Skip to comments.Abortion and rape
Posted on 08/23/2012 6:12:14 AM PDT by DallasBiff
The criticisms of the recent absurd comments by Missouri Republican Congressman Todd Akin, who at this writing is his partys nominee to take on incumbent Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in November in a contest he had been expected to win, have focused on his clearly erroneous understanding of the human female anatomy. In a now infamous statement, in which he used the bizarre and unheard-of phrase legitimate rape, the congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not mentally or seriously resisted. This is an antediluvian and misogynistic myth for which there is no basis in fact and which has been soundly and justly condemned.
Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect. Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter the relationship between male and female. I think even schoolchildren understand that.
What has gone unmentioned, however, in the cacophony of condemnation by Republicans and Democrats, is the implication in Akins comments that rape is not a moral justification for abortion. In that, he is correct: It is not.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And antedeluvian? What is he now, a Creationist?
Why would one wish to propagate the genes of a RAPIST?
Would it not be better to render him incapable of EVER reproducing (castration, death, your choice) as well as destroying his evil spawn?
The spawn, while innocent, has defective genes.
I just don't get it.
One that does not offend anybody, unlike Akin shooting his mouth off with dubious facts.
Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect. Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter the relationship between male and female.
Extreme stress (forcible, traumatic rape) HAS BEEN SHOWN to cause women to miscarry and/or not conceive. This is not some great cosmic insight. Yes Martha, there is lots of science behind that.
Obviously not. I was attacking Napolitano.
I don’t understand what you are saying? Is the desire to rape linked to a defective gene? Just for clarity.. the “spawn” is a baby, right?
Kill the guilty rapist, save the innoc ent baby.
Why is it that rapists want EXACTLT the opposite of what is morally correct?
Sorry, on the second line I typed “rapsist” when I meant “liberals”.
Then, too, with few exceptions, humans breed to the average of the species. You can take a smart guy and a smart woman and they have kids, and about 5 generations down the line their ever so great grandchillun' are into armed robbery, aggravated mopery and running for Congress just like everybody else's kids.
If you look at the leftist (secular, humanist, wordly) value system, you’ll find that every identifiable tenet is the exact opposite of what God has to say about that issue.
Everything they espouse is exactly the opposite of what is morally correct.
When it comes to abortion, it all centers around how you’d complete this sentence:
“It’s OK to kill a baby in the womb when ________”
Years ago in Army medic training, this is exactly what we were taught by physicians, that the odds of a pregnancy starting in such a trauma were much less than consensual sex.
For the past few weeks, I have felt that only Akins and I were aware of this.
Of course, the term "legitimate" rape means back-seat car intercourse, but the word "legitimate" has given the libtards something to hang their hats on.
So, "legitimate" rape is a lot less traumatic than "forcible" rape, such as Bill Clinton forced on Juanita Broaddrick IS traumatic.
And yet this sexual pig is feted by the perverted Democrats as a hero worth $500,000 per speech, totally ignoring his rape charge and openly sexual aggression on Paula Jones and innumerable women in his disgusting career.
How anyone can cling for any reason to the "D"emocrat party is beyond me.
I’m sorry, but you are arguing for eugenics. And also genetic fatalism. Humans become crazy, defective, dangerous and hopeless animals which need culling by our betters.
Abortion is a great sin. No joke.
Of course, if one could make the case for eliminating the rapist and progeny on the basis of genetics, then one could make the case for eliminating close relatives who are genetically related.
But where does the pogrom stop?
Let it stop with the criminal. The baby also carries the genetics of the mother. The baby has committed no crime. Yet it is the first up to be killed for the crime someone else committed?
Don't you at least find that a tad unAmerican?
So you are saying that someone should get the death penalty for a crime they did not commit?
Makes much more sense morally. Whether the rapists deserves death is to be decided by a judge and jury but the point is that the offender is being judged rather than the victim.
Not PC to say so, but it is reasonable that not every rape victim would be equally traumatized by the event. People vary in just about every way, so why would every woman react the same to rape?
Rape is caused by genetics.
Thank you Herr Freeman..
Whoa there, Judge. What is the evidence? try this on. No, this is not biblical. No, it’s not constitutional-but it’s pretty credible data.
J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):320-4; discussion 324-5.
Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women.
Holmes MM, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.
SourceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425-2233, USA.
OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape.
STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.
RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.
CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
So what is the pregnancy rate of a similar population with one time unprotected sex? Sources range from 10% to 25%. IMO, the ten percent is more “physiologic”;. So we’re looking at one half the risk. Not zero but remarkably lower.
As to what constitutes rape, that’s a difficult question for lay people to comprehend and it is varies widely. Ms. Whoopi Goldberg had to define Roman Pulanski’s crime as not rape as opposed to real rape rape. You know like Wm Jefferson Clinton alleged to have done something other than rape the little girl in Joe Klein’s Primary Colors and rape rape is what Juanita Broaddrick alleged of the same WJC. See, it’s tough for even Whoopie and Joe to define rape. Sometimes the language fails Todd Akin too.
This is a great opportunity for you to meet another lawyer, a lawyer with a powerfull testimony that not only you but all of America deserves to hear out. She’s talking but nobody is listening and she deserves to be heard.
In brief, Ms. Kiessling’s mom was raped and in spite of only a 5% risk, she became pregnant. RK was adopted, searched out her history, passed the bar, and is now arguing effectively against the worn out canard of aborting pregnancies stemming from rape being “indicated”.
