Rep. Todd Akin: No pregnancy from 'legitimate rape'

ComeToTX

The long awaited definition of legitimate rape from the urban dictionary.

http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?te ... ate%20Rape

Sea

Reminder:

Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.

cincybearcat

I really wish I could know what he meant by "legitimate"...

He coulda just meant that sometimes women cry rape after the fact when it wasn't the case.
Or, like others have said, statutory rape.

He coulda just meant that maybe a woman would lie about it so that she could still obtain an abortion.

Who the hell really knows? What I do know is it sounds really bad and since we only care abut soundbites, he is screwed. And maybe he should be.

pandora

ComeToTX wrote:

The long awaited definition of legitimate rape from the urban dictionary.

http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?te ... ate%20Rape

I give that a thumbs down, that is about as insensitive towards victims as what
Akin said.

inlet13

comebackgirl wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.

This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.

Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?

I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?

If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.

I think there are 3 issues - 1) that he opposes the option of abortion even in the case of rape 2) that he believes it to be unlikely that a woman would conceive during rape (which makes me wonder why he's so concerned about blocking access to abortion for rape victims since it would rarely be needed) 3) the phrasing he used implying that there are rapes that are not legitimate.

Not trying to defend this guy, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your points here:

1) A lot of pro-life folks oppose abortion even in the case of rape. In fact, I'm pretty sure the pro-life stance is to never favor termination - regardless of circumstances. So, #1 is a non-issue. There's tons of politicians who feel the same.

2) I think this is semantics. He said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" when saying this. Moreover, he prefaced his comments by saying it's a "tough ethical question" and went on to say that the "rapist" should be punished. I don't think he stated that it could not happen at all, instead I think he said "from what I understand from doctor's, that's really rare". Then he goes on to say, let's assume that didn't work". He's against all forms of abortion is the story here. So, he's against blocking access to abortion because of that. Right?

3) I admit... This one here is just plain confusing and is really kinda indefensible. Rape is never legitimate. But, like I said before, perhaps this is a medical term or some sort. I don't know.

At the end of the day - I watched the video. I heard his context and I don't understand the uproar at all. I mean Ron Paul said something similar and I'm a big Ron Paul supporter:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... n-should-g

... there wasn't a huge issue then. Why now? Most knew what he meant. To me it's just typical diversionary tactics to underscore people are very polarized on social issues, and that the other issues aren't going well.

ComeToTX

cincybearcat wrote:

I really wish I could know what he meant by "legitimate"...

He coulda just meant that sometimes women cry rape after the fact when it wasn't the case.
Or, like others have said, statutory rape.

He coulda just meant that maybe a woman would lie about it so that she could still obtain an abortion.

Who the hell really knows? What I do know is it sounds really bad and since we only care abut soundbites, he is screwed. And maybe he should be.

My first reaction was that he was saying:

"Some women say they got raped but their pregnant so obviously they weren't raped or they wouldn't be pregnant because that's basically impossible."

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

I really wish I could know what he meant by "legitimate"...

He coulda just meant that sometimes women cry rape after the fact when it wasn't the case.
Or, like others have said, statutory rape.

He coulda just meant that maybe a woman would lie about it so that she could still obtain an abortion.

Who the hell really knows? What I do know is it sounds really bad and since we only care abut soundbites, he is screwed. And maybe he should be.

what he meant was that, according to his understanding - if a woman is legitimately raped, her body would know that and therefore create a physiological condition that would prevent pregnancy ... the whole context of whether rapes are legitimate has been taken out of context ...

in his context, a non-legitimate rape would simply be any woman who had consensual sex and then claimed rape afterwards ...

Jason P

comebackgirl

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

First, every single month it seems a media whirl-wind occurs that tries to garner public attention away from the faltering economy towards some social topic. I can think of a couple: Georgetown contraception, Chick-fil-A, etc.

This will be the new one for a few weeks, I guess.

Second, as for the points.... What's really the issue here? Is it that this guy opposes abortion even in the case of rape? Is that the issue? Or is it his phrasing?

I do completely agree that the term "legitimate rape" is confusing, and derogatory since it paints the picture that rape could ever "legitimate". I don't get that, but maybe it's a medical/legal term of sorts because he was saying "from what I understand from doctors" which makes it more confusing. Was he saying "legitimate rape" or do doctors say it? Moreover, what does the term actually mean?

