Idiot Politician (R, MO) talks about "Legitimate rape"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

Well, the studies I mentioned measured arousal after showing various kinds of porn, and they were indeed bisexual on average-- being aroused by straight, lesbian, and gay porn, whereas normal heterosexual men were aroused by straight and lesbian porn.

Some of it might also have to do with macho-ism, a stain upon our culture globally speaking. Homosexuality is considered unmanly, thus, macho-ism leads people to despise it utterly. Especially in Latino cultures.

**dogma**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Well, there is the theory that the most rabid homophobes who talk about it being a 'choice' think that way because they actually have those urges to resist being at least bisexual themselves. They don't get that for most people, gay or straight, there's no choice about it because they simply aren't attracted to more than one gender.

There's also a bit optimistic delusion involved. In essence, if homosexuality is a choice, then so long as I don't choose to be gay none of my urges matter.

A similar argument is often made with respect to those people that find sexuality "disgusting". In essence, they aren't comfortable with their own sexuality and so any state of arousal is difficult for them, so they consciously work to counter that sentiment by claiming that they're disgusted. The ultimate goal being to minimize their exposure to sexuality, and therefore arousal, in order to avoid confronting their urges.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Melissia wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
It depends on the person judging. For me, abortion is much less abhorrent if it occurs before the point where electrical activity can be measured in the conceptus' brain; which is likely the point at which brain function begins.

Mn, for my part, I've not been talking about late abortions. At some point, the foetus is indeed capable of surviving outside of the mother, and has developed enough that it can feel pain, and begin to think, even if only in rug-crawler terms.

What point that is... that's something I'd want to ask a child-development specialist or seven. But considering that we're talking about people trying to ban ALL abortion, no matter the situation, this sort of fine distinction hasn't really come up.

That's actually the fine definition for my general stance, no late term abortions, say the third trimester and on for ANYTHING but medical purposes. If there's a chance the mother will die or something, please by all means. But if it's convenience or you just don't want a child, six months should be more then enough time to take care of business. After the third trimester begins the fetus is pretty much viable outside the mother and that's where the line really starts to get blurry.

For a heinous example of abortions I think any one vaguely civilized can agree is horrible look up the allegedly still in use (because I can't remember my source) Chinese abortion method called "crowning"

Don't do that shortly after or anytime before a meal.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:Well... he hasn't stepped down...

But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.

The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)

I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.

Wait... so you want him to step down... not because he is hateful, misogynistic, uneducated and completely crazy... but because he let people become aware of his horrendous beliefs.

Are you for real?

Nope...

Most us Missourian *knew* what Atkins was all about and we were ambivalent (if anything) towards him.. Need I remind you, he was ALWAYS pro-life.

He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.

And he chose to engage in a controversial topic is just utterly stoopid.

That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.

**Jihadin**

So Akins going to win eh regardless

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
So Akins going to win eh regardless

Wouldn't surprise me...

Wouldn't bet on it though...

**daedalus-templarius**

Bromsy wrote:
While I am pro choice (or more accurately anti-anything that isn't me) I've always wondered if the "It's only a (zygote,collection of cells, fetus, et cetera)" crowd applies that logic across the board. Like can you be okay with abortion and also be against say animal testing? I'm sure that there is some convoluted moral hyjinks that say it's okay to kill a potential human because it's in a person who doesn't want it, but it's not okay to kill an animal to theoretically keep a different person alive. Or the mentally handicapped, or euthanasia. Is that the same, less, worse whatever than regular murder? Is there just a point where it goes from being okay killing a potential person to it being abhorrent, or is it all relative?

My question to this is, how is a zygote and a living, breathing animal similar in any way, shape or form?

whembly wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:Well... he hasn't stepped down...

But, again, here's the weird thing. He may still win.... Missourian DO. NOT. LIKE. McCaskill.

The furor is really on a national scale. The locals *know* what Atkin stands for... (he has 100% pro-life rating for feth sakes)

I want him gone simply because of his stupidity for engaging this conversation... that man was up like 20% over McCaskill and now made it almost impossible to win.

Wait... so you want him to step down... not because he is hateful, misogynistic, uneducated and completely crazy... but because he let people become aware of his horrendous beliefs.

Are you for real?

Nope...

Most us Missourian *knew* what Atkins was all about and we were ambivalent (if anything) towards him.. Need I remind you, he was ALWAYS pro-life.

He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.

