Thanks for sharing your opinion.
To me he's saying that pregnancies from an actual reported and documented rape are rare due to the fact that there are uncontrollable physiological responses that may, and usually do, prevent a woman who has actually been raped from carrying the child for a sufficient period of time to even need an abortion.
That's just my take on it.
Well, if "uncontrollable physiological responses ... may, and usually do, prevent a woman who has actually been raped from carrying the child" then you are also saying that pregnancy from rape is a general physical impossibility. Should I have said "improbability?" Maybe. Either way, you are wrong. There is no research to support this notion.
Do most rape victims get pregnant? No. Nobody said they do. Most acts of intercourse, even by couples who are trying to conceive, don't result in pregnancy. The women "usually" don't get pregnant. By that standard, all pregnancies are "rare." But Akin suggested that pregnancy from rape is uniquely improbable.
And he was wrong. More importantly, nobody asked him about that, and it has nothing to do with whether those children should live or die. When you go off on tangents, and talk about things you don't understand, it's easy to get yourself in trouble.
And for what? What grand principle was he defending? That rape victims don't usually get pregnant? Is that where we're planting our flag? What policy does that translate to? How does that belief improve the country? How does it advance the pro-life cause?