Legitimate political gang rape

We expect leftists, liberals, and other miscreants to pounce opportunistically, to lie, cheat, and twist (all the while drooling) over a phrase like “legitimate rape” when uttered by a strong conservative Christian politician. But should we expect the same from alleged conservatives?

Yet this is exactly what we’ve seen from several prominent conservatives in the wake of a media gaffe from U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) in regard to alleged “legitimate rape” and abortion.

What could have been quickly and easily handled with a consolidated response correctly interpreting Akin’s unfortunate phrase was instead a rare cause of bipartisan hazing.

It’s an old and reliable political reality: liberals care for even the criminals in their midst, while conservatives shoot their wounded. So, for example, Joe Biden can put all three of his left feet in his mouth twice a week and the media performs damage control (and perhaps leash training as well). The Right can scream and howl but the matter gets buried in no time. And thus, the male-prostitute hiring Barney Franks of this world retire from Congress as alleged civil rights heroes.

Meanwhile, let a conservative utter an awkward phrase, and it’s ready, aim, fire—not only from the leftist media, but from alleged conservatives like Ann Coulter, Scott Brown, the Romney-Ryan campaign, and the RNC itself. “We’re not associated with him!”

And in this case, the volley of verbal bullets came with disproportionate verve. It’s almost like the GOP establishment is more than eager to get rid of the most conservative tea-party types among them. (This is not to endorse Akin myself. I find his views on foreign policy and unlimited military-empire spending far less than biblical.)

Here’s the Akin incident, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Akin prompted the uproar with his response to a question in a KTVI television station interview in St. Louis about whether abortion should be legal in cases of rape.

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” he said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Ann Coulter blasted Akin in numerous ways, saying she would “hate” him unless he withdraws from the race. More on Coulter in a minute.

Romney-Ryan stated they “disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” More on their pro-choice exception in a minute.

RNC chairman Priebus called the remarks “dumb,” “biologically stupid,” and “bizarre.”

Needless to say, the leftists are in high gear and their attacks are as numerous as they are fallacious. There are two chief parts to the criticism from both sides: the phrase “legitimate rape,” and the issue of the rape exception for abortions.

“Legitimate Rape”

The left immediately ran with the idea of “legitimate rape” meaning that Akin must believe that only some rapes are carried out legitimately and others are “illegitimate,” and this an unacceptable “blame-shifting” and “sexist” view.

Now, this would have been a wonderful time for the Right to engage is education, courage, and square, powerful refutation: exposing how stupid and devious liberal politicians are. Expose their lunacy and lies for all to see! This is an opportunity!

Nope. Instead, they savaged the truth and bent, like quivering grass in the winds of assumed political fallout, before the left’s claims.

Coulter didn’t even get the position right: she says Akin should have responded “Yes, it’s still a life, but more people are killed in drive-by shootings in Chicago every year. You give us the 2 million abortions that aren’t a result of rape and incest and we’ll give you the few thousand that are.” Not really. Akin’s position is that of denying exceptions for instances of rape also; so this imaginary compromise may be what partial-pro-life moderates believe, but it certainly doesn’t represent how Akin could have said his view more clearly.

But what she’s really upset about is the rhetoric of it all. Politicians “should have a clear, nonthreatening answer at the ready.”

“Nonthreatening.” Right. Not to unborn babies, of course, but to potential voters. Thus do we sacrifice both life and truth on the altar of rhetorical fear. This is an insult both to true conservatism and the right to life, but also to the sense of most voters. Coulter and her likes in the party are assuming that most people vote purely on mindless, uninformed, ignorant emotion. And she is making this, rather than principle, the operating assumption of her political rhetoric. Thus we need good, quick, “nonthreatening” rhetoric, even at the expense of truth.

Coulter is, of course, an expert at rhetoric. It’s all she’s ever done.

Priebus also assumed the left’s argument when he said “whatever an illegitimate rape is—you know that’s not even something that we could conceive of.”

But it is very easy actually.

Akin was likely relying on the work of physician and former National Right to Life president John C. Willke, who wrote a three part series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy” (3 parts), National Right to Life News, July 17, August 21, and October 9, 1986. This series is condensed at the website of Physicians for Life.

Willke began that piece with what is a well-known position on the definition of “rape” and how it is reflected in statistics:

We should use the phrase “forced rape” or “assault rape” for that specifies what we’re talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape is intercourse with a girl under a certain age, often 16. Statutory rape can be consensual, but it is still statutory rape.

Another category is “date rape”. For some reason, this is supposed to be different, but, forced rape is still rape, regardless of whether it occurs on a date or behind the bushes. If a college woman is raped on a date, she should report it to the police and pursue charges. Further, she should undergo a medical examination and treatment, just as she would in the aftermath of an assault rape. It is not a separate category.

He then added, “Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. . . .”

We’ll cover more on why he concluded this in a moment, but from this much we can see exactly, clearly what Akin meant when he used the phrase “legitimate rape.” He was referring to cases of actual, criminal, forcible rape as opposed to several other conceivable definitions that are not actually “rape,” but only legally, socially, or anecdotally reported so, or claimed as such for whatever reason—true or otherwise.

There is, after all, the distinct possibility that if abortion were outlawed but with an exception for “rape,” that many of the women who buy abortions purely out of convenience today would then simply claim to have been raped in order to procure the legality.