And he chose to engage in a controversial topic is just utterly stoopid.

That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.

Yea... I hear TONS of hate for McCaskill from the Missourians I work with... totally, I really do.

Actually I don't.

**Frazzled**

They both hate broccoli.

**Melissia**

Most rational people do!

**BrassScorpion**

The problem is that the idiots who have taken over what used to be an actual political party have made this kind of stupidity part of their party platform. This is what you're getting nowadays all the time with the current crop of religious ideologues who have hijacked the Republican party.

Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language in abortion bill he co-sponsored

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan won't discuss his co-sponsorship of a bill that initially had language limiting federally funded abortions to cases of "forcible rape."

The original version of the measure banned all federally funded abortions, except in cases of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."

The "forcible rape" provision was dropped from the bill after women’s health advocates and Democrats protested.

Ryan told reporters he has no regrets about sponsoring legislation, with Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, who is now under fire saying women who had been subjected to "legitimate rape" would be able to physically resist becoming pregnant.

Ryan was asked about it during an interview with KDKA-TV's Political Editor Jon Delano:

Delano: “You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape.’ What is forcible rape as opposed…”

Ryan: “Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”

Delano: “So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?”

Ryan: “Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape.”

Ryan acknowledges he urged Akin to abandon his Senate bid. But he says he has no further plans to speak to him about it now that Akin is staying in the race.
http://ed.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/22/13417038-ryan-wont-explain-forcible-rape-language-in-abortion-bill-he-co-sponsored?lite

**daedalus-templarius**

BrassScorpion wrote:
The problem is that the idiots who have taken over what used to be an actual political party have made this kind of stupidity part of their party platform. This is what you're getting nowadays all the time with the current crop of religious ideologues who have hijacked the Republican party.

Ryan won't explain 'forcible rape' language in abortion bill he co-sponsored

Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan won't discuss his co-sponsorship of a bill that initially had language limiting federally funded abortions to cases of "forcible rape."

The original version of the measure banned all federally funded abortions, except in cases of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."

The "forcible rape" provision was dropped from the bill after women’s health advocates and Democrats protested.

Ryan told reporters he has no regrets about sponsoring legislation, with Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, who is now under fire saying women who had been subjected to "legitimate rape" would be able to physically resist becoming pregnant.

Ryan was asked about it during an interview with KDKA-TV's Political Editor Jon Delano:

Delano: “You sponsored legislation that has the language ‘forcible rape.’ What is forcible rape as opposed…”

Ryan: “Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story.”

Delano: “So that forcible rape language meant nothing to you at the time?”

Ryan: “Rape is rape and there’s no splitting hairs over rape.”

Ryan acknowledges he urged Akin to abandon his Senate bid. But he says he has no further plans to speak to him about it now that Akin is staying in the race.
http://ed.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/22/13417038-ryan-wont-explain-forcible-rape-language-in-abortion-bill-he-co-sponsored?lite

If all the ideologues were kicked out and replaced with reasonable and pragmatic people, I'd be pretty happy.

Remember when the Republican platform was 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?

I guess now its 'rape, rape, defund planned-parenthood'

**Frazzled**

The Republican platform hasn't changed for many years on this subject. Neither has the Democratic platform.

The Wiener Dog Party's platform focuses on the economy, protection against the Great Squirrel/Cat/Raptor bird Menace, and unsurprisingly, tasty snacks for everyone.
Remember vote for Frazzled on the Wiener Dog Party ticket and you'll get a steak in every bowl!

**azazel the cat**

@ Whembly: Thank you. I was already well aware of the general zeitgeist of Missouri. But my question was directed to you.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
@ Whembly: Thank you. I was already well aware of the general zeitgeist of Missouri. But my question was directed to you.

OH!

my bad... sorry. (never said I wasn't a nimcompoop at times...)

I already knew that he was strong pro-lifer, so that is a "built in" cost with us here. (didn't vote for him in the primary btw)

I was more tripping over the fact that he chose to engage in this topic and he wasn't prepared. He had (any Republican for that matter) this election in the bag... and he blew it.

So, I question is "intelligence" to engage in any topics now (especially on national scale).

**azazel the cat**

Right. Yeah, I got that too.

My question was this: did you seriously support his position, and not want him to withdraw for his hate, lack of education and misogyny; but want him to withdraw only because he made a political misstep and revealed it?

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
Right. Yeah, I got that too.

