be flat!" Please offer the detailed proof that the circumstances of a rape do not make a pregnancy any less likely to occur.

[Dajjal]

Thanks for the link to Dr. Willke's explanation!!!

[SandwicheGuy]

What is it about women that they feel such an irresistible need to jab scissors into a defenseless human's head and kill him or her? If you call that spot on, then you are as messed up as he is.

Look, if you want to get nasty, please respond to something I said, not what someone else said. You called a fellow FReeper a newb, implying he did not have a right so say what he did. I called you on that as you, again, did not respond to his post but to the fact that he was a newb. I am happy that a man of your age has discovered how to find when a FReeper joined... although I don't understand the importance you seem to place on it. Goodnight.

[shhrubbery!]

If he did not mean to imply that, that’s his own heart and no one can say ... but that’s what he did imply. It was extremely creey and Sharia-like.

No, you inferred it. Sorry, but you are simply incorrect about the meaning of the word "imply." To imply something, the speaker or writer must intend the meaning extrapolated from it.

In Akin's words there is zero implication of what you said. And hey, I agree ... what you said was indeed "creepy and Sharia-like." But that is your own inference, i.e., the product of your own mind.