For some reason, even to mention the possibility that a woman may lie about being raped is supposed to be politically incorrect—untouchable. It enrages leftists, and for some reason, therefore, frightens conservatives. Are a woman’s intentions never to questioned—completely off limits—when she claims to have been raped?

The answer is generally yes, but there is a least one major exception to this: When she intends to use that claim as justification to murder an innocent third party, a baby. The right to life trumps the right to privacy.

Liberals may wish us to believe that no woman would ever stoop so low as to lie about being raped. But this simply does not comport with what we Christians know about fallen human nature. We, conservatives, all agree that millions of women annually conspire to commit murder on their unborn babies. So do you expect me to feel it unacceptable to believe they would lie about why? This is political correctness run amok. Why, after all, would someone willing to kill out of convenience not also lie for various reasons out of convenience?

But liberals hate both the idea that some alleged “rapes” are not “rape” in the true sense, and the fact that because this is so, the statistics of rape and pregnancy are not as high as they would like to claim. Thus, some liberal at Slate Magazine blasts Akin: “tens of thousands of women are impregnated by rape annually.” The link takes you to the “proof” of this “tens of thousands” claim.

The Holmes Study

But that proof—also now featured on Fox News and Reuters, among others—is a government-funded report carried out with an eye toward solving what it calls an “national epidemic” of “unintended pregnancy”—with a clear reference to “objectives” from the Department of Health and Human Services in this regard.(1)

And it’s quite flawed in methodology and reporting. On the first count, it’s a purely anecdotal study not supported with any legal, medical, or forensic evidence. The basic empirical data of the number of rapes and victims was collected by a series of phone interviews completed with 3,031 women at random. The questions used to define rape seem legitimate enough, but there were absolutely no critical controls upon verification of the claims. None. As such, this is a purely anecdotal study (relying not only upon honesty, comprehension, and possibly interviewer bias, but in some cases also distant memories).

There was also no control or verification upon whether the alleged pregnancies were actually a result of the alleged rapes reported by these random interviewees.

Even at that, the results are not quite what the study reported them to be. The actual percentage of rape-related pregnancies (assuming they are all verifiably rape-related) was 3.2 percent. This was for the total number of reported pregnancies (20) resulting from the total number of reported rapes (616) among the sampled women.

The report then sorts for age-specificity and finds that for all women in the study 18 years of age or older, the rate increased to 4.7 percent—an unimposing number in appearance, but actually a 47 percent increase.

And then comes another big sneak: The study reports that there is a “weighted prevalence” of 606,690 rapes annually among all adult women (18+). It says nothing about how it derived this figure save to compare it to an equally high number reported for one year by the same “National Women’s Study” within which this rape-related pregnancy study was drawn. The problem here is that this number is extremely high compared to most others. RAINN, the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization states there are around 207,000 annually.

But the Holmes study reports the 606,690 figure, and then also applies its higher 4.7 percentage to that apparently inflated number. This is how it determines that “there may be 32,101 rape-related pregnancies annually.”

So whence the inflated number of rapes, for one? And second, why use the controlled 4.7 percent instead of the actual 3.2 percent which the overall study concluded? Here’s my guess, from later in the study:

With >32,000 rape-related pregnancies occurring each year among adult women in the United Stats [sic], . . . rape-related pregnancy is a significant problem that warrants closer attention. . . .

[T]he occurrence of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest holds important public health and policy implications. For example, policy debates surrounding abortion funding for cases of rape and incest have historically lacked scientific foundation as they have been based on data from the small proportion of reported cases.(2)

In short, this is a classic academic-government collusion to inflate the nature of a problem in order to justify an ideological government “solution,” throw more money into another government program, and pay “closer attention” (translation: fund more academic studies).

But let’s not take my ideological word for it. Hear what an academic peer reviewer published with the very study itself has to say:

When evaluating this study, one must initially consider the difficulties associated with interviewer bias. The interviewer had the discretion to classify an event as a rape even if the woman did not identify it as such, seek medical care, or notify police authorities. In accordance with the wording and interpretation of the questions, some variability in the classification of individual cases could occur. . . .

Furthermore,

Dr. Holmes reports that 32% of women who became pregnant as a result of a rape were not aware of the pregnancy until the second trimester. A recent study that used deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] analysis techniques reported that 60% of women who became pregnant after an assault were instead pregnant by a consensual partner. Inasmuch as 64% of the women in this study were either married or cohabitating, it must be assumed that these individuals were exposed to consensual intercourse. Therefore without the appropriate deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] analysis the pregnancies cannot conclusively be ascribed to the rape incident. The issue is further complicated when the reported assailant is either the victim’s husband or her boyfriend and sexual relations were at times consensual and at other times forced. In the latter circumstance it is impossible to differentiate whether the pregnancy was a result of consenting versus forced sexual exposure.

The reviewer has the same criticism I did: the evidence of rape is anecdotal, interpreted and possibly biased, and the claims that the pregnancies resulted from the rapes are not verifiable.

This latter problem is exacerbated by the fact of simultaneous cohabitation which was widespread as this very study notes. Indeed, only 40 percent of post-rape pregnancies were from the rape itself (as 60 percent were from consensual partners).

Taking all of these legitimate controls into account, the number of actual pregnancies that can be said to result for actual cases of forcible rape are much lower than liberals would like to admit. Doing some easy math, even using this study’s questionable anecdotal numbers, we can see that rape results in pregnancy in only about 1.3 percent of cases:

(3.2 percent overall post-rape pregnancy rate) x (40 percent actually resulting from rape) = 1.28 percent.

