Republican Senate Nominee: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant

reply to post by neformore

Um ya! this guy needs to go back to kindergarten and be thought in the basic principles of body mechanics because what he purposes is plain silly, i do not think he got the whole birds and the bees concept.

I did not even have to look but I think his quote on "doctors saying that pregnancy from rape is really rare" well first what doctors actually say such a blank statement or actually think that the body has an inbuilt natural defense to rape? And second, I think that was taken way out of context and twisted to suit his illogical ideologies.

If anything and if that quote which he purposes as true, actually has some truth in it. Then pregnancies from rape could be rare because of a lot of factors, even something as simple as the fact that the women who get raped look into preventive or elimination measures of the possible chance of impregnation happening from that act, and so do not end up pregnant. There by making pregnancy from rape technically rare because of other factors all together. And not because they have a natural bodily inbuilt defense to rape....His whole take on things does not compute.

Ok, this guy may not be the brightest bulb out there, but the things he said are most likely because he has an agenda, and unwarranted destructive religiously inclined ideologies.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Never said the embryo/fetus wasn't alive. Said it doesn't meet the definition of a "life." This for purposes of determining rights and questions of murder. Something can be alive without meeting our definition of life for these purposes. If all things that are alive have a right to life we'd be murderers every time we ate an average meal.

Yes I have had a baby. I have also had an abortion. I have also been the fetus that wasn't aborted because there was no choice for my mother. So my comments and opinions are related to the direct bearing these issues have on my "actual" life.

turns out women may have higher incidents of pregnancy from rape than consensual sex

www.washingtonpost.com...

yeah ......ill just leave this here

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Thunder heart woman

 

I know its your body and whatnot your decision. Just like its the murder's decision to pull the trigger. Killing is killing there is no in between if you kill something it can't be not killing it. Just like murder is murder. But I guess people are not evolved enough to see what human life really means but whatever. Why do you people think there is so much violence in the world...because the majority of people are insane.

you can't "murder" a part of your own body...geez, please try and use comparisions that make sense.

You're establishing your opinion on when an individual's life begins v/s a "growth" inside someone's body as "fact" before you start the argument.

You're kind of missing the WHOLE debate about abortion if you just establish that little matter as a foregone conclusion.

Both of your opinions don't matter. A zygote embryo or fetus is not a person under the law. Fetal homicide laws in general contain clauses that specifically exclude abortion.

Originally posted by Unity_99

And abortions are a bit of a tricky issue. The first trimester should be open and FREE SAFE abortions done at the will of the person, then its over. Because after that, the Developing Infant, starts massively developing the brain required for Consciousness. They begin to Rem sleep even, and this implies that for the large part, soul may have entered.

You are not your body. You enter it. Souls don't enter the first trimester, when alot of miscarriages happen, and the infant doesnt have to be cut apart to take out.

Common sense, and medical information would really change this entire thing around.

However, imposing your religious beliefs upon someone else and forcing them to support them with their body and womb and life is outrageous.

And murdering unborn children who are rapidly developing their brains is also criminal.

There needs to be balance.

There is balance, elective late term abortions are illegal since Roe. Pro-lifers only see in black and white which is why they think a zygote has the ontic and moral equivalent of a newborn (at least that's what they preach, not practice (IVF)).

This is true actually you tools....................................... (as long as the rape victim is male)..... Also it is estimated that over 40% of men fail to cum during rape... Should we blame the woman for that too.... Not being submissive enough perhaps.... America, do me a favor.............. NOBODY VOTE EVER AGAIN. Your leaders are from another planet (not in the David Icke way)

How exactly do you distinguish between "rape" and "forcible rape"??? Rape is rape. No amount of wordplay or double-think can mitigate rape. What morons these cretins are.

Holy. Crap. Which asylum did they let this idiot escaoe from? "Legitimate rape"??? What? How on earth can this idiot be a Congressman???

Originally posted by seagull

Honestly now... Dems don't say equally stupid things? Really? Honesty should compel some of you to at least pretend to search for living breathing examples of Dem stupidity...

of course dems say some stupid things,

but this thread is about something specific a republican running for senate said the other day.

this thread shouldnt be derailed. you could always start a thread about anything a dem has foolishly said and it could be discussed there.

guys like this akin guy make me shamed to say im american.

Originally posted by Lannister
reply to post by sonnny1

 

It is a serious question and I think it comes down to how much do we value life and when does life begin? If we can define when life begins, we can more easily use tools like abortion for situations such as rape/incest. For instance, if we say life begins with a heart beat, then you have a few weeks prior to that where abortion would be acceptable - well within the window needed for a rape victim.

Pro-Lifers have already defined when "life begins". How it relates to abortion and laws is another thing since in order to deal with reality we need to see in shades of gray not black and white.

