That's not what he said.
What he said (OK, not very clearly) was that in "legitimate" rape situations (we're talking "forcible") the woman's body can go into a subfertile "defensive" mode.
Which, awkward though it is, has the advantage of being true: anxiety and stress negatively impact fertility; fear and rage spike adrenalin. An adrenalin spike -- especially at the right phase just before ovulation --- can derail or at least delay ovulation.
It doesn't always happen, and (as with everything fertility-related) timing is everything. And it was dumb --- it showed regrettable unpreparedness ---for Akin to fumble into a vague remark about rare instances of physiological function that would later require paragraphs or pages of walkback and explanation.
However, it should "count" that Akin was actually right (that still counts, doesn't it? Isn't truth still a defense?); and it is crazy that one verbal ankle-turn causes the whole GOP apparat to turn on him with knife-blades quick and long.
The GOP-e- are NOT that far removed from the liberal view of ‘life’ and they sure are NOT going to waste their valuable time or money explaining something they know they can't with credibility...
“An adrenalin spike — especially at the right phase just before ovulation -— can derail or at least delay ovulation.”
Unlike Akin, I don’t pretend to be a fertility expert, and some one correct me if I’m wrong, but the argument out there is that stress can delay or prevent impregnation, as the example of rape.
But in order to be impregnated don’t you already have to be in a state of ovulation to conceive?
If this is so, stress has come too late to delay or prevent ovulation, so the stress argument seems to be the old saying of being a day late and a dollar short.
Again feel free to correct me.
The only thing that should “count” is that this malapropistic jackass loser is going to lose a seat that was almost a mortal lock.
Oh, and one other thing that should count: This not-ready-for-prime-time idiot has also damaged Republican candidates elsewhere, to the point that to minimize the damage this schlub has done, folks have had to cut him off entirely. THAT'S why Reince Preibus said what he said about money and the moron - to make it darned near impossible to plausibly tie the horse's ass to the rest of the party
It really doesn't matter how [self-]righteous the candidate might be. If he makes himself unelectable, then it doesn't help our cause in anyway shape or form either for him to continue, or for any of us to give him support.
I may write a check to the RNC today for figuring out how best to use limited resources: DON'T BACK MORON LOSERS.
As to the science of it, sorry, I know women who became pregnant as a result of rape. The “science” behind his assertion is iffy. Probably true in some cases, not true in others. But that's irrelevant. Like it or not, here is a possible message that comes through from this filth-bucket's comments on “legitimate rape” and pregnancy:
“IF YOU BECAME PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF RAPE, THAT'S YOUR FAULT, AND YOU PROBABLY WEREN'T ‘LEGITIMATELY’ RAPED, AND YOU PROBABLY LIKED IT, TOO!”
D'ya think that the Dems are going to impute that meaning every chance they get? D'ya think a substantial number of voters in the middle might buy that? D'ya think that's the 20% of folks that abandoned the Akin, pre-dumbass remark, turning a 10% lead into a 10% gap??
I know that's not what he meant. Unfortunately, that is the easily-inferred meaning of it. When you're in politics, mostly, you're paid to talk. If you can't figure out the unintended easily-inferred meanings of your words, go do something for which you're better qualified. Like washing windows.
He's a moron for saying what he did. Too stupid even to be a US Senator (and that's a very, very low bar, as we see with the likes of the Kenyan anti-Christ and its sidekick, the biden).
He's verminous filth who deserves every evil thing he gets for refusing to step aside to allow a candidate who doesn't shove his foot so far down his throat it comes out at the other end.
sitetest
>> WSJ chose to distort
Just like the other intolerant reactionaries, WSJ is demonstrating a vain attempt at impersonating chivalry.