My question was this: did you seriously support his position, and not want him to withdraw for his hate, lack of education and misogyny; but want him to withdraw only because he made a political misstep and revealed it?

Honestly?? The latter... sort of.

That doesn't mean I supported the former. (he doesn't support gay marriage... and I do)

I'm not a single-issue voter.

I just wanted a (R) to win the senate seat from McCaskill.

What does that make me?

**Squigsquasher**

Out of options.

Most of the Republicans seem completely slowed (the politicians themselves). Or flying rodent gak insane.

I'd give Obama another shot.

Edit: Damnit...The Dakka obscenity filter is vigilant.

**BrassScorpion**

Some humor by Funny Or Die about the idiot in question:

http://www.funnyordie.com/slideshows/1e188d2aee/todd-akin-s-other-ourtageous-remarks?playlist=featured_pictures_and_words#slide1

Sample from above link, there are many more:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a satirical lesson on what is "legitimate":

**DemetriDominov**

And that is why I have hope for humanity.... damn that was funny.

**d-usa**

Kinda related:

Chicago, Illinois (CNN) -- When I was in law school, my criminal law professor introduced us to the crime of rape by reading us a quote from Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist: "In a rape case it is the victim, not the defendant, who is on trial."

It was not merely a history lesson. I had lived it.

While a student in my final year of college, at age 21, I was raped. I have dissected that moment -- the horrifying moment that I became a "victim" -- from every possible angle. I have poked and prodded, examined and re-examined. Regrettably, I have even suspected myself in a desperate, ultimately futile attempt to understand how I became a victim.

But blaming myself was neither my idea nor my first inclination. I thought such 17th-century notions were long dead. I was wrong. People who did not even know me were quick to comment or speculate on my rape. What were you wearing? Did you scream loudly? Did this occur in public?

As my history lesson said, I found myself on trial, facing the most fierce judge and jury: ignorance.

Defiant Akin still in Senate raceRep. Akin's controversial claimsEight years after my rape, I find myself on trial against ignorance again. Rep. Todd Akin's recent comments that "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy not only flout scientific fact but, for me, cut deeper. Akin has de-legitimized my rape.

You see, nine months after my rape, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. You could say she was conceived in rape; she was. But she is also so much more than her beginnings. I blissfully believed that after I finally had decided to give birth to and to raise my daughter, life would be all roses and endless days at the playground. I was wrong again.

It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child.

When faced with the choice between a lifetime tethered to her rapist or meaningful legal redress, the answer may be easy, but it is not painless. For the sake of her child, the woman will sacrifice her need to see her once immensely powerful perpetrator humbled by the court.

I know it because I lived it. I went to law school to learn how to stop it.

Having fought this injustice for the past several years, I have come to believe that ignorance is to blame for this legal absence. Opponents argue no woman would ever choose to raise the child she conceived through rape. The only two studies to analyze the choices made by pregnant raped women indicate otherwise -- at least 30% of women who conceive by rape make this choice.

Others argue that no rapist would ever seek parental rights. Not only does my experience and that of others I know prove otherwise, but it is not surprising that a man who cruelly degrades a woman would also seek to torture her in an even more agonizing way, by seeking access to her child.

Today, it seems we may face a new and unbelievable challenge: convincing legislators that women can conceive when they are raped.

Make no mistake, my efforts and the efforts of others to persuade legislators to pass laws restricting the parental rights of men who father through rape will be directly impacted by Akin's recent comments. Whether these efforts will be helped or hurt, however, depends upon us as a society.

Either we will fight ignorance and take steps to legislate for raped women based upon reason and facts, or we will be led by ignorance and continue to make bad laws. Or fail to make good ones.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shauna Prewitt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:
Here's a satirical lesson on what is "legitimate":

[hipster glasses]

I posted that video a couple pages back

[/hipster glasses]

**CT GAMER**

Interesting to learn that the Doctor that the idiot politician is citing is on record saying he is tight with Romney, has worked to support his campaign and act as an adviser and has met with him privately about matters related to abortion and that Romney has promised to make abortion reform based upon his advising if elected as recently as this past fall.

The Doctor is also stating that Romney thanked him for his support, etc.

So the doctor who came up with this crazy theory that idiot politican cited is a supporter of Romney and the two have had private meetings together within the past year, yet Ryan is all over the news today saying nobody agrees with idiot politician and nobody has ever discussed or heard of such theories before, etc.