Sperm and egg cells are very much human and alive yet pro-lifers do not consider them persons. So this causes such pro-lifers start clarifying:

Pro-lifers then say life starts with unique dna.

What about proposed cloning technology which has the ability to create people with the same dna as their source (not unique dna)?
What about human Hela cultures which have unique DNA?

So pro-lifers then say life starts with unique dna and has the ability to develop into a human being.

The ability to develop into a human being is irrelevant, since future cloning technologies and current IVF technology can create fertilized eggs.

So pro-lifers then say life starts with unique dna and has the ability to develop into a human being and it has to be a natural process.

This also fails for the previous reason.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Are you saying the definition of life is possession of a beating heart? Please cite the source where this is stated to be a universally accepted definition. Last I knew there has been no universally agreed definition of what "life" is. This statement is your opinion. It is not my opinion.

All this talk about "life begins" and hearbeats is a red herring. When someone suggests that we should use heartbeat to decide when to restrict abortion, don't fall into their trap.

Roe V Wade wasn't about when "life begins" or whether or not a zygote embryo or fetus has human DNA or is "human". No more than forced blood donation should be legal because the person requiring it has human DNA and a heartbeat.

reply to post by sirhumperdink

Throws the proverbial monkey wrench into things doesn't it.

The study in that link does make some good points, but its just another way to look at the same thing. When you shine a light into the prism it shows itself and the many facets it is made of and projects it outward, interesting how one seeming solid thing can and is made up of a myriad of other colors and things. And yet we only see that which we know about, as always more suppositions.

But in all we can argue about things till the cows come home, to no effect what so ever, and most especially when we are not arguing about the same things. But its quite obvious the dude "Rep. Todd Akin" he has an agenda and is part of one, twisting and pulling things into different lights, to suit his and there purpose.

Shining the human light through the prism shows its complexity, while we argue about its simplicity.

Of those 405 women included in the sample, 6.4 percent — or 26 women — reported a pregnancy that year. A separate large-scale study showed that, for the general population of women that age, the per-incidence pregnancy rate for a single act of intercourse is 3.1 percent.

As to why rape victims would have a higher rate of pregnancy, the Gottschalls put forward a few theories. They look at previous research, which suggests that men are more attracted to women who are fertile and ovulating. In consensual sex, women can decline sex at a time where there might be a high likelihood of pregnancy.

That’s not the case in rape. “Rapists do not wait to be chosen, rapists choose,” they write. “As such, within the limits of opportunity, rapists would be able to target women bearing cues [of fertility].”

The Gottschalls do acknowledge that their study was at odds with previous research, which showed a lower rate of pregnancy among rape victims.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
This man has tried to use these facts to make a statement that states simply, if a woman doesn't really want to be pregnant as a result of rape the body will not allow it to happen. This is simply not true. ... Which is what makes what he said so deeply offensive. His statement implies that if you are pregnant as the result of being sexually assaulted, deep down you really enjoyed it and wanted to have his baby.

EXACTLY!

But he is not the only Senate candidate to believe this nonsense that has affected the lives of girls and women:

the inability to get pregnant from rape stemmed from "God's little protective shield"—a report Boozman denied before saying that it was in fact an "adrenaline rush" that prevented conception from rape.

Mr. Boozman was a Republican Senate candidate from Arkansas.
Rep. Todd Akin: Wrong, But Not Alone

This belief has been around years, promulgated by the belief, not science fact, of even doctors like the Dr. Willke
(of the above source) of the Medical Right

BTW I had a friend in the 1970s who followed similar advice by her church, that praying to not get pregnant would prevent pregnancy. Didn't work then, and won't work now.

reply to post by littled16


Your talkin' bout the God Squad here folks..

You Know, the people who brought you "the world is 5 thousand years old" & "Man and dinosaurs actually walked togeather".

C'mon what do you expect from cristians with an agenda, they will come3 up with any theory that makes their views make sense in their own heads...

this website cites the US Justice Dept and the Bureau of Census Table for reported rapes and after some number crunching comes up with about 225 rape pregnancies a year(as compared with 6 million total pregnancies a year---for the guy who said that there are more rape pregnancies than regular which is one of the more absurd things I've heard).

But interestingly this article states that emotional trauma can cause spontaneous miscarriage in rape victims.

•In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).

While that is not the same as an idea that a woman has some natural way to ward off pregnancy if raped, there does seem to be a stress factor in keeping the body from achieving and maintaining pregnancy. It is interesting that feminists are discounting the effects of trauma on a woman's hormones.

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we're talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman. 2,3

www.christianliferesources.com...


Although this author suggests that no rape is acceptable, it does delineate what constitutes as "assault rape."
Also mentioned is the obvious fact that many couples try for months to achieve pregnancy. Assault rape pregnancy would be pretty hit and miss.

reply to post by otherpotato


www.futurity.org...