But this means that rape-related pregnancies do not occur in about 98.72 percent of rape cases. Heck, even assuming the full 3.2 percent is representative, this means rape-related pregnancy is still relatively rare—not occurring in 96.8 percent of cases.

In short, comporting with what Todd Akin said, pregnancies as a result of rape are justifiably be called “rare.”

What about that “female body” claim?

What sounds strange at first, especially when listening only to the mainstream media and the neoconservatives who give the mainstream media too much credit, is the second half of Akin’s claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Again, this statement came straight from the former president of the National Right to Life, Willke, in his series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy.” Willke provided a list of considerations to prove that pregnancy resulting from forcible rape is extremely rare. This list culminates with the “woman’s body” claim as one consideration among many:

  • A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3-6 days of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by 0.3. Three days of 30 reduces to 1 of 10. Divide 133,000 by 10, and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use 5 days of 30, then we have 1 of 6. Divide 133,000 by 6 and there are 22,166 women remaining.
  • One-fourth of all women in the U.S. of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths comes to 10,000 (or 15,000).
  • Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina1, so cut the remaining figures in half. This leaves 5,000 (or 7,500).
  • Fifteen percent of men are sterile, which drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
  • Another 15% of women are on the pill or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
  • Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the above figures by 5. The number now drops to 600 (or 920).
  • In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15%. 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% of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).
  • Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s psychic 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, and implantation.

What further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor may well cut this last figure by at least 50%, which would make the final figure 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year from forced rape. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

Now probably the most important figure in all of this is that last sentence: “These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.”

Despite such correlation, the liberal at Slate dismisses the “woman’s body” claim as “selective use of numbers and citations” and thus “junk science.” Well, when junk journalism claims “junk science,” consider me less than persuaded. See how that type of argumentation works?

This Slate is the same publication relying on the Holmes study—which we’ve seen is flawed, unscientific, and questioned by other secular peers—for its perception of the problem. Talk about “selective use of numbers”!

I say junk science is as junk science does.

Willke’s study, which correlated with documented (not mere anecdotal) data, could conclude, “So, assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare.”

Indeed, this is nothing short of the National Right to Life’s position. Speaking of “rape, incest, and fetal abnormality” as a group, one publication notes:

First of all it is critical to remember that the vast majority of abortions do not happen as a result of any of these reasons. In fact, according to a study in Family Planning Perspectives (published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood), less than 6% of all abortions done in the United States are done for all of these reasons combined.

If all combined account for 6 percent, then rape alone must account for far less. Thus the same publication can call rape-related pregnancy “a rare but possible occurrence.”(3)

So why neoconservatives are in knee-jerk reaction mode against this position makes no sense—if they truly are pro-life. Akin was not unwarranted in citing these claims, and conservatives should stand with them just as Akin and, according to the Wall Street Journal, Willke himself have done.

Should conservatives make an exception for even “legitimate” cases of assault rape?

Why kill the child?

Again, we expect liberals to lie, spin, and twist, but why should conservatives wage a propaganda attack against a man holding the very position of the National Right to Life on rape-related abortion? Here’s more of that position:

But while society is finally recognizing that rape is an act of violence against an innocent victim, it still fails to recognize that abortion is also an act of violence against another innocent victim. . . .

Irrationally, society expects her to kill her unborn child, not for something the child has done, but for the crime of his/her father. Once again the mother is pitted against her child.

Yet, the Romney-Ryan campaign, among others, could not respond fast enough to Akin’s alleged gaffe, not by criticizing the clumsy use of language, but by denying the right to life in cases of rape: “a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.” That’s a categorical statement, categorically at odds with the right to life. This is a semi-pro-choice position.

Unlike the moderates on pro-choice, Akin upheld this view faithfully, even in his response to the fear-motivated uproar:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year,” Akin’s statement said.

Akin also said in the statement he believes “deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

Exactly. As emotional an issue as it is, why in the world do we think it’s acceptable to murder a child because its father committed a crime and its mother is physically and emotionally shaken?

Since when does being physically and emotionally shaken give one the right to kill someone else?

If the unborn have a right to life, from what or whom does that right derive? God? Nature? Man? We know it’s God, and nothing else. And what has the God-given authority to take away that right from an unborn child? Man? Circumstance? We know it’s nothing but God. Thus, why would we think we can determine, based on any circumstances, why one child in utero deserves that right and another does not? Again, while the thought of carrying a rapist’s child is an emotionally difficult issue, that fact does not negate the child’s God-given right to live.

And thus anyone denying that right, even in cases of rape, is not pro-life. They are worse, in fact: trying to play God by setting determinations for when that right applies and when it does not.

Thus, those neoconservatives who have blasted Akin and demand he step down have done little more than identify themselves as weak on the pro-life issue—as moderates and potential compromisers, in fact. This is an indication that a Romney admin and its bucket carriers will melt the Republican platform further into moderatism, and thus drift the nation closer to the liberal agenda.

Of course, politicians like Akin, who represent the clear contrast and strong conservatism desired by the tea party, are a real threat to the old Northeastern establishment Republicans like Romney. And thus that establishment savages him—violently and in unison. Call it a political gang rape—a legitimate one.

