In the above link Akin said that a rapist should be punished but not a child conceived by that rapist. so does that mean he’s still opposed to abortion being allowed if a woman is pregnant by a rapist?
Wouldn’t be surprised if he heard it from a can of Dr. Pepper.
I watched the video. Why on earth didn’t the interviewer call him on what he had just said?
But is he pregnant?
More from Akin: having openly declared that Medicare is unconstitutional, he is now running an ad accusing his opponent of not doing enough to “protect and strengthen” Medicare.
Studies from 1998 and 2000 found that pregnancies occur at the same rate in rape and non-rape vaginal-penetration-with-male-orgasm acts: 5 percent. Which results in an average of 25,000 pregnancies from rape each year in the US.
Wow, that guy is a moron AND a jerk.
Yeah, but how many of those were “legitimate” rapes?
Is that a legitimate question?? 
Well clearly, if we’re moving back to the Old Testament Law, we just need to force them to marry their rapists, thus ensuring that the children grow up in two parent heterosexual households. Right? :dubious:
Well, by his logic, none of them since they all resulted in pregnancy. Since the woman’s body didn’t deploy the natural defenses against rape-pregnancy, that means she secretly wanted it to happen.
A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One, the woman’s body doesn’t have any natural defenses against rape-pregnancy, and two, the woman’s body doesn’t have any natural defenses against rape-pregnancy. Now I realise that technically speaking that’s only one flaw, but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.
But he has it on good authority that you’re wrong! Also that he misspoke about the authority.
Are you SURE the mom was straight?:eek:
If not, we can always stone everyone involved. That’s both biblical sounding and solves the problem on multiple levels (presuming the stoning takes place before birth).
Regards,
-Bouncer-
While it seems clear that he’s wrong, my guess is the “legitimate” language and the “misspoke” walk-back is related to the bill he (and Paul Ryan) sponsored last year to exclude federal funding to abortions to statutory rape victims (vs. what the bill termed “forcible rape” victims).
In his view (again I’m guessing, and not agreeing), “forcible” rape causes stress and physical trauma that makes pregnancy less likely. The Atlantic has an article about how this assertion has been going around for a while.
Statutory rape (again, in his view), by contrast, isn’t necessarily non-consensual (using the non-legal definition, obviously) and thus wouldn’t have the same effect.
I think he said “legitimate” when he meant “forcible”. Not that either one makes the statement any less incorrect.
Garfield: yes, judging from this TPM correspondent, Akin appears to be repeating a well-worn and medically false trope. Growing up, my political affiliations were tied to the political views of my parents, as they are for most people. My dad was apolitical, while my mom was a single-issue voter: Pro-Life. St. Louis is a very Catholic, very Pro-Life town, or at least it was in the 80s and 90s… So, I grew up awash in the Pro-Life reasoning, and this idea of “real rape” (typically defined as the stranger assaulting the victim in a violent manner) preventing pregnancy was the standard response to the Pro-Choice argument about making exceptions for rape and incest.
The reasoning (as I recall it being explained) is that during acute stress, the body will prevent implantation, or else miscarry, due to the hormones released in response to stress. Now, any OB/GYN can explain to a Pro-Life person why this isn’t the case, but like the way any lawyer could easily dismantle the Birther argument, the truth doesn’t matter. The problem is how does a Pro-Life justify forcing rape victims to carry their babies to term, and the solution is to say that “real” rape victims don’t get pregnant and those who claim they were raped are disproven by the fact that she hadn’t miscarried. Shamefully, the second half of that justification includes dismissing the claims of rape victims who weren’t assaulted in the stereotypical manner, and even then, there are doubts about the veracity of the claims.
I don’t think this is what all Pro-Life people think, but this is what I heard growing up, and I never questioned it myself... Holy moley, that's a poisonous cocktail of beliefs. You would think Akin just stepped off of the **Der Trihs** assemblage of implausible right-wing villains, but apparently these ideas are common currency.
Meanwhile, back in reality: A 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found “rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency” and is “a cause of many unwanted pregnancies” — an estimated “32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.” http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php?ref=fpblg
It’s becoming clear that this level of political derp is a kind of virus that takes over its host and forces hi/r to do whatever it takes to infect others.
The question is what might curb the epidemic, short of killing the brains of the carriers.
So I assume your initial advocacy of assassination was misspoken?
Nope. Kill the brain and you kill the ghoul.