The research team, led by University of Nottingham tissue engineer Kevin Shakesheff, has published their findings in the journal Nature Communications. This new laboratory culture method has allowed scientists to see critical aspects of embryonic development that have never been seen in this way before, and could lead to treatments for conditions such as heart defects. Straight from the Source Read the original study DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1671 For the first time it has been possible to grow embryos outside the body of the mother, using a mouse model, for just long enough to observe in real time processes of growth during a crucial stage between the fourth and eighth days of development. Shakesheff says: “Using our unique materials and techniques we have been able to give our research colleagues a previously unseen view of the incredible behavior of cells at this vital stage of an embryo’s development. “We hope this work will unlock further secrets which could improve medical treatments that require tissues to regenerate and also open up more opportunities to improve IVF. In the future we hope to develop more technologies which will allow developmental biologists to understand how our tissue forms.” In the past it has only been possible to culture a fertilized egg for four days as it grows from a single cell into a blastocyst, a ball of 64 cells comprising stem cells that will form the body, and extra-embryonic cells which form the placenta and control stem cell development as the embryo develops.

for the record i wanna say i think the akin guy said some really foolish and insenstive things that will problay effect his re-election

but according to a few sources im going to post in answer to your question i guess they have developed or are in the process of developing an artificial womb....for good or evil depending on your through process but it seems that the future will indeed have artificial wombs or at least that seems to be a high ranking goal for science these days

www.popsci.com... from pop sci talking about plans to prefect and utilize the technology in the future
atheism.about.com... this one talks about the potenal socital implications and takes the issue from a mothers point of view as well as other points of view as well and brings up how eventualy this technology COULD(possibly) lead to the elimination of abortions in the sense that instead of getting one because they did not want to carry the baby to term they could then put it in an artifical womb to carry it to term(some day) and offer more reproductive options.
en.wikipedia.org... wiki on the topic
www.youtube.com... video for artifical wombs
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.thenewatlantis.com...
nrlc.org... (would assume this is an anti artifical womb document) and it claims that the Japanese are already using a prototype

thestir.cafemom.com...

www.all.org...
health.howstuffworks.com...

so far only been successful with sharks but if they can do it with one creature they can do it with others(humans) eventualy not to mention potetaly use this to bring back extinct creatures (in theory) sorry for the rant i belive with the topic being what it is that this is relevent to the discussion and eventually will become a big part of the abortion debate

reply to post by igor_ats

All this talk about "life begins" and hearbeats is a red herring. When someone suggests that we should use heartbeat to decide when to restrict abortion, don't fall into their trap.

As opposed to "a bunch of cells" which have no heart....the typical argument of pro choice is that the baby is not "viable outside the womb", not that the baby is not alive. Typically when a woman goes for an abortion, the heart has developed. But when Pro choicers suggest that it's just a bunch of cells lining the uterus, they essentially trick unsuspecting women into believing the baby is not really a separate live being.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
turns out women may have higher incidents of pregnancy from rape than consensual sex

www.washingtonpost.com...

yeah ......ill just leave this here

edit on 20-8-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

That makes sense when you think about it. Most rapists aren't going to be concerned about impregnation the way a lot of consensual couples would be.

Maybe what he meant by "legitimate rape", he was referring to the Roe vs Wade ruling, in which the woman Norma McCorvey lied about being raped. As a result 50+ million have been murdered.

Why is a child conceived as a result of rape considered less than a person? Can we enslave those individuals as adults because they aren't humans? What is wrong with some of you, why don't we make this a society where rape doesn't happen. I can think of some creative punishments that will make rape all but disappear in the west. (nothing I can do about the middle east besides outlaw the Koran, which condones rape in certain instances)

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Wan't my statement, was Akin's.
And the Federal Reserve holds the majority of US debt. A combination of investors hold an equal amount to China, and Japan is third in line.

I have no idea what you are referring too though.

oh you are saying Akin said our country was rich? interesting. I don't think so.

reply to post by kingofmd


u bring up a good point the only other form of rape that(in my opinion) COULD be considered "illegitimate rape" would be a case of statuatory rape between people dating in high school but a few years apart if that makes any sense? example the highschool senior who keeps dating his junior or senior girl friend and they have sex not talking about legitimate pedos mind you

and just to devils advocate it (and another member allready brought it up) the only cases of rape i can think of that 100% will not result in pregnancy in any situation(in our current tech level) is the rape of males by other males so unless the guy was specifically talking about male rape( he wasent obiously) he defiantly needs to think more clearly when he talks as if he keeps this up he wont be in office for long

Not only is this offensive, and stupid, it's also an extremely dangerous idea to spread. I can only imagine potential rapists using the idea that their victim won't get pregnant as part of their reasoning and justification. It's scary that these views are still being spread by any group of people.