Somebody should tell Ryan that his running mate hangs out with the same doctor who advised idiot politician and who is councelling him on this very agenda...

**Bromsy**

daedalus-templarius wrote:

My question to this is, how is a zygote and a living, breathing animal similar in any way, shape or form?

Because neither of them is human? I'd personally rate even a zygote with potential of becoming human higher on a scale of importance than an animal, which barring some unforeseen leap in science (or magic), never will.

I suppose my scale of morality is thus

Spoiler:

The way I separate these lines of folks is that I would cheerfully line any group up and give them all the noodle if it would save the life of any single member of the group above them. I have also used the distance between to indicate how strongly I feel.

I was simply curious about how other people apply their morality to these types of situations.

**whembly**

@d-usa
Yeah, I've known two other individuals who were concieved from rape and I know another woman who chose to carry the baby. (so ya, I'm bias)

It's dispicable that rapist has "visitation rights".

Missouri is one of the those states that you can get him to "release" all of his visitation rights. (still has to go thru this even if he was convicted

)

I stole this from 'nother site:

...both pro- and anti-abortion groups are focusing on the “legitimate rape” part because it distracts from the very issue Akin himself was trying to hide from: What about pregnancy that results from rape? Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory. Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.

I think both sides should own it. Stand in your truth and be straightforward about what you really believe.

**sebster**

DemetriDominov wrote:
No one in power has done much about poverty in this country in past 80 years because it equates to socialism in many arguments. The cycle really isn't that hard to break but it's held in place because it's a well kept lie being pushed in the other direction. The motivation and drive is there for those in poverty to remove themselves from poverty, the resources, knowledge, and connections politicians have to do it just aren't being used effectively - literally ever, in anything.

There's certainly plenty of scope to be critical of the drift in the US away from poverty reduction and towards straight up blaming the poor for their place, but you are exaggerating by quite a bit there in claiming nothing has been done in 80 years.

LBJ put in place the War on Poverty in the 60s, and that led to the Economic Opportunity Act. Now, you might argue that those initiatives have been steadily been reduced since then (as part of a general trend away from concern over poverty) but many of those programs are still in place, and still making an impact against poverty.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
A similar argument is often made with respect to those people that find sexuality "disgusting". In essence, they aren't comfortable with their own sexuality and so any state of arousal is difficult for them, so they consciously work to counter that sentiment by claiming that they're disgusted. The ultimate goal being to minimize their exposure to sexuality, and therefore arousal, in order to avoid confronting their urges.

I've often wondered what sick gak they must be into that they're so horrified that it causes them to blame all sex.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.

It's worth noting views like Akin's are not that uncommon among the hierarchy of the Republican party, and even if not held by a leader personally he'd certainly be aware of many fellow leaders and staffers who held such views.

To the Republican party Akin's sin really is one of message control - his argument is one you're supposed to put out to evangelical groups, but when it becomes a national media issue then it becomes a distraction from the main Republican focus. That it looks like any other generic Republican would now be a better chance of winning his senate race is icing on the cake.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
The Republican platform hasn't changed for many years on this subject. Neither has the Democratic platform.

Yeah, but the issue is about message control.

This campaign is shaping up as the opposite of 2008. Now Republicans want to talk economy, economy, economy, while Democrats will look for any possible reason to talk about anything else. Compare that to 2008 when the Democrats just wanted to talk economy and Republicans were desperate to talk about anything else, and came up with all stupid nonsense about Wright and all that other nonsense.

Akin has just gifted the Democrats a chance to talk about something else. The Republicans best chance to stop that happening is kick Akin out.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

He had this election in the bag. He could've saved all his compaign $$$, smoking cigars and drinking cognac and STILL would've won handedly. Yeah, McCaskill is THAT hated here.

Akin has never been ahead of McCaskill by more than 3 points.

**CT GAMER**

The Republicans best chance to stop that happening is kick Akin out.

Kicking him out is irrelevant.

Romney's documented history with/political connections to the doctor that Akin is citing and Ryans MANY statements on the record (and voting record in regards to birth control/Planned parenthood, etc.) make it pretty clear they are far less distant from Akin's/the doctor then they are trying (badly) to pretend...

The fact that they are refusing to answer all questions on the subject other than to say canned responses that evade any question actually asked and refusal to appear on any news station or interview other than fox & co. speaks volumes. They could take a stance and state their positions and defend their past records on this subject, but instead they ar etaking the "put our fingers in our ears and hope it blows over" route. I hope it sinks them like the titanic...

