I say Akin was right; and AIN'T I A WOMAN?**

the conservative circular firing squad | August 22, 2012 | me

[shhrubbery!]

First, I'm a woman. (Seems to be an important qualification if one is to be allowed to have an opinion on "womens' bodies.")

I'm used to being attacked by the harridans of the Left, who claim that if you're a pro-life, then you're NOT A WOMAN.

But I'm not used to hearing conservatives knee-jerk to the idea that something is "idiotic" just because it's politically incorrect ... according to those same rabid harridans of the Left.

I think, like Akin did, that a woman's endocrine system CAN sometimes "shut down" the process of conception, or implantation, as a result of traumatic stress suffered by the woman.

It so happens there are respected physicians who believe this is possible too: Dr. John C. WIlkie, MD, OB/GYN. And there is some research that tends to back this up (see references at bottom of this page.

We may never have a 100% dispositive study that proves that pregnancy as a result of rape is rare. Real numbers are hard to come by. And sadly, any researcher who attempts an objective study is going to be excoriated like Mark Regnerus (who studied homosexual parenting) or Jay Belsky (who studied the effects of putting children in day care).

But many women know, intuitively, that what Akin said is not "imbecilic." Many women have experience with their endocrine systems going awry, due to stress. I myself have carried four pregnancies to term, but lost one, probably due to stress that caused an endocrine malfunction.

** "Ain't I a woman" is a quote from Sojourner Truth, a strong Christian black woman. She wasn't going to stand for her opinion being shut down because she was (a) a woman and (b) voicing ideas that weren't popular in some circles. And neither am I.

[trisham]

It is a weapon that he handed to the left and it is a weapon with which the dims will beat republicans to a pulp... and they are doing so today.

*********************************

Agreed.

[Melas]

It’s repugnant because the logical conclusion to his *()&# notion is that if a woman is pregnant, she was not legitimately raped. The syllogistic expression would be simple: If a woman’s body fights off pregnancy in the case of rape, and a woman is pregnant, then she cannot have been raped.

[PhxTM06]

This, in medical terminology, Dr. Willke is a quack. Total snake oil salesman who's never done a single peer-reviewed study to back up any of his claims. Might be a nice guy, might be a strong proponent of the pro-life movement, but his hypotheses on rape and pregnancy are worthless.

Fortunately we have had several peer reviewed studies done and what they've found is women have about a 5% of ending up pregnant after being raped and that anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 women a year in the US end up pregnant after being raped.

[JediJones]

Start with the term “forcible” rape. As opposed to?

Statutory rape. This is specifically explained in the 1999 article that Akin seems to have based his answer on.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921696/posts

I don't know what it is, but I seem to hear from a lot of people from Texas with very poor pro-life credentials. I thought they were more conservative there, but they seem to be slipping.

[boop]

"When a remark is excessively stupid, particularly in regard to a notoriously sensitive subject, the stakes and the penalties are even higher. Unfortunately for Akin, he made an enormous blunder. Whether it was a simple misstatement or even if he really believed what he said was accurate, the damage was done, and it's highly likely that he has destroyed his own candidacy."

Thank you! I haven't heard it put quite this way, but it's accurate.

It's like Marge Schott opening her stupid yap about "Hitler was good in the beginning, then he started killing people..."

Um, Hitler and "good" should never come within 100 yards of each other. When you say something assinine like that, facts be damned. It really doesn't matter how you try to spin Akin's comments as maybe, possibly, could be, etc... you can't get around the freakin' elephant in the room. Akin is a grade-A moron and the turd in the punchbowl.

[trisham]

Please explain.

[The Duke]

I am much less concerned that Akin didn't take a class on "Women's Anatomy" than I am that the sitting President apparently flunked out on "Economics 101".

Tempest, meet teapot.

[Pearls Before Swine]

You only need look to India and China to see babies being aborted because they're female.

Nothing I've said should lead you to believe I approve of the practices in India and China. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that we'd hear about forced late-term abortions in China, which I have stated I strongly disapprove of. Also, abortion isn't the only problem in these countries--after birth infanticide has been traditional in China. Gross.

I know less about India, so won't comment.

[SandwicheGuy]

What was wrong with it? Everything. He was wrong. About everything. Not just wrong but ignorant.

What an excellent post! Well reasoned, chock full of verifiable facts, and a logical conclusion. You should post more like this when find you dress a little tight in the morning, it is quite entertaining. Oh wait, you weren't serious, were you?

[chuckee]

“Does anyone really believe that continuing to attack Akin is going to somehow help the top of the ticket?”

The man is toxic to the national party due to his stupidity.
I do not think national Republicans should attack him but they should disown him because he is toxic and he should not get a nickel from the RNC and the national Pacs all directed to making him realize he is going nowhere and he needs to get out.Most Republican candidates in Missouri are pro life.The only difference is this guy is a loose cannon that the national dems are using as a battering ram vs the national Republicans.
I do not know if the guy was right or wrong about rape but I am pretty sure that a discussion by a male candidate downplaying the effects of rape as relates to pregnancy to bolster the pro life non exception for rape part of his argument does not fit anywhere in a candidate’s list of wise things to do.
Having said that as a conservative partisan Republican with no other alternative I would vote for the idiot but I certainly hope the party takes the strategic risk to disown him and shut him out financially to try to convince him to withdraw for damage control purposes nationally.

