Replies

Take a look at this article. What Akin said isn’t unheard of. Do those who detract from Dr. Wilke really sound like they’ve really looked into the matter? They sound like they are just dismissing it out of hand, like most GOP Media outlets. Rush Limbaugh even thinks he is a sociologist and opines that the reason Akin said what he said is because to talks to a lot of like minded people. In other words, he doesn’t get out much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dismissed-by-health-experts.html?_r=2

Dr Willke has long been discredited by mainstream medicine and seen as peddling junk science. By all accounts he's a nice guy, and has done a lot for the Pro-Life movement but his claims on rape and pregnancy have been repeatedly proven wrong, as has Mecklenburg. I cringe whenever I see pro-lifers citing them because it doesn't ever help the case. It's like the naturalists who cite Mercola who's also a bit nutty.

"No one really knows” how often those emotional effects prevent pregnancy, Willke said, but he estimated that there are just one or two pregnancies for every 1,000 rapes. That contradicts research published in the 1990s in the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that the occurrence of rape-related pregnancies is 5%. More than 32,000 women experience rape-related pregnancy every year, the research found. Bottomline, getting into this argument is a sure loser every single time. You've already seen a legion of doctors paraded out on the networks, calling Akin a backwards thinking moron basically. The pro-life argument needs to stop getting bogged down on periphery topics such as this, arguing about what is or isn't "legitimate" rape and whether or not a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape. Both arguments have the same endpoint ultimately, accusing women of being liars when they get pregnant after claiming to have been raped. You're never going to win anything suggesting that a women who is the victim of sexual assault is a liar.