If more conservatives would begin to realize that the Republican party is nearly being held hostage by these establishment types—who are working hard either to co-opt or suppress the much more strongly conservative tea party types—we would see we have the numbers and power to establish real change for the good, including in the area of abortion.

And if we could just get the Todd Akins in that camp to realize that their warmongering and militarism are just as much pro-life issues as abortion, then we might really make so headway.
Endnotes:

  1. Holmes et al. “Rape related pregnancy: Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996 Aug; 175(2): 322.()
  2. Holmes et al, 322.()
  3. “Olivia Gans and Mary Spaulding Balch, “When They Say. . . You Say: Defending the Pro-Life Position and Framing the Issue by the Language We Use,” National Right to Life Committee, Inc.()
Print Friendly

Consider partnering with us

225 comments
Hadrewsky
Hadrewsky

To think that it will ever become illegal to abort in the case of rape is delusional... Personally, I can understand the feelings and emotions behind the pro-life movement but to deny abortion in the case of rape is simply disgusting... You are creating a family that is likely to have serious problems. I dislike abortion and would never advocate it in my own life but I also do not think people have a right to subjugate other women at gunpoint and ram their religious views into their rear while forcing them to carry the pregnancy to term. Forcing and subjugating women into pro-life aims via crushing them under the boots of the law is simply contrary to liberty and giving the rights to a mass of cells without a nervous system without reason (Religion and scripture are NOT reasons to create law) is wrong... A mass of cells is not a baby.

john
john

The fact that you are trying to defend this guy's statements would be laughable if the subject matter were not so serious; actually it is sad and disgusting that you spend the entire first part of your piece with ad hominem attacks against liberals (for instance with your barney frank comment, why don't you look at the scores of republican politicians who engage in the same indecencies, like Mr. 'wide-stance' Larry Craig, who was caught doing the same thing - soliciting male prostitutes - as only one of numerous examples?) without addressing the statement itself, and why it is offensive to people of all political stripes. The fact that Biden says ignorant or repulsive things has nothing to do with what this man said. Your solution: when someone does something repulsive, circle the wagons, and it can be "quickly and easily handled with a consolidated response correctly interpreting" the horrible statement or evil act - you are telling everyone to get in line and respond with the same rehearsed propaganda message. Sounds like the pharisees to me - what ever happened to calling out evil, no matter what the source, and standing on principle? I bet you respond the same way if a little girl is molested in your church. You basically say that we should 'defend our own' no matter what they do. I find your article repulsive and un-Christian, not to mention illogical and filled with errors.

R. S. P.
R. S. P.

"...liberals care for even the criminals in their midst...." Reminds me of someone. Can't put my finger on his ineffable name though....

Bill Evans
Bill Evans

Todd Akin's unpardonable sin was not bowing to the 'sacred cow' of political correctness, namely, a woman's imaginary constitutional right to have her unborn baby murdered for virtually any reason.

Bill Evans
Bill Evans

The firestorm is not about abortion. Congress cares nothing for this holocaust. This is about power. Todd Akin, an unapologetic pro-life Christian who cannot be bought was promptly thrown under the bus, by those who should be his brothers-in-arms, but like cowardly, ravenous hyennas devour their wounded. The GOP machine knows that any of the repulican primary candidates could have beaten Dem. Claire McCaskill, who is virtually joined at the hip to Chairman MAObana. But RINOs don't want her beaten by a conservative Christian, but would rather have a RINO like themselves who will be a good lil republican, put party first, and leave behind all this foolishness about principle, and absolute truth, and a supposed Christian America. Akin could be marginalized in the larger HOUSE, but was not welcome in the ol boy club, the SENATE. They did not support him in the primary, despite his record and time on capital hill. This is the same GOP establishment that, if not stole, then rigged the nomination process. Both parties love to roast a conservative as a diversion for their own treasonous ineptitude. Akin still has a higher approval rating than congress in general. As far as Todd's supposed stupidity is concerned, most members of congress are stupid when it comes to truth and the constitution. Most stupidly think the Federal Reserve is part of the U.S. govt., or stupidly think that a reduction in the size of the increase is a budget cut....Mark Twain said, 'everybody is stupid, just about different things...'

Marie
Marie

If Akin loses in Mo. it won't be nearly so much his fault as it is the Republican Party's fault. If they had stood by him and supported him, he would probably still win, but they cut their own throats by throwing him under the bus. They always do that to the conservative Christian. If it had been Scott Brown, a liberal Republican who had made a gaff, they would have stood by him. The Republican Hierarchy are the fools!!!

Billsey
Billsey

It is not really that the woman (or the body, for that matter) is trying to stop a pregnancy. Given everything that is indisputably involved in an assault rape (yes, there IS a difference; whether leftwingnuts want to admit it or not is really quite irrelevant), it, under those circumstances, is nearly impossible for the female body to get pregnant, because the nature of the event has thrown everything all higgledy-piggledy. For most people, it is hard to get pregnant when everything is perfectly set up for the occasion by a truly loving man and woman. How is it that you expect it to be easier when the woman has been brutalised, bruised, battered, stabbed and/or shot???? Is it possible that all of you are really that stupid, or are you all just that cowardly when it comes to facing down your leftwingnut overlords? At least rent a clue!

