It’s certainly true that not every rape reported is in fact a rape.
And it’s certainly fair to say, “I don’t know the factual answer: is there some scientific reason a rape would be less likely to result in pregnancy?”
I don’t think there’s much value in pointing and laughing at someone who doesn’t know, admits he doesn’t know, and seeks the correct answer. This is in contrast to someone who claims certainty in his knowledge and is demonstrably wrong, of course, as with Akins.
The correct response, it seems, is the factual answer: the science does not indicate any medical reason relating to women’s bodily functions that rapes would result in a lower rate of pregnancies.
I know it’s the Pit and all, but I’d still like to see some reconciliation of these apparently conflicting numbers. If 25,000 pregnancies = 5% of annual rapes, then annual rapes = 500,000. And if 32,101 pregnancies “result from rape each year”, by the same calculation this represents 642,000 annual rapes. Neither of these are even in the same ballpark as Locrian’s 84,767.
This does nothing to mitigate the stupidity of the aspiring Senator, of course, and I heartily endorse his Pitting. But if I happen to have this discussion elsewhere, I’d like to be safe and confident of my own facts. I’d go with the higher numbers, as there are two cites supporting them. But if Locrian has a cite for that lower number, I’d be interested in seeing it. If the discrepancy involves those being “reported” versus the higher numbers being estimations, that would explain it.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
This is in contrast to someone who claims certainty in his knowledge and is demonstrably wrong, of course, as with Akins.
[/QUOTE]
Akins? :eek: Good God, he’s replicating. It may be too late.
The issue isn’t with the under, or over-reporting of rape (it’s under-reported, btw). He’s not trying to “seek the correct answer” or he’d find out that there are somewhere in the realm of 32,000 pregnancies by rape each year. He’s trying to pretend that Akin is “opening up a legitimate line of debate”, which is what, whether or not pregnancies can result from rape? That’s not a debate. Akin is certainly not discussing the reporting levels of rape as a crime, so what important debate is Catanese defending here? Because his last line is, “The left is often 1st to shut down debate as “off limits” when it deems so. Aren’t these moments supposed to open up a larger debate?”
I agree rape is under-reported. Although I would note that the graphic you like to does not include or mention false reports of rape – it starts by noting what happens in every hundred cases of rape, but does not reveal how many cases of rape reported to the police are not true. It’s thus unclear whether the reason that we drop from 46 rapes reported to police to twelve leading to an arrest is a function of some of those rape reports being false. Still, i think it’s beyond cavil that more real rapes are unreported than there are false rape reports, so I absolutely agree that on balance, rape is under-reported.
Here’s where I’m not sure I agree.
He’s not trying to seek the right answer. If he were, he’d find out…?
How does one “find out” but by asking the question?
I don’t know. I suppose there might be some confusion that ties back to “legitimate” rapes, which Akin may have meant as a very ignorant but not unique synonym for stranger rape. It’s a true statement that stranger rape results in less than 10 percent of rape-related pregnancies, although for reasons statistical and not medical.
Again, nothing in what Akin said raised the issue of rape reporting. It’s a non-sequitor to detract from the ridiculousness of claiming that pregnancy doesn’t happen via rape. “But sometimes people report rape when it didn’t happen!” Fantastic, not related at all to what is being discussed. This guy is trying to create doubt about the validity of a woman reporting a rape by pointing out that there is a small incidence of false reporting, but it has nothing to do at all with women getting pregnant from rape.
I still haven’t seen what “debate” is allegedly being stifled by people being outraged at Akin’s comment. He is claiming that people’s outrage is resulting in the avoidance of a debate-worthy topic that Akin raised. What is that topic?
I think you gotta cut them some slack. The Republicans are trying desperately to return us to another time - the past! They want women to not want abortions, and minorities to stop wanting their rights, and Christianity back in government, as a given, etc. So they keep saying these seemingly moronic things, and no doubt wondering why everyone is so quick to get so upset, sheesh. That’s because they are truly living in their own little worlds, where people haven’t evolved to accepting a woman’s right to choose, or gay marriage, etc. I don’t think they can help themselves. Even if they can’t see the writing on the wall, I think they can smell change in the air, and are behaving this way as they are scared that this might be their last race as contenders.
It is intriguing to me, on a meta-level, that Bricker would even bother to try the nearly-patented Bricker non-defense defense by obfuscation here.
Certainly Bricker has proven himself to be an irredeemable partisan douchebag of the highest order, but I didn’t think even he would try to muddy the waters on this one.
Garfield at least has regional allegiances to fuel his efforts to try to derail the thread. Of course, that makes him no less the douchebag, but at least if you squint you can see a little of his motivation.
Guys, guys, please take note that even Romney has issued statement 2.0, realizing that a polite disagreement on the matter will not suffice when the comments were as outrageous as they were.
