Posted on 08/22/2012 3:08:34 PM PDT by JediJones
First, let's define the term "rape." When pro-lifers speak of rape pregnancies, we should commonly use the phrase "forcible rape" or "assault rape," for that specifies what we're talking about. Rape can also be statutory. Depending upon your state law, statutory rape can be consensual, but we're not addressing that here.
Assault rape pregnancies are extremely rare. Most pro-lifers have heard this comment, but too often cannot back it up with facts. A candidate for office in the State of Arkansas made this comment before the last elections. He was roundly criticized and ridiculed by the opposing candidate and the media. Unfortunately, there was no evidence that he offered substantive proof to back up his claim that rape pregnancies were rare.
How many forcible rapes result in a pregnancy? Some feminists have claimed as high as 5 to 10 percent, which is absurd.
Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get 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 that 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 knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianliferesources.com ...
Actually, so I’m not accused of twisting words, he wrote:
In this case, just like abortion, the woman makes the decision.
Then I asked, “So you would maintain that a miscarriage = abortion?”
Followed by, “Seriously?”
So I am asking the poster if he is equating a miscarriage with abortion. When someone says that someone makes the decision to do something, that implies a conscious or deliberate process.
Not twisting, not disingenuous, not dishonest.
AMEN! And I am not defending the guy’s intellect here or his ability handle a hostile press question, but he pretty much votes the way I want him to, on everything.
You state the point nicely. The circumstances of conception do not determine the worth of the life - PERIOD.
This whole debate rages because we are too reluctant to face the fact that life is often ugly and hurtful - but this does not justify killing the innocent (which, ironically, only serves to make the world more ugly and hurtful).
You're right -- that is a lot.
But where does that 32,000 number come from??? It turns out that those are "self-reported" squishy numbers not hard numbers from police/hospital/medical reports.
Odds are most of that 32,000 came from abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood justifying their federal funding for Medicaid abortions. But since underage girls are the bread and butter of abortion clinics, odds are that those are mostly statutory rape pregnancies that should have been reported to the police as such but aren't.
If not, ask the doctors, and women what happened 9 months and less after the Russians.
5.56mm
“Would you have me puncture her skull and suck her brains out with a wet vac? “
Only if she was inconvenient or you really, really didn’t want to keep her.
Only if she was inconvenient or you really, really didn’t want to keep her.
Alternately, you could always round up the adult children of rape victims and rip them into pieces. I hear that is a popular “procedure.”
Amazing how things look when you put them in perspective...
Really? Where? If you're going to make such a strident claim (and in all caps, even), then please post some links.
You know, I keep hearing the word "DEBUNKED" applied to Romney ads that point out that Obama is weakening the work requirement for welfare.
Just because almost every media source is screaming "DEBUNKED" about Romney's welfare claims, does that mean I should believe they've really been "DEBUNKED"?
“The circumstances of conception do not determine the worth of the life - PERIOD.”
Exactly!!! So why are the “merits of the current topic - which is: “Does the human body respond to forcible rape in a way that would decrease the probability of pregnancy?” being debated? It’s not relevant.
Harsh words for me. I do not think disseminating facts and information is stupid, even if the fact is simply the existence of this article. People are claiming that Akin is a "nut" or whatever, assuming he made up this theory on his own, I guess. This article proves that he was simply passing on information from an article he read, which is exactly what he said he was doing. And the article, being written in an intelligent and convincing way, shows that Akin is not an "idiot" for believing it, or misremembering it as proven science.
Good question! Please ask Romney and the RNC why they are making a big deal out of an irrelevant discussion by Akin that has no relevance to any party policies or political issues.
The “just like” OBVIOUSLY refers to the decision - not the event. You didn't twist the words, you twisted (and are still twisting) the meaning.
There is no way any reasonable person reads that sentence and honestly believes that the writer is equating abortion and miscarriage. You use the straw-man fallacy - which is dishonest argument: Changing the meaning of a statement to one more easily refuted, and refuting the alternate statement. Or metaphorically switching a straw-man (or a scarecrow) for your opponent, beating the living snot out of him and claiming victory.
Some more tutoring - refrain from picking certain words and phrases and attacking them. Look for the meaning and intent in the full context of the statement. Had you done so, you could not have posed your question in honest debate.
And in context, it is obvious that the poster is referring to the decision to “not want” the pregnancy - to which the body responds...or so the argument goes.
Spend your time refuting THAT (because that is the argument), not singling out some tiny phrase by which to recoil in horror. Whoopee!!! You won the argument! In today's world abortion and miscarriage mean different things!!!! But it is a hollow victory, because that argument was completely in your own mind. The poster was making a different point ENTIRELY - which you never touched...and he wins by default.
See - I'm helping you debate more effectively!
It also means it wasn’t a relevant point for Akin to use to try to support his pro-life stance in the first place.
“Why are we even discussing this??? “
Because some have a fear of success.
Tommy Boy explains how he kills his sale here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1EyN9xTK94
“Why are we even discussing this??? “
Because some have a fear of success.
Tommy Boy explains how he kills his sale here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1EyN9xTK94
It is irrelevant if you are debating when abortion is acceptable (a side topic of this particular thread - but the main topic of the gotcha moment that brought this thread to life).
So - if we are arguing whether or not Akin was smart politically to say what he said, then it is irrelevant. But that is not what this thread was about.
If we are arguing if what Akin said is true, then it is relevant. And that has been the gist of this thread, and what I have argued - with the quick, but very important, detour to underline the value of life regardless of the circumstances that created the miracle.
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.
This study suffers from a number of flaws. It is based on telephonic surveys, not medical or police records. The n of 34 is an extremely small sample size on which to be basing any kind of conclusions. The description that most of the victims were adolescents who knew their attackers suggests to me that many of them were involved in statutory rape (in which case it may have been consensual, but was rape under legal definition) or incestuous (which could explain the unusually high abortion rate of this group as compared to rape victims overall; abortion is often used to hide incest from outsiders, allowing the abuse to continue). There are other flaws in this study which I won't bother to go into; the bottom line is that I wouldn't use the "32,000" figure without having a more solid factual basis for it than that study. (And yes, that one flawed study is the only source for that number.)
It is quite flawed, and is based on a single very flawed study which is referenced often. I discussed that study in my post #58, this thread.
A single flawed study, widely referenced, is the source of that number. It is based on a telephone survey. Anyway, I deconstructed the study in my post #58, this thread.
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.