Jeannine
Jeannine

didn't read all the posts, but enough to wonder if anybody reads the actual statements being debated. Rep Akin never said a woman COULDN'T get pregnant from rape, and in fact his very next sentence referred to the wrongness, if she got pregnant, of killing the child for the crime of the rapist. If it's is okay to kill a baby in the womb for the crime of a rapist, why not let the baby be born and then kill him/her? Much safer for the woman than abortion, which is a fairly risky, invasive procedure. Look up 'legitimate'. It can mean legal, obviously not relevant here, or valid. Valid as in actual, factual, real. A case of sexual intercourse without the female's consent, by force, coercion, fear, as opposed to the far-too-frequent cases of consensual sex where the angry, jilted, or caught (by boyfriend, spouse) woman cries rape. Remember the Duke lacrosse team case of several years ago? Something like a legitimate heir, the son who ran the business and took care of the aging parent, but wasn't the firstborn or the one in the will. Or a legitimate child, one whose father is known, versus an equally LEGAL child of unknown parentage. As to the body dealing spontaneously with a pregnancy, Akin phrased it badly, but the intent was correct. Trauma, stress, fear, all these things have a very deleterious effect on our bodies, from initiating heart attacks to causing asthmatic episodes or a diabetic reaction. The same goes for the lining of the woman's uterus, if indeed the rape occurs during the brief period of fertility. Anyone who has tried to conceive will be advised by an ob/gyn to reduce stress, relax, not get upset or fearful to create a better physiology for pregnancy to occur. I belief Akin's statement was originally propagated by planned parenthood or an affiliate back in the 70s. Lastly, big deal! Okay, he stepped in it. Once. Out of years of political service. Can we think of anyone else who's screwed up? Say Obama? Biden? Romney? McCain? The Obama regime would have made up something anyway, if he hadn't said this. That's what he's always done. Akin is a man of principled character, honesty, strong conservative and constitutional values, who is not afraid to fight for what he believes is right, against his own party if necessary, even if politically incorrect. Isn't that the kind of person we keep saying we want in DC? Or maybe we are actually getting exactly the type of politician we deserve.

virginian
virginian

As a conservative, I found this a stupid article supporting Akin. Hasn't anyone here heard of "ethnic cleansing?" -- the whole thing is predicated on rape. How many Chinese/Japanese babies were born as a result of the "rape of Nanking" for example.

Eric I
Eric I

>>But liberals hate both the idea that some alleged “rapes” are not “rape” in the true sense, and the fact that because this is so, the statistics of rape and pregnancy are not as high as they would like to claim. Not just liberals sir. By throwing Mr. Akins under the bus, that group evidently includes the folks in republican party who just tolerate the social conservatives within their ranks. They want our votes but are embarrassed by our beliefs.

gray man
gray man

dee August 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm ““If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” there is nothing false in that statement. This isn’t offensive to me and I was conceived in an 8 men rape.” So you believe that women who are raped cannot get pregnant even though you were conceived during rape? Were you dropped on your head as a child? no you moron, he said the body has ways to TRY, not that it always succeeds. If you don't understand basic english or comprehend sentences maybe you shouldn't criticize.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

I’m surprised that most of these comments are about whether “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” is scientifically true or not. What does this have to do with anything? If all the politicians who ever made a scientifically unproven statement should withdraw from politics, Washington would be a ghost town. What about the global warming crowd? What about the statement that “women never lie about rape”? Are these proven scientific facts? We know that politicians are not scientists; they rely on sources. Todd Akin did not name his source; and thus, he put the blame for this entire gaffe on his own head. McDurmon wrote: “Akin was likely relying on the work of physician and former National Right to Life president John C. Willke, who wrote a three part series, “Assault Rape and Pregnancy” (3 parts), National Right to Life News, July 17, August 21, and October 9, 1986. This series is condensed at the website of Physicians for Life.” If this is true, why did he not say so? Why did he apologize? How many people in this country know that Akin quoted from a definite source, and that this whole “theory” did not come out of his own head? Let the writers of this “study” defend their position if it is true, or suffer the blows if it is false. Most of the time, I blame the Republicans for not defending their wounded. Mr. Akin appears to be a good Christian man, and I wish they would not attack him. But I’m sorry to say, it is difficult to defend a politician who does not give his Party even a tiny ground for defense.

Brandon.
Brandon.

And don't forget. 31 state have it so the rapist can have custody and visitation rights to the child. Moms must love when their rapist comes over and they need to hand over their child by law to the man who raped her, for a fun weekend with daddy.

TooLongInTheSun
TooLongInTheSun

Geez...talk about stupid...from your responses and ensuing dialog, it does not appear as if many of you even bothered to take the time to read the article before spouting off in a brilliant display of your ignorance... Todd Akin is much smarter than most of you may think he is...and most of you are not half as smart as you think you are.... Please do us all the favor (that is, after you remove your feet from your mouth) of reading an article, before making comments about it...

TommyG
TommyG

The GOP country club establishment types are idiots. Akin was ambushed by a gotcha question and he didn't give a clearly enunciated answer. So you crucify him for it?!?!? When are the Republicans going to grow a backbone? By doing what they did, they just played into what the Democrats want them to do. I applaud Akin for not getting out. If he loses the seat, it will be because what the GOP did to him, not what he said. The overreaction by the elitists plays into the narrative that what Akin did was tantamount to actually committing a rape! I used to give money to the GOP, but not anymore. Until they grow a backbone and fight fire with fire, that can count on me not giving any support. I'll hold my nose and vote GOP, but that's about it.