**Melissia**

Maybe, but if they did kick him out it'd give the illusion to most voters that they don't accept that viewpoint.

Course, that might also hurt their base. Who knows.

**Amaya**

Melissia wrote:
Maybe, but if they did kick him out it'd give the illusion to most voters that they don't accept that viewpoint.

Course, that might also hurt their base. Who knows.

Even my vehemently anti abortion pro Romney mother reacted to Akin's comment with extreme disgust.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That's why the national republicans are urging him to step down. It's not about what he said...it's about getting the Senate Majority (and the WH), which he has put MO at risk.

It's worth noting views like Akin's are not that uncommon among the hierarchy of the Republican party, and even if not held by a leader personally he'd certainly be aware of many fellow leaders and staffers who held such views.

To the Republican party Akin's sin really is one of message control - his argument is one you're supposed to put out to evangelical groups, but when it becomes a national media issue then it becomes a distraction from the main Republican focus. That it looks like any other generic Republican would now be a better chance of winning his senate race is icing on the cake.

True dat... but Aktin is extreme in his abortion views... always has been. Like I said, we *knew* that about him.

What's driving me bonkers is what I said earlier... Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory [weaslely politican answer] . Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.

BOTH sides should own it... otherwise, this is all we're going to hear... "Republicans haaaaaaaaaaaate women!" or "Democrats are baby KILLERS!".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
The Republican platform hasn't changed for many years on this subject. Neither has the Democratic platform.

Yeah, but the issue is about message control.

This campaign is shaping up as the opposite of 2008. Now Republicans want to talk economy, economy, economy, while Democrats will look for any possible reason to talk about anything else. Compare that to 2008 when the Democrats just wanted to talk economy and Republicans were desperate to talk about anything else, and came up with all stupid nonsense about Wright and all that other nonsense.

Akin has just gifted the Democrats a chance to talk about something else. The Republicans best chance to stop that happening is kick Akin out.

**whembly**

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Can everyone take a deep breath? Please?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You back? You relaxed?

Please read this from Pastor Robert Fleischmann from National Director of Christian Life Resources:
http://www.christianliferesources.com/news/rape-pregnancy-and-the-akin-controversy-8741

Spoiler:

In a media hungry for controversy Congressman Todd Akin appeared as a tidy morsel of thoughtlessness. And what began as an appetizer has grown into a full course meal of presumed misinformation.
On Sunday, August 19, 2012 Rep. Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” There you have it! Enough words to feast on but let’s dissect it.
Thoughtless
Akin referenced a “legitimate rape.” Hard to conclude anything but thoughtlessness to speak of a “legitimate rape,” as if there were any other kind of rape. In a world of sound bites Akin got bit. But is there such a thing as an “illegitimate rape”?
The most conservative studies have suggested false rape reports account for 4%-8% of all reported rapes.[1] So, 4%-8% of rape reports could rightfully be called “illegitimate rapes.”
But it dodges the real point. In an issue as emotionally charged as rape, any qualification is dangerous and open to misunderstanding if not intentional misinterpretation.
As one might expect, Akin felt the harsh rebuke of those seeking an opportunity to portray him as insensitive. In a campaign ad response to the criticism Akin stated:

Rape is an evil act. I used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize. As the father of two daughters, I want tough justice for predators. I have a compassionate heart for the victims of sexual assault. And I pray for them. The fact is, rape can lead to pregnancy. The truth is, rape has many victims.
The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness.

