Skip to comments.Akin Tries To Explain “Legitimate Rape” Comment, Speak With KMOX’s Charlie Brennan (9:20 Central)
Posted on 08/20/2012 7:07:41 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
click here to read article
Those with college-aged daughters probably shouldn't be making such rules or laws, just as the parents of victims of school shootings shouldn't be making gun laws.
We need less emotion and PC-ness involved in many areas of college administration and lawmaking. I think there are some parents of some former, male Duke students who'd agree. That was purely a case of PC-ness and assuming that women would not make false claims of rape, in spite of the evidence that began piling up within a week or so of the false accusations.
This is all related to a more recent spat of interest group driven initiatives and PC-ness: the drive by gay activists to conflate bullying with discrimination against gays when the bullying of gays is probably a small minority of the total incidents of bullying. That's another thing that doesn't deserve its own separate category and consideration apart from the overall problem.
Rape is rape and bullying is bullying and getting all tangled up in specific circumstances and specific categories of victims, and political motives of interest groups, will result in unequal treatment of the various parties who might become involved in such a tangled mess of rules and laws.
While this may have been a mistake to poke the tiger or tickle the sleeping dragon, what he said is TRUE. Now that he has said it, he has to stand by it and explain it or get out. He has to do a Herman Cain (if you believe he was innocent).
I'm a firm believer in “THE TRUTH”, so I hope he stays in and only apologizes for maybe a poor choice of words, but stands by his statement as factually correct.
Abortion for the reasons of rape and incest, are still ABORTIONS! The baby had no part in it. It's just as much a baby as the product of a married man & woman who chose to dispose of what God has created. There is no legitimate reason to favor the murder (abortion) of a child in rape or incest cases.
He should be replaced.
Yes, the Duke case was an example of injustice.
But that doesn’t mean that a qualification of the circumstances of a crime is wrong.
Knee-jerkers like you go in assuming, apparently, that such a qualification makes it political, when really that’s not the case at all. It is simply descriptive.
They are "outraged" because of the MSM spin on what he said.
I'm "outraged" that they are publically speaking against someone who is running on the Republican ticket. Their so called "outrage" will be more likely to cause an Akin defeat than the spin the MSM put on his comment.
Guess they don't agree with Reagan.
Like I said, the true figure is somewhere between the two studies.
The saddest thing about this stumble is that the liberal interrogators will take Akin’s statement and slap every R candiate with it. “What do you think about Mr. Akin’s statement concerning the rape of women being okay because they can’t get pregnant?” (that is the way they will phrase it of course). Oh how I wish that the people of MO had listened to Sarah.
As a voter in MO I see it this way.
One stupid statement or more years of that obama ass kisser? Sorry but I will take my chances with Akin.
If they force him out I will vote for the replacement.
Akin won the primary by a goodly vote. There is more to this election than a woman’s right to kill her child. I don’t believe the GOP has any better candidate to put in the race but Akin and I think he can win. This dust up over intemperate language is being manufactured by the liberal media and I don’t want them to control our choices for candidates. With all the miss steps Biden has made in his speeches, I don’t think this misstatment by Akin is going to sink his ship. I’ll leave it up to God to decide who He wants.
The point Akins seems to be trying to make is indeed valid but he is so Godawful clumsy and inaccurate about it that the conversation hurts my teeth. The word missing from the discussion is “miscarriage”. It’s an ancient, inbred, physiological defense of the female reproductive system——a pregnancy resulting from exposure to an unfamiliar male will most likely miscarry. That’s why the bride is supposed to select the wedding date to keep her out of phase with her fertil cycle, giving her body time to recognize the sperm of the groom.-———————It’s in the books. Look it up yourself (whoever’s interested)——then go feed the book to Akin.-———————————————————I can’t figure out whether he’s apologizing because he now thinks he was wrong or because he explained the phenomenon like a dumbass.
And you believe everything on that pro-abortion ( http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/tag/abortion/ ) site you link to?
No, the author of that site has a pro-abortion agenda, and is skewing what Akin said to promote her agenda.
For example, that author says that the abortion-cancer link is “long disproven.” Not so. There is evidence that those who have abortions have higher rates of breast cancer: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/17/abortion-has-caused-300k-breast-cancer-deaths-since-roe/
The author also mischaracterizes what Akin meant by “legitimate” rapes. We understand him to have meant “assault rapes” as opposed to mere accusations of rape.