If you watch the full context via the video, he later went on to say the "punishment should be on the rapist". It didn't appear to be him condoning rape at all, it appeared to him providing an answer to what he admitted to be a "tough, ethical question" - which fell on the pro-life side. Maybe I'm missing something though, admittedly. The public is split roughly 50/50 on abortion.... so, if outrage is simply due to abortion views, it's kinda nonsensical.

I think there are 3 issues - 1) that he opposes the option of abortion even in the case of rape 2) that he believes it to be unlikely that a woman would conceive during rape (which makes me wonder why he's so concerned about blocking access to abortion for rape victims since it would rarely be needed) 3) the phrasing he used implying that there are rapes that are not legitimate.

Not trying to defend this guy, but let me play devil's advocate and answer your points here:

1) A lot of pro-life folks oppose abortion even in the case of rape. In fact, I'm pretty sure the pro-life stance is to never favor termination - regardless of circumstances. So, #1 is a non-issue. There's tons of politicians who feel the same.

2) I think this is semantics. He said "from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare" when saying this. Moreover, he prefaced his comments by saying it's a "tough ethical question" and went on to say that the "rapist" should be punished. I don't think he stated that it could not happen at all, instead I think he said "from what I understand from doctor's, that's really rare". Then he goes on to say, let's assume that didn't work". He's against all forms of abortion is the story here. So, he's against blocking access to abortion because of that. Right?

3) I admit... This one here is just plain confusing and is really kinda indefensible. Rape is never legitimate. But, like I said before, perhaps this is a medical term or some sort. I don't know.

At the end of the day - I watched the video. I heard his context and I don't understand the uproar at all. I mean Ron Paul said something similar and I'm a big Ron Paul supporter:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... n-should-g

... there wasn't a huge issue then. Why now? Most knew what he meant. To me it's just typical diversionary tactics to underscore people are very polarized on social issues, and that the other issues aren't going well.

I understand your points, and like I said, while I do not agree with his views on abortion, I can understand and respect them. The information he gave about the rarity of pregnancies being conceived during a rape is based on nothing. That misinformation is damaging to survivors, as we saw from one of the posters here. Sure, the rapist should be punished, but let's not punish the victim as well. I don't believe "legitimate rape" to be a medical term. I was an advocate on a SART team and I never heard a SANE nurse use that terminology. I am interested to see how he explains this though. Not holding my breath...

I agree that it is diversionary. It concerns me that any politician holds these views and I wish they were addressed every time. The one positive about this being made into such an issue is that in the end it may actually bolster victims' rights and protections.

ComeToTX

Jason P wrote:

Awesome. He said doctors told him this. He needs to tell us what doctors said these things or admit that he was lying.

comebackgirl

Jason P wrote:

Zoso

Jason P wrote:

@asshole #goingtolosethesenateseat

inlet13

comebackgirl wrote:

I understand your points, and like I said, while I do not agree with his views on abortion, I can understand and respect them. The information he gave about the rarity of pregnancies being conceived during a rape is based on nothing.

Just curious - do you think the frequency of pregnancy is equal rape vs. non-rape?

comebackgirl wrote:

That misinformation is damaging to survivors, as we saw from one of the posters here. Sure, the rapist should be punished, but let's not punish the victim as well. I don't believe "legitimate rape" to be a medical term. I was an advocate on a SART team and I never heard a SANE nurse use that terminology. I am interested to see how he explains this though. Not holding my breath...

I agree that it is diversionary. It concerns me that any politician holds these views and I wish they were addressed every time. The one positive about this being made into such an issue is that in the end it may actually bolster victims' rights and protections.

But, the issue (according to the side opposed to yours) is that in these rare circumstances (rape involving pregnancy that would involve an abortion is extremely rare relative to the total amount of abortions per year - I'm betting much less than 1% are rape-induced abortions) there are two individuals who are "victims" the rape victim and the fetus - each deserve rights and protections. I understand that you don't agree about the fetus being a victim (or even having life), they do though. That's their view - whether it's right or wrong. For them, the two wrongs don't make a right stance holds here.

josevolution

My wife is a SANE nurse and i'm pretty sure i've never ever heard her say that was a LEGITIMATE RAPE .....

comebackgirl

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I understand your points, and like I said, while I do not agree with his views on abortion, I can understand and respect them. The information he gave about the rarity of pregnancies being conceived during a rape is based on nothing.