Scott C
Scott C

Todd Akin made some incredibly stupid, moronic and insensitive remarks that are indefensible. He subsequently compounded the situation by claiming that the liberal media was attempting to force him out of the race when the liberal media and Claire McCaskill are the only ones that want him to stay in. He's an embarrassment to his constituency and the best thing that he can do now is step down because he has no chance of winning. John Brunner was leading in the polls up until the primary and has the best chance of beating McCaskill; that's who should be running. If it weren't for McCaskill's minions that voted for Akin in the primary, Brunner would be running, there would be no controversy, and we'd all be better off.

Sean
Sean

Joel, You may very well be the most deluded and potentially stupidest person I have ever heard. -First to make assumptions that someone will file a police report about being raped just to get an abortion... You are a sick human being. -Are you aware that pregnancy often occurs AFTER a women has ovulated, that means her body has already released the ovum, following this her fallopian tubes have no way of reversing this process, so if raped during her time of ovulation, there is a remarkably high rate of pregnancy. -You are making an assumption that all men are equally likely to rape someone, you say 15% of men are sterile. Now you have to then qualify this as to wy they are sterile, if sterile because of hypogonadism and reduced testosterone, the are also likely less agressive and unable to obtain erection and therefore unable to rape someone, i'm goin to go out on a limb here and make assumptions (why not, you are filled with worthless assumptions throughout your worthless misogynistic and hopelessly uninformed article) and say that most rapists are not people with hypogonadism, hypospadia, severe diabetes, severe peripheral vascular disease, etc. -Where do you get your figure that 1/4 of women are either already pregnant or on birth control? Also you would have to figure out the actual demographics of women who are most likely to be forced into sexual intercourse and then find out how many of them are actually sterilized, and further you are likely making an assumption that every women on oral contraceptive is 100% compliant with her pills, when in truth if anyone were to miss even one pill she could ovulate, so therefore where is you error bias in that issue? -Do you really think a woman is not intelligent enough to differential between vaginal penetration and not when she is raped? Do you really think that when polled about rape and resultant pregnancy that a women thought "yes he forcibly put his penis only in my mouth and then 3 months later I found out I was pregnant, it must have been from that." Come on, you have to be kidding me. That that you are so deluded is sad. That you are passing off this information as some sort of scientifically research fact is subversive and wrong. Regardless of how many women become pregnant from rape, your thoughts are that even those "incredibly rare" few who do get pregnant should be forced to endure the emotional trauma associated with being now forced to carry this horrible human being's child to term; essentially ensuring that his rapist genes are allowed to carry on and on, all the while being forced to relieve that experience every time she sees her pregnant body, and be forced to see her rapists face and relive that moment every time she sees her child. Here is a thought for you, how about instead of trying to decry rape victims as cry babies, which is what you are essentially doing. How about you support them. I have a great compromise for you. For every woman who is raped and gets pregnant, you get to have some power hungry sad excuse for a man drug you in a bar and anally penetrate you. Based on your fuzzy math this should work out for you, I mean women essentially can't get pregnant from rape right?

InPrayer
InPrayer

Too much anger and judgement! No wonder "legitimate rape" too often goes unreported! If only men could be impregnated!

Jerry
Jerry

Yes, he made stupid remark, plain and simple. But the problem lies with those such as Coulter who claim to believe in individual freedoms and free speech. Or do they just believe in these things when it suits them. There is little difference between most of the Democrats and the Republicans, both are corrupt and except for a few such as Bachmann most could care less about the American people or America itself.

SoliderForTruth
SoliderForTruth

Thank you for this article. This is the first time I have seen his comment in context. Since I do not have cable, the only news I have seen on the internet about this was that he said "legitimate rape." I was appalled when I read those words. But now that I see it in context, I see he is upholding legitimate rape, and a woman's body's response to the tragic ordeal, NOT diminishing a woman's claim to rape. And for a lot of you on here claiming Akin is stupid, did you read this article??? This article proves with scientific facts what Akin was trying to convey. And he did not claim it is impossible for a raped woman to get pregnant, he said it was rare, as the facts in this article show. Sure he used incorrect wording, he should have said assault rape. But Biden runs around opening his mouth and spews forth much worse things than this. And what happens? It gets swept under the carpet. LORD, this nonsense cannot go on much longer. Please come for us. We are waiting.

Doug Hazel
Doug Hazel

This is terrifying. Your lack of logic is appalling in every sense. It is hard to know where to begin. Remember God is Love. All you people are so full of hate and prejudice. Jesus wouldn't recognize any of you as Christians. Take off your blinders and read the Bible without prejudice.... you are using Jesus as a rationale for your lack of compassion,education and understanding. I truly feel sorry for you and will pray tonight that God releases your blinders.

Drew
Drew

I see two major problems with the "list of consideration" math: 1) "A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3-6 days of a 30-day month..." But sperm can fertilize an egg up to 5 days inside a woman, so 3-6 days should really be 8-11 days. 2) "Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy..." Adding this to the equation is a logical error. The length it takes a couple to achieve a pregnancy is based on the factors already in the equation (fertility rates of the couple, the length of the woman's fertile period each month, etc). You're essentially factoring in variables you've already factored in. If you fix these two logic mistakes the numbers go up. However, the fact that your math is bad doesn't really matter though, you're all still fools.

carcomad
carcomad

Don't worry, he won't get pregnant. His body will "shut that whole thing down".

jj
jj

Given that Akin and his supporters are reading from a "moral" code to life that includes such memorable laws as: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ESV / 19 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. Is it any wonder that these fundamentalists think the way they do? The Bible says all sorts of horrible, immoral things, thank God we don't live in a theocracy where if our daughters are raped, we sell them to the rapist for silver. Disgusting.

