I disagree on what you’re calling the “relevant” part; he’s still making the claim that if the woman hasn’t ovulated, she’s not going to get pregnant, because of stress. He’s saying Akin’s partly right because SOMETIMES the woman’s body DOES “shut that thing down”. Which is STILL completely and totally wrong. If it weren’t, the rates of pregnancy from rape would be less than the rates of pregnancy from consensual sex, and they’re not.
They’re both complete and utter morons looking for a way to claim that a rape exception for an outright abortion ban isn’t necessary. It’s just that one’s saying “You obviously weren’t legitimately raped because you got pregnant” and the other’s saying “It’s possible you weren’t legitimately raped, because you got pregnant.” Gingrey’s also adding a side order of “blame infertile couples for their own inability to get pregnant.” Which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I thought Akin (or someone defending him) was on TV last year saying that there was a local political issue back home re women being able to get an abortion if they had been raped, and so the controversy (among the anti-choice crowd) was that women would claim they had been raped, when in fact they just wanted an abortion (I think money was involved, re how the procedure was paid for).
So when he referred to “legitimate rape” that’s really what he was talking about. Honest.
No, he’s saying that stress may prevent ovulation. But the stress of rape is irrelevant to pregnancy occurring, because ovulation would have occurred before the rape, or the stress that might prevent ovulation would also occur before the rape.
I do agree that he is stretching “partly right” beyond the breaking point, however. The part Akin was right about, that emotional states can conceivably affect fertility, is a point Akin probably doesn’t understand himself, didn’t intend to say, and can only be inferred by a ridiculously overly-generous interpretation.
Can we please make sure none of these fucking idiots hold onto public office? Please?
I would rather use the houses of Congress to provide shelter for stray cats and piss their salaries away on cosmetics for dogs than pay them another dime and have to listen to them open their fucking idiot mouths even to utter a profound apology.
They should be tied up and sent to the ice caps where their bodies can “shut down” while being raped by polar bears.
Oh, I would allow heavy petting, even oral sex. I’ve never seen any videos of a Congressperson sucking off a polar bear, but I would sure like to. And if anything is going to enhance your standing with PETA…
Look an 8 foot polar bear could never rape your average 50-ish year old congressman, who’s anus let’s estimate at two feet off the ground. There is just no way a polar bear of that size could squat down far enough and sustain any sort of thrusting motion without severely straining his hamstrings.
Here, take this copy of the Constitution, rolled up into a paper-tube, and try it yourself.
I think we’re arguing two sides of the same outrage. My point is, there aren’t ANY studies out there showing that rape stops ovulation. None. All the studies about stress and ovulation involve people with stressful lifestyles and chronic high cortisol levels. Trying to speculate that stress from being raped can affect ovulation the same way chronic lifestyle stress can is comparing apples to oranges. There are, however, statistics indicating that women who are raped are MORE likely to get pregnant than women who have a session of consensual sex, leading to (admittedly pure) speculation that rape may actually STIMULATE ovulation. Akin wasn’t right about it, he was dead WRONG. And Gingrey is a fool when he opened up his big yapper after all these months to defend Akin, using the same stupid mistaken argument. They may be* honestly* mistaken, but you’d better be DAMNED sure of the science when you’re trying to use it to argue policy restricting people’s rights.
Just to emphasize the “PORK” part; Stewart covered it on the Daily Show a couple of nights ago. The bill is one page. Basically one line that funds the Federal Flood insurance program. I jumped on a couple of golf friends (backward, Okie, racist, Faux News indoctrinated but when off politics - semi-ok) for repeating the PORK bullshit.
More likely that women build up an immune reaction (sperm anti-body) to their significant other’s sperm that doesn’t exist with the stranger’s. Pure speculation on my part, but a speculation that makes some sense.
To help our Republican friends, I’ve found a nice little website with some rape prevention tips. I think it really cuts to the heart of what Republicans are getting after:
Even if you’re talking about the original Senate bill the pork might have been beef anyway,
One might just start to think that this isn’t about pork but it is about folks who want “government small enough to drown in a bathtub” not wanting anything done that might let folks realize that there things that can only, and will only, be done by government that’s some size larger.