[TigersEye]

By the way, I also think that an uncompromising position here against any pregnancy termination from the very moment of conception (rather than drawing the line later) is very likely to repel voters who are looking for an alternative to Obama's Marxism, and even those who are repelled by his over the top love of abortion.

So political expediency is a good enough reason to support killing human beings!?!

[SnakeDoctor]

Because we’re not personality cultists. They’re hopelessly devoted to their man come hell-or-high-water ... right or wrong, smart or dumb, ass-backward or otherwise. They’ll love him no matter what he does or says. They’ll faint at his rallies. They’ll cast their vote. They’ll offer to give Clinton a lewinsky because of his support for abortion, and Obama sends thrills up their legs. They’ll defend things they know are completely indefensible. They’ll allow criminals to stay in office, and give them party leadership. Theirs is a true personality cult in the purest sense. They worship their leaders. They serve their leaders.

We don’t. We’re not like them. We think for ourselves. Our leaders serve us ... and, when they cease to, we’ll let them go.

If a guy on our side is a dumbass ... we’ll call him a dumbass. If he’s indefensible, we won’t defend him. We’re not taking on their talking points — we genuinely think Akin was wrong. We’re intellectually honest enough to admit it, and we think we’d be better off with another candidate.

I don’t want to be like them. I am not devoted to Akin the way they’re devoted to Obama, or Biden, or Reid, or Clinton ... and I won’t pretend to be.

SnakeDoc

[Melas]

I agree with you 100%. The first time I ever heard a candidate speak on abortion was Ronald Reagan while he was campaigning, just a little over 6 years after Roe was passed. Reagan believed in the exceptions of rape, incest and life of the mother, and so do I. As I said yesterday, I consider the exceptions as inviolate as the pro-life plank itself, as do many others.

[trisham]

I am not “eager to be outraged”. I am offended that anyone could say that there is such a thing as “legitimate” rape.

[shhrubbery!]

We have the presumptive candidate for president, the his running mate... who’ve decried Akin’s comments.

I haven't heard Paul Ryan "decry" Akin's comment yet.

Maybe, just maybe now mind you, there is a chance that they are right and you are wrong? Hmmmm.

I'm the contrarian here. I'm the one who is swimming against the tide of conservatives who are scared so $hitless of a few words that were innocently (but ineptly) uttered by Akin, that they (the pantywaist conservatives) are running for the hills. To mix metaphors.

So yeah, maybe I'm wrong. But maybe you're wrong. And I haven't seen the slightest bit of self-doubt, humility, open-mindedness, or willingness to switch failing tactics on your side. Hmmm.

[Uncle Slayton]

“I think it’s around 4 1/2 months, myself.”

Would that be 4.5 months after the baby is created or 4.5 months after the baby is born?

[Lorianne]

It’s repugnant because he was implying that women who get pregnant from rape weren’t “legitimately” raped. He was basically saying that if the rape was “legitimate”, her body would either a) not allow fertilization/conception or b) her body would miscarry the fetus.

This is beyond insulting. What about women who were raped,became pregnant and chose not to abort but to carry the baby to term. Now you’ve got some jackass implying she may not have been “legitimately” raped.

Plus on top of everything else he did not need to say ANY of that to make his point.

His only defense is he’s stupid. And that’s hardly something to recommend him for the job of Senator.

[Lorianne]

Which was NOT the point Akin made.

Had he made that point, we wouldn’t be having this hoopla.

[PhxTM06]

Willke is a wack job who's never done a single peer-reviewed study to back up his contentions. His beliefs are opposed by the entire medical establishment, you won't find his idea's being thought of or given any legitimacy in mainstream OB/GYN dogma. You can call up any OB/GYN and they will tell you why he's full of crap.

His ideas are ancient, from the 70s, back when people still thought that many rapes happened because the woman was "secretly wanting it" and other primitive nonsense.

“If a woman’s ovaries have already released an egg, she’s just as likely to get pregnant from a rape as she would be from a voluntary encounter,” Dr. Barbara Levy, vice president for health policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told NBC News. “From the biological standpoint, a woman is at risk for pregnancy if she’s at a vulnerable point in her menstrual cycle when the rape occurs.”

Akin was spouting off at the mouth without the most minimal knowledge of actual biology. He needs to hurry up and get out of the race before he makes another major gaffe so somebody like Brunner or Ann Wagner can step in and save that seat.

[JediJones]

Instead, he made the dumbassed argument that legitimate rape usually doesn’t result in pregnancy ... thus implicitly questioning the ‘legitimacy’ of any rape that did result in pregnancy. That’s just not a defensible position.

Why would he or anyone else question whether something occurred just because it's rare? You don't rule out something happening just because it's rare. That's how the iceberg sunk the Titanic. He wasn't implying at all that we should question whether someone was really raped or not. That's a huge stretch of his statements and nowhere near the realm of the discussion they were having.