The author of that hit-piece states with alarm that one of the footnoted studies is “about sexual dysfunction among rapists,” and not about psychic trauma. Um. Yeah, that footnote supported a contention early in the Physicians For Life article unrelated to psychic trauma.
The question is this: Does “psychic trauma” affect pregnancy rates among victims of “assault rape”? It may.
The larger question is this: Should babies who have been conceived through rape be aborted/killed?
That’s the problem, Akin was dumb enough to draw us into a debate about the chances of psychic trauma affecting pregnancy, instead of the focusing on the issue of abortion.
This is what makes him a bad spokesperson for the pro-life cause, and a bad candidate for the senatorial office.
“Meanwhile, back at the Oval Office Obama has set the bar so low that Jimmy Carter for President in 2013 would be an improvement!”
As a Republican!
Akin said exactly the truth. He said that the baby should not be killed, that the rapist should be the one punished.
Romney proved once again, he is in favor of killing innocent unborn babies. Ryan should hold a Press Conference and STAND FOR LIFE!
tHE ONLY way to push back againt the PC mindset is to Speak Out in an un PC way. Now of course this guy is bending over backwards to apologize which destroys him.
He should have said, “A woman can concieve 6 days out of a month, if she is raped.....do the math.”
What saddens me are Republicans now attacking Akin for telling the truth.
Really? The truth is that pro-lifers are against abortion in the cases of rape because pregnancies are unlikely to happen in rape cases?
No, that’s not why I’m attacking him. I’m attacking him for misrepresenting my position.
6 days a month a woman can get pregnant. What are the odds that the rape occurs during those 6 days?
Wow. I had never heard feminists saying that. Got any links so I can read more?
20% If one in five victims of every car accident was killed would you treat that so lightly?
That explains why the chances are about 5%.
So are you calling me a misogynist? Based on one post of mine? I would think more than so-called misogynists lurk here at FR, if that is the case.
Lol, no, I actually observed as this "qualification" became part of the leftist vocabulary as it was picked up by all the usual PC suspects and the MSM, and academia, etc.
I heard the comment. So he said “legitimate rape”?
I understood his implication that rape should be proven to obtain abortion under a rape and incest law.
Is the offense that women, like men, could lie?
He could have quoted Santorum verbatim:
Moreover, no matter how statistically likely this phenomenon might (or might not) be, it is absolutely certain not to be universally true. Hence, to pursue a policy based upon that uncertain likelihood is to guarantee perpetrating an injustice upon an innocent victim, that she is somehow culpable for the pregnancy due to rape. This exactly plays into the 'Republicans victimize women' meme portrayed in mass media.
Akin is therefore too stupid to be considered seriously. He should withdraw.
You mean like Mitt Romney did in the South Carolina debate when being asked about his tax returns?
Moreover, no matter how statistically likely this phenomenon might (or might not) be, it is absolutely certain not to be universally true. Hence, to pursue a policy based upon that uncertain likelihood is to guarantee perpetrating an injustice upon an innocent victim, that she is somehow culpable for the pregnancy due to rape.
What in God's name are you talking about? Did you listen to the interview? He said nothing of the kind. His policy is not "based on" this science, he mentioned it only in passing, and he expressed that rape absolutely can result in a pregnancy. And are you saying that it is an "injustice" if a woman does not abort an innocent unborn baby? That's disgusting. Abortion has NOTHING to do with "culpability." Only liberals like Obama think a baby is a "punishment." Abortion is about the life or death of an innocent unborn child and nothing else.
I understood his implication that rape should be proven to obtain abortion under a rape and incest law.
He didn't mean that at all. He was talking about the trauma of a rape making it less likely for pregnancy to occur due to hormonal and physical issues. That context made it obvious to anyone paying attention that he was talking about a "violent" rape when saying "legitimate rape." He simply misspoke, and clarified the next day that he meant "forcible" rape as opposed to statutory rape which is non-violent and consensual.
“If you make an exception for rape for abortion, wouldnt any woman claim rape? So the exception becomes the rule.”
You make it sound as though women, by and large, have no qualms about ending the lives of their unborn children. Do you really believe that?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Your obsessive ideology has blinded you to the point that you cannot read. I said that his statement (implying that a woman's body rejects semen in forcible rape) places confers upon those women forcibly impregnated by that means a stigma of culpability. That would be unjust.
Please learn to read.