Posted on 08/20/2012 8:19:56 AM PDT by shhrubbery!
The mainstream media have gleefully pulled the "RAPE" card. We conservatives should recognize this for what this is:
There is no real issue, no real "outrage" over what Akin said. In fact, what Akin said is generally true, albeit inartfully said.
No, what is really going on here is the Left's campaign of distraction. Dangle a shiny object, blanket the airwaves and other media with non-stop "discussion" of this "controversy," and distract voters from real issues.
Here is what Akin should do:
1. Call a news conference. Have a pro-life ob/gyn/physiologist stand up and answer questions on this topic. I.e., tell the world the truth that pregnancy as a result of traumatic rape IS, in fact, RARE.2. Bring Norma McCorvey to this news conference too. Norma, as many of us know, is the original "Roe" of Roe v. Wade. She will tell the story of how she was induced to claim she was gang-raped. This was a lie of the Left, and perjury to the Court. But it worked; and all our states' abortion laws were struck down, partly on the strength of the lie that pregancies resulting from rapes were common. McCorvey will tell the truth about the use of "rape" as a red herring by the Left.
3. Akin must stick to his guns. Stand up, and do it with conviction. Voters admire a candidate who has the courage of his convictions.
And here is what we conservatives should NOT do:
We should NOT join the msm pile on. We should NOT ridicule and condemn Akin like the rabid Left and their henchmen in the msm are doing right now.
You know, we have just seen Paul Ryan show the courage of his convictions in taking on another hot button issue ... Medicare.
How about we take a lesson from Ryan and NOT run away like scared little children every time the Alinsky-ites pull a shiny object out of their bag of sleazy tricks.
So you think women should be allowed to murder their un-born children on demand...?
No. Norma McCorvey would be the person to bring perspective to this issue. She admitted the rape story was a lie that she was induced to tell by Sarah Weddington and the other radical Leftists who used McCorvey to radically change American law. (Sound familiar?)
And of course McCorvey would not be "implying" that all women who claimed pregnancy as a result of rape were lying.
But it may take a tiny dose of logic to understand that "some claims are lies" ≠ "all claims are lies."
“Where is he going to round up a bunch of cranks and quacks on such short notice?”
The Congressman has already said that there are doctors that have told him the the female reproductive system shuts itself down during a legitimate rape.
All he needs to do is to call up those doctors and get them to a press conference in the next couple of days or just wait until next week and have them speak at the GOP Convention.
Is Dr. John C. Wilkie, MD, a crank and a quack?
Dr. John Wilkie on the rarity of pregnancy after traumatic rape
None of what you said has any basis in science. Women can get aroused during a rape, women can also orgasm during rape.
///
? ?? ???
i think Akin should be replaced, for the crime of being inarticulate.
but, PhxTM06, is much worse.
Kleon’s comment absolutely has a basis in science.
so why, is PhxTM06, ridiculing even recognized science fact?
...LOOK at his posting history!
he seems to have only ONE strong interest, out of ALL the fascinating discussions here at FR.
and he quotes liberal sources, and questionable studies.
(seriously, a 5% chance of pregnancy in a rape?
MANY couples in a loving relationship, wish for so high a chance.
and, the fact is, that the rape statistics are vastly inflated, even according to an FBI report.
(yet, instead of correcting for this, PhxTM06 quotes a study that arbitrarily DOUBLES the number of rapes)
...the idea a woman who is pregnant, might claim rape,
is impossible?
and the stress of a forcible rape, instead of a falsely reported rape, could certainly result in a miscarriage.
-
...Akin clearly is not up to the job, of communicating, in a liberal controlled media. He SHOULD step down.
-
rape is a real problem. but so is false accusations.
And I have no objection, to a woman having an abortion,
after being raped.
but, the number of false rape accusations, is a LOT higher, than the pregnancy rate, from actual forcible rapes.
...and we need to be able to honestly discuss such issues, without PhxTM06 ridiculing people here who disagree with him.
(and, i would be happy to listen to HIM bring out a doctor who will state, for the record, that a woman can get aroused and have an orgasm, in a forcable rape!)
Actually you made me realize why he would say “legitimate rape”. Still a stupid thing to say, but if you enact exceptions that allow abortion, many people will lie and claim the exception just to get an abortion. So yeah, probably a lot of women would just report a rape so they qualify. Thereby creating a situation where suddenly it appears a lot of women get pregnant after a rape.
No one wants to discuss reality though because we perpetuate the myth of the average woman being like a young Mary Tyler Moore in the Dick Van Dyke show. We have some damn disreputable people in this society, of all genders, etc.
So... what you are saying (see how this works?) is that due to what YOU THINK he meant, that Akin committed thought crimes.
I promise I'll try and find the logic in your proposal.
The mainstream media have gleefully pulled the "RAPE" card. We conservatives should recognize this for what this is: There is no real issue, no real "outrage" over what Akin said. In fact, what Akin said is generally true, albeit inartfully said.
This is amazing! Folks are demanding that an adamantly pro-life nominee should withdraw.Thank you both for your commentary and thread. The left doesn't have to publicly dismiss Akin, because the right is doing all the work for them. It's a tragedy, but I believe Akin's comment was no "coincidence." All who believe in Christ, know that rarely is so. Because now Romney jumped on the bandwagon re-outing NOT ONLY himself but evidently converting Ryan (who was 100% pro-life) as a baby-killer too (in cases of rape). Monstrous!!!! Pray the Republican Convention rocks out a true pro-life conservative, cancelling the Mitt pick. And pray Paul runs for the hills. He doesn't belong with Romney.