Don Confalone
Don Confalone

Not only can she not abort the baby, she must marry the rapist, right? Let the truth be heard, don't be afraid.

iowamom
iowamom

This isn't a surprise. The establishment republicans didn't want Akin to be the candidate during the primary. Since he won in spite of their attempts to stop him, they were thrilled to have this opportunity. Of course they are going to "turn" on him. They were never for him in the first place. What's pathetic is they would rather put up some half-baked establishment candidate who won't win (in the same vein as Romney) rather than someone that people can trust and can actually vote *for*. And all of this when taking back the Senate is imperative.

Lori
Lori

"But this simply does not comport with what we Christians know..." I would not know you were a Christian from this article. Where is Christ in your article? A pastor this past week spoke of the tendency of some to use Jesus as not much more than a mascot in their word-wars. I can see that here. Jesus as your mascot, not your example. I'm a Christian, you do not speak for me or "we" at all.

Neo-Theonomist_12
Neo-Theonomist_12

FYI - Akin is now down 10 Points in an election he should be leading by 10 Points. Why? It has nothing to do with the issue of being Pro-Life in the cases of Rape and everything to do with saying something Idiotic and Offensive about there being "Real Legitimate Rape" and other not so legitimate Rape. Of course as anyone knows, McDurmon doesn't care about Electoral Politics, or Akin or the Pro-Life issue on this subject. He wants to Divide and Conquer the GOP and hopes for a Societal Collapse.

Harry Theo
Harry Theo

Doug Wilson on the Evils of Joel McDurmons favorite Anarchist: Ron Paul who prefers we legalize the Abortion Pill and have Rape Victims free to Kill their babies in the womb and as he's wrote at length about any "Very early pregnancy" http://www.dougwils.com/Politics/fourfifths-of-the-brimstone.html "In response to this question, Ron Paul said that a woman who is raped should go to an emergency room immediately, and get a shot of estrogen, which would prevent the implantation of a conceived child in the uterine wall. Further, he said that he would administer that shot of estrogen. Piers Morgan, astonished, said that he thought Ron Paul believed life begins at conception. Ron Paul said that he did, but that we don't know at that point whether the woman is pregnant. This, in effect, was saying that if we don't know if someone is living in a room then it must be okay to fill it up with poison gas. This example might seem beside the point because, if we did that, we would eventually have to carry a dead body out. But, in the case of this small victim, nobody ever needs to know. But, speaking frankly, and just between us, "nobody need ever know" is not exactly a pro-life rallying cry."

Mia Nameah
Mia Nameah

You're comparing a guy having other criticism his opinion with someone being gang raped? Being criticized for one's opinion is NOT the same as having multiple people force themselves upon you sexually, potentially causing disease, internal damage, pregnancy, an inability to have children due to damage to the uterus, a lifetime of emotional trauma, among other things. One would hope Mr. Akin or anyone else would never experience such a thing. But it does happen. And it's much worse than having someone call you stupid.

Olivia
Olivia

I know this is a futile endeavor since none of you care to hear what I have to say anyway, but since this article almost made me slam my head into my desk in anger and sadness I just have a few questions: 1. Basically the author is saying that Akin shouldn't be thrown under the bus because he was just distinguishing between types of rape (awful...if you don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to speak about rape) and, of course, because some women might lie about rape to get an abortion. Of course, some women might lie about being raped. But like, two. The vast majority of rapes actually go unreported because guess what? Rape is still so stigmatized as the victim's fault in this culture that, believe me, NOBODY wants to report being raped, especially if they don't have to. It changes your life. And nobody conspires to murder their "unborn children" (i think you mean fetus), abortion is also a decision that is taken extremely seriously and usually made out of economic or health necessity. So to deny these things and just assume rape victims who abort are lying sluts is completely awful and misogynistic. 2. I respect everyone's right to practice their religion and hold their own beliefs about abortion. The great thing about being pro-choice is that you have the option of CHOOSING....and a lot of Christian women will choose to keep their unplanned pregnancies and not abort, for reasons I listed above. But you need to understand, we live in a democracy that is based on religious freedom. You cannot impose your religious views on others who don't share them, even if what they are doing seems wrong, if they aren't actively harming your liberties. Sorry. If you want a theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia. I respect everyone's opinion on abortion, but I don't respect articles like these that demonize women and correlate a white male in power to having been gang raped politically. That is disgusting, and frankly, quite unchristian.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