Misinformation
Taking Representative Akin’s words in the best possible way we can accept his apology for failing to respect the high emotion of the rape issue. Now, how do the facts hold up?
Akin suggested that the emotional trauma of a rape creates some sort of natural birth control reflex in a woman’s body. He does not say pregnancies never occur, but in fairness he does not acknowledge that fact either. Is he just clinging in hearsay and rumor?
Right now news sources are quick to repeat the familiar mantra that a pregnancy occurs in 5% of rape cases. It is a 16-year-old statistic lifted from a study of 4,008 women.[2] A 1982 study of 692 women suggested the chance of pregnancy occurring from a rape to be between 2% and 4%.[3] While statistically 2% to 5% is not a large percentage, for the victim the prospect no matter how remote emotionally compounds an already traumatic event.
But let’s be honest here – Akin violated the emotional sanctity of this topic with his term, “legitimate rape.” We now want to know the accuracy of his statement. Emotionally, there is no debate that even 2% is 2% too much. Is it true that the trauma of the rape reduces the chances for pregnancy?
I have yet to see a study that demonstrates some sort of contraceptive effect from a rape. I do believe, however, it is not an unwarranted conclusion.
According to eMedicineHealth[4], a woman who is a typical user of combination hormonal pills has an 8% chance of getting pregnant. If her partner is a typical user of the male condom she has a 15% chance of getting pregnant. If she has never delivered a child and is a typical user of a cervical cap she has a 16% chance of getting pregnant. If she and her partner were typical in practicing the withdrawal method, she would have a 27% chance of getting pregnant. And finally, if neither she or her partner used any form of birth control, she would have an 85% chance of getting pregnant.
Eugene F. Diamond, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, wrote in the “To the Editor” section of the April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine:

Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.

Statistically speaking, it appears something happens in a rape, either with the victim or with the perpetrator, that reduces the incidence of pregnancy. Fertility specialists continually debate the role of emotions, unresolved conflicts and trauma play in female infertility. As you review the literature you will see there are strong convictions on both sides.
That all being said, could Akin be right? Does the 2% to 5% of rapes resulting in pregnancy suggest something else is “shutting down” what otherwise could be a 27% (withdrawal) to 85% (no birth control method) chance of getting pregnant?
The Real Point
In a rape in which pregnancy does occur there are two victims – the woman and her unborn child. The suggestion that an unborn child should be classified as a victim along with the woman is the rub. The naïve component of the abortion-rights movement likes to continue the outdated mantra that in the early stages of the pregnancy it is merely a blob of cells. As such it is of no value compared to the needs of the mother.
The more sophisticated element of the abortion rights movement are more honest in their evaluations and shocking in their conclusions. The sophisticated advocate admits that in an abortion a child dies. It is not profound logic that leads to this conclusion. After all, upon fertilization it is a chromosomally unique individual that grows and migrates down the fallopian tube and implants in the uterine wall. Even if prevented from implanting, the developing life could continue maturing as a human being with nourishment and care. Today they can be transplanted into surrogate mothers and we are still hearing rumors of progress made in the invention of an artificial womb. At fertilization that embryo was you as it was you at implantation in the uterine wall, as it was you when you made that first in utero kick, as it was you at birth, at school, at marriage, as a parent and as a grandparent.
So the sophisticated advocates of abortion acknowledge that in abortion a child dies and consider it a sad but necessary evil to protect the autonomy of the mother. It is of subordinate value to the life of the mother. By referring to the mother and baby both as victims injects emotional value to both mother and the child – something abortion-rights advocates want to avoid.
Akin’s point was that killing one of the two victims of a rape is morally wrong. At the same time Akin’s supports toughening the law against the rapists. Now, that is focusing the punishment on the real fiend!
It is hard for any of us to get past the emotion of the rape experience. Its violation of human dignity and intimacy is atrocious. The memory never disappears and an entire future is altered. Akin, as many others of a pro-life persuasion, want harsher punishments for rapists. They want greater support services and protection for women in danger of rape and for those who have been raped. They also want to protect a woman who will never forget her rape from compounding the tragedy of terminating her own child’s life.
Prudence
Without a doubt Akin could have said what he said much differently and with more sensitivity. Also, in the interest of winning the favor of the general public he must also accept the fact that most people today can’t get past the thought of the rape event. His advocacy for protecting the unborn child conceived from a rape is morally correct but at this time is not politically prudent.
We live in a nation that has taken the lives of more than 54 million unborn children through abortion. Getting society to realize the error of all that is a big and noble task. Opinion polls suggest we are making progress but we aren’t there yet.
I would counsel Akin to focus on that larger picture and leave the emotionally distorting event of pregnancy from a rape for a later day when society is better educated. It is a prudent move which does not desert the plight of the unborn child resulting from a rape but rather is taking the steps for progress where you can get it for a greater and more lasting solution in the future.
The enemies of Representative Akin would consider his defeat in the run for the U.S. Senate dessert. I am more hopeful that the proper education that can come out of all this might better result in tougher laws against rapists, care and support for the women who have been raped, and protection for the most defenseless of all – the unborn child. Now wouldn’t that be sweet!
By Pastor Robert Fleischmann, National Director of Christian Life Resources