Yes, the total number of pregnancies that have possibly stemmed from rape is sizeable but don’t forget the denominator here: 53 MILLION abortions since Roe. Now that’s quite an emanation from a penumbra.
In a now infamous statement, in which he used the bizarre and unheard-of phrase "legitimate rape," the congressman gave the impression that some rapes of women are not mentally or seriously resisted... Akin also stated that the female anatomy can resist unwanted impregnation. This, too, is absurd, offensive and incorrect. Medical science has established conclusively that women cannot internally block an unwanted union of egg and sperm, no matter the relationship between male and female. I think even schoolchildren understand that.Akin did not communicate well, but brought up a very important topic and I think he should be credited, not cut down (with "bizarre" "unheard-of" "absurd" "offensive" "incorrect" and "schoolchildren" verbiage) for bringing up the topic. Give credit where credit is due, Judge. Without his commentary, you couldn't have "graced us" with your positive words for life.
Well Said —
Napo misrepresents what Akin said and clarified. (Women dont consciously self-abort thru stress—I dont think Akin was suggesting they do so “consciously. “Rape rape” is very stressful, Whoopie would agree.)
It is bearing false witness to misrepresent what someone has said. The Dems do it all the time. I expected better from Napo.
It is very interesting that some of the people most outraged by Whoopi’s use of the term “rape rape” are now defending Akin’s use of “legitimate rape.” And of course vise versa.
It is pretty clear, at least to me, that they meant roughly the same thing by these terms: physically forced intercourse as opposed to statutory rape or rape where resistance was perhaps only verbal.
Not to minimize the latter, but it has got to be somewhat less traumatic than a truly violent encounter.
Not quite. A baby is a young human. A rapist is an animal therefore its progeny (spawn) is not human.
Is it really sizeable??? Here is an analysis of the oftquoted figures from the study:
“Even if that’s the actual number (and it is actually an estimate from a single study; I’ll post some of the abstract from it below), that is still only 1 out of every 187 pregnancies (32,000/6,000,000 annual pregnancies in the US per year = 0.53%, or 1/187). That seems pretty rare to me.”
I hope you are joking.
What you are describing used to be an actual legal practice in Britain. It was called “Corruption of Blood,” and is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.
It is also wildly unChristian and unBiblical.
A person is responsible for his own sins, not those of his father.
Some people also recommend twirling three times and whistling dixie but I think that's an old wives tale.
Then why are there so many Moslems?
“... its progeny (spawn) is not human”.
You know... none of us know who our ancestors were or what types of people they may have been. None of us know for certain that there wasn’t a “inhuman rapist” in the family tree. Yet, we all define ourselves as human. For example, one of my closest friends is from Sicilian heritage yet she is a true blonde with pale blue eyes and extremely fair skin. She explained to me the whole Viking.. rape, pillage, burn history. No doubt that somewhere along her lines a rape did occur. I’m not in any way, manner or form excusing rape. I am, however, stating that a baby is innocent. You can certainly hate rape and want extreme punishment for those who do this awful crime. However, to say that a baby isn’t “human” if his or her biological father was a rapist is just wrong.
I dont buy in to your equiv argument.
Our language has been corrupted in so many ways that we must resort to expressions like— real/legitimate rape—since “rape” is what the NOW gang calls normal sexual relations between husband and wife, or 24hr reconsideration, shakedown-for-sex, etc. All but the first God calls wicked, since it is either adultery or fornication.
Stress and its effect on impregnation: My wife and I tried for many years to get pregnant. It was a very stressful time for many reasons. We moved to a different state, stopped worrying about getting pregnant, and voila—she’s throwing up in the mornings and the test strip is showing red. I know of several couples with similar stories. I have seen references to related studies in the aftermath of this event, but have not read them yet.
I dont think Akin is the disaster the RINOs are claiming him to be, although the left and their willing accomplices in the media are having some short term success. Will the right fight for life and truth? Or do what they think is expedient—abandon a solid conservative and replace him with a PC RINO? We shall see.
So you support the “rape rape” terminology.
Sit down, son.
We are the descendents of successful murdering rapists of thousands of years ago.
They were cannibals, too.
Own your history!
I am for the legitimate meaning and do not have to agree with any other defn and its associated baggage. I made this more than clear in the previous post. (I was using Whoopi’s dodge to show how some try to twist meanings. You didnt get it? My family members sometimes cannot tell when I am being facetious.)
If still in doubt, try a 1979 edition of Webster’s Unabridged under entry for rape, n. “the crime of having sexual intercourse forcibly and without consent.” There are statutory refinements—drugs, duress, threats, age.
That might have to do in how they are raised and not genetics...
Then you purists can take that baby out (He or she will probably be about 10 years old by then) and execute him or her ~ so, what would you use ~ bullet, hanging, injection? Maybe you could use the garrot.
Your dispensation will be that 'hey, that kid is not human', right?
God save us from the likes of Aevery Freeman.
You mean like statutory rapes, right, Judge? Kind of an important example to leave out, don't you think?
She is the one that looked into his eyes, not you.
Oh, do you believe women are just brood mares?
We are not mere dumb animals ~ or 'brood mares' as you suggest.
If we are going to use the authority and power of the state to execute then you should be willing to first prove the truth, and then be willing to carry out the punishment no matter how old the target of execution becomes.
Let's say it took 21 years to determine the truth in a specific instance, and your target of execution is an adult. Do you imagine that it is just to send the executioner out to strike her down just because you think she is an animal? What about her own children, or "spawn" ~ do you get to kill them too?
Frankly private murder is no basis for a modern society.