Jeannine, The first time I heard that the uterus tends to “shut down” in the case of rape was during WWII. The media thinks this is “inflammatory,” but, actually, it meant to be comforting, and it appears to be true. In my country, Russian soldiers raped many girls, but few babies resulted from this. While this is anecdotal, I have no doubt that statistical studies can support it. You wrote: “Anyone who has tried to conceive will be advised by an ob/gyn to reduce stress, relax, not get upset or fearful to create a better physiology for pregnancy to occur.” This is crucial. There can be no doubt that the woman’s state of mind is a contributing factor in conception. For instance, in contrast to forcible rape, statutory rape often results in pregnancy, because underage girls are often physically mature, eager, and willing to be “raped.” While her consent doesn’t exempt the rapist father from criminal responsibility, is it “moral” to murder their innocent baby? Murder is taking an innocent life. Even so, not all murders are judged equally. Some cases are dismissed because of “justifiable” circumstances. However, just because some of the murders are justifiable, should we declare that murder is legal? Similarly, we might find exceptions when abortion is justifiable, but those cases should be judged on the individual basis. They do not change the fact that abortion is murder. There are many ways to defend Todd Akin’s statement, event tough it is controversial. Therefore, I’m sickened that he rushed to apologize, and he apologized repeatedly ever since. What for? That did not make the media, and the quasi-conservative elements in the Republican Party love him more, but it made his followers disappointed. It is difficult to defend him now. What is his present position? He said: "The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold." Let’s hope so.

Eric I
Eric I

Thank you for your article BTW.

gray man
gray man

Maria, just curious, do you remember the source of every bit of information you have ever heard in your life? No? Then your argument is nonsense. If anyone asked him his source I am unaware of it.

gray man
gray man

Just for clarity's sake, just because it is possible by law for rapists to get visitation rights, does not mean that they actually get them, it is done on a case by case basis depending on the circumstance.

gray man
gray man

"Todd Akin made some incredibly stupid, moronic and insensitive remarks that are indefensible." Actually the stupid morons that refused to let him clarify what he said, and in fact did no research of their own, just reacted emotionally, are the ones who are indefensible. I think you fit in that category Scott.

gray man
gray man

Sean, Are you saying women never file false rape reports? Talk about stupid and nieve'. If you would do a little research yourself (you know about 5 seconds worth) you would know that less then 5% of raped women become pregnant. "Do you really think a woman is not intelligent enough to differential between vaginal penetration and not when she is raped? Do you really think that when polled about rape and resultant pregnancy that a women thought “yes he forcibly put his penis only in my mouth and then 3 months later I found out I was pregnant, it must have been from that.” Come on, you have to be kidding me.That that you are so deluded is sad. What is sad is your moronic comment, no one said or implied what you just wrote.

gray man
gray man

If only men could be impregnated! moronic comment.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

You are right. This article explains Todd Akin’s words in context. Too bad Mr. Akin did not clarify his own statement but panicked and apologized. He should not be blamed for quoting a scientific study, stating that “Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. “ The point is that we should not make national policy by bringing up extremely rare cases. And it is not the baby’s fault that his father is a rapist. Why should the baby get the death penalty?

gray man
gray man

again, moronic pointless comment.

Beth
Beth

Yes, I love the way the right wingnuts pick and choose which Bible verses to use as their armor. If they'd only stick to the teachings of Jesus, they'd be a lot more tolerable.

RightWingLiberal
RightWingLiberal

The republican party is what's pathetic. They lost any credibility when buybull thumping teabaggers hijacked the party and ran to the furthest right wing extreme ever ensuring moderates won't ever vote for them again. This is nothing new though. Remember the Whig Party?

RightWingLiberal
RightWingLiberal

I wish more moderate, rational, christians would speak up and louder to let the rest of us, the non christians, know that these extremists don't represent the average christian's views.

RightWingLiberal
RightWingLiberal

The irony of the title isn't lost on me either. The author of this article is of the most questionable intelligence indeed. Even attempting to rationalize such stupidity is just as stupid.

Neo-Theonomist_12
Neo-Theonomist_12

Some of us don't think Joel actually believes what he wrote, he wouldn't be a huge Paul fan if he did.

Beth
Beth

Thank you, Olivia. You said what I WANTED to say but in a much more eloquent manner.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

gray man, If you are a serious writer or running for public office, and if you are giving information from a scientific study, you better remember where it came from. Even if Mr. Akin didn’t remember his source at the time he said it, he could have dug it up later, before he apologized. His apology was a big mistake, in my opinion. It did not help him, and it did not help the right to life movement. I did not write my comment to criticize Mr. Akin or to glee over his situation. I think this is tragic, but—at least—we should learn something from it. I think we never should apologize, unless we have a good reason for it. We should not give ammunition to our enemies unnecessarily. Todd Akin believes in the right to be born, and whatever he said—on the basis of a scientific study—supports this belief. I don’t think he should ask “forgiveness” for this.

In Prayer
In Prayer

May the Lord bless you with peace.

gray man
gray man

I see you speak gibberish.

Lori
Lori

I no longer identify as conservative or Republican and have never been part of the extreme religious right (or even the leaning religious right), and I correct anyone who mistakenly refers to me as an "Evangelical." I'm a Christian, though. I was actually in the process of giving up on church completely, so disgusted with the christianists and the dominionists--but then I decided to take it back. It belongs to me, too, they don't get to hoard it or spew it out as something unrecognizable. We don't follow the same teachings anyway--their god is apparently a puny angry thing who needs constant defending. Beyond the political religious right are so many churches and people who actually follow the teachings of Christ and try to make the world a good place for the poor and marginalized. I try to find them online and in my community because things like THIS (above) happen so frequently now, and they are actually lately getting easier to find. Maybe they've always been loud, but now I'm adding my voice. Hopefully we'll all just get louder.