Just curious - do you think the frequency of pregnancy is equal rape vs. non-rape?

comebackgirl wrote:

That misinformation is damaging to survivors, as we saw from one of the posters here. Sure, the rapist should be punished, but let's not punish the victim as well. I don't believe "legitimate rape" to be a medical term. I was an advocate on a SART team and I never heard a SANE nurse use that terminology. I am interested to see how he explains this though. Not holding my breath...

I agree that it is diversionary. It concerns me that any politician holds these views and I wish they were addressed every time. The one positive about this being made into such an issue is that in the end it may actually bolster victims' rights and protections.

But, the issue (according to the side opposed to yours) is that in these rare circumstances (rape involving pregnancy that would involve an abortion is extremely rare relative to the total amount of abortions per year - I'm betting much less than 1% are rape-induced abortions) there are two individuals who are "victims" the rape victim and the fetus - each deserve rights and protections. I understand that you don't agree about the fetus being a victim (or even having life), they do though. That's their view - whether it's right or wrong. For them, the two wrongs don't make a right stance holds here.

I would say the frequency of consensual sex is greater than the frequency of sex as a result of rape, so the frequency of pregnancy from consensual sex is higher. I'm not sure what the percentage of pregnancy resulting from rape is since the crime is so drastically underreported and since the vast majority of victims who do report are offered the morning after pill.

Like I said, I understand their point of view on abortion. But comments like the ones spoken by Akins revictimize and devalue victims. I think we need to do a better job of understanding trauma and valuing the lives of women in general, particularly of survivors. It's interesting because they are concerned about the fetus, but i wonder if they understand the impact that ongoing emotional trauma of the mither has on the developing fetus and the ability to form secure attachments later in life. The concern for the wellbeing of the fetus should extend beyond the first 9 months

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

they don't come from storks?

damn abstinance-only public education...

gimmesometruth27

yikes, i actually agree with romney on something...

Romney calls Akin’s rape comment ‘insulting’ and ‘inexcusable’

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn ... 22223.html

Mitt Romney called Rep. Todd Akin's suggestion that "legitimate rape" cannot make a woman pregnant "offensive" and "inexcusable."

In an interview with National Review's Robert Costa, the presumptive Republican nominee joined a growing number of GOP officials calling on the congressman to "correct" his statement.

"Congressman's Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong," Romney said. "Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive."

On Sunday, Akin, who is challenging Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri's Senate race, claimed in a Missouri television interview a woman's body can block unwanted pregnancy and therefore rape victims should not have access to legal abortions.

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down," Akin told KTVI-TV in St. Louis.

The Romney campaign distanced itself from Akin's comments, insisting the GOP nominee did not share the congressman's view. But amid growing pressure on Akin to retract his comments and efforts by Democrats to tie him to the Romney campaign, the presumptive GOP nominee issued a firmer rebuke on Monday.

"I have an entirely different view," Romney told National Review. "What he said is entirely without merit, and he should correct it."

Johnny Abruzzo

On linking with Paul Ryan...

David Axelrod:

I think they find Todd Akin's comment terribly inconvenient. It is very inopportune. But they are certainly not inconsistent, when Ryan joined with him and tried to limit the definition of rape to forcible rape. What does that mean? They are trying to run away from what has been their own position and yet, while Akin's proposition was particularly egregious and outrageous, on the underlining principle of whether you are going to limit a woman's right to choose, and how rape victims are dealt with and how they would approach this issue, they are very much in line with him.

Jason P

Akin said Monday that by "legitimate rape," he meant "forcible rape." He said he understood that rape could result in pregnancy, and told Huckabee that he personally knew some victims of rape. "I know it's a terrible, terrible thing." ...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rep-todd-akin-m-not-quitter-172053259.html

OK, so you minced words. Now how do you explain your idiotic theory?

I had a similar gaffe ... I claimed that the world was flat and that the huge lake that surrounds us just ends with a giant waterfall according to some scientists I know. In hindsight, I meant to say "ocean" instead of "lake".

:fp:

pandora

comebackgirl wrote:

[ It