Well let me ask you first:
Should states have a right to make their own laws on abortion?
If you answer "yes" to that question (as I believe most Constitutionalist conservatives would), you must then answer how the states' laws are to be implemented.
If Missouri's law, pre-Roe, provided that a medical panel would evaluate whether a woman truly had a severe medical condition that warranted an abortion to save her life, then that was Missouri's law. And Missouri's voters were free to vote for legislators to change that law, if they so wished.
But Roe v. Wade swept away Missouri's law. The reality today, post-Roe, is that under Court-diktat, any woman can get kill her unborn child for any reason, at any time in a pregnancy.
Do you think that is a better situation than what we had in Missouri, pre-Roe?
According to the Wash. Post, "Aiken, who won his primary two weeks ago with the help of ad spending from national Democrats who thought he would be the weakest GOP nominee, nonetheless starts the race as the favorite."
This guy has no loyalty to or from the Missouri Republican party and no matter how much he tries to apologise and talk his way out of it, he won't be able to do it. This is a fatal remark. This from Huckabee - "His old friend John-Paul Jones, I've not yest begun to fight"
The good people of Missouri don't want a knothead such as Aiken.
Aiken has no chance. He should make his time.
Yes. And dumb as "legitimate rape" sounds, it is possible he meant "rape as defined by the law."
I think he probably meant "real" rape, meaning violent, forcible rape ... or to quote that other great pro-life conservative, Whoopi Goldberg, "rape rape." /s
The article does not suggest that forcible rape is a contraceptive. It just points out that women don't get pregnant that easily or often, and that stress itself is a factor. As he says in the article, the average couple who is TRYING to get pregnant takes 10 months.
The only part of his article that suggests the forced rape would limit pregnancy is this section:
Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left. Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant 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 which 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 really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies.Oddly, his argument is in part that the body under stress will self-abort the child. And of course, women who are raped have long doubled up on birth control pills, which in high doses could cause a self-abortion; today we also have the morning-after pill which does the same. Self-abortion would lower the chance for a doctor-performed abortion, but is hardly a useful argument when we are saying abortion is murder.
And in any case, his suggestion is a 50% reduction for stress, which hardly makes it much more rare. He also is in "rhetorical" mode at this point, not citing peer-reviewed studies of scientific information, just giving his own opinion. If the woman ovulated before the rape (which is the most likely case for getting pregnant, you don't get pregnant nearly so easily if you have sex before ovulation), the trauma couldn't stop that ovulation.
Lastly, we consider drugged (pills or alcohol) sex as forcible rape as well, but it wouldn't have the trauma of a physical assault. The argument, in short, is a losing argument on many levels, including scientific.
The worst part is that "rare" is meaningless. If it was OK to abort a child from a forcible rape, it should be legal, whether there are a million babies, or only 1 baby. In fact, arguing that it is very rare would be the kind of thing you'd say if you wanted to ALLOW abortion for rape.
The CORRECT argument is that we don't kill innocent human beings for the crimes of others, and that with proper care and counseling, carrying a baby to term is a better choice for all than commiting a second crime because of the first crime.
The CORRECT argument is that we don't kill innocent human beings for the crimes of others, and that with proper care and counseling, carrying a baby to term is a better choice for all than commiting a second crime because of the first crime.
Thank you for your very thoughtful, careful, and perceptive post. You are exactly right.
not much pooch to have had so many spawn
good genes, diet and workout ethic
It’s not what I think he meant. It is how his statement is reasonably interpreted.
And his attempt to clarify just made things worse.
As a politician, we will hold him responsible for what he believes, but also how he communicates what he believes. He has to get votes, and what he said makes it very hard to get the votes needed.
BTW, it is not unreasonable to look at what someone says, and try to figure out WHY they said it.
He decided it was important to make an argument about “legitimate rape”. Why? What difference does it make how rare pregnancy is from a rape? If abortion is murder, it should be banned, whether one woman or a million are impacted by the ban. If abortion is not murder, it should be allowed, whether it is for one woman or a million.
Yes, I saw the ads to which they are refering. They were very anti-Akin, so yes, it may have helped Akin get elected. The ads talked about the federal agencies he wanted to get rid of, that Akin was pro-life even in cases of rape and incest and that he wanted to cut taxes. All those positions are positives from the perspective of a conservative, so Missouri voted for him.
This guy has no loyalty to or from the Missouri Republican party.
Given that the party heads are typically what one would call "establishment Republicans" isn't that a good thing? Isn't the point to get rid of RINOS?
The good people of Missouri don't want a knothead such as Aiken.
So, you'd have preferred to select who? Steelman? Akin is more conservative than she.
Akin did NOT say it would never happen. But of course you know that.
Doctors do say the body tends to keep conception from occurring in times of great stress. Surely you've heard of women who are all stressed about trying to have a baby being told "relax and it will happen" by their doctors? Are you saying all those doctors are just being lazy or dismissive of women?
that makes it OK to punish her with a pregnancy
You think the left is going to change the "punish her with a baby' mantra no matter how the truth is presented? Of course they won't.
We lose when we make it about what the woman did, and what she deserves because of it.
Akin said nothing about what a woman "deserves" because of any particular behavior. The left is wanting you to read that into it because they hate his conservative values. And it seems you've fallen for it.
In other words, to lie. Sorry, I've seen that advice actually work too frequently to believe that.
One of the ring leaders has a May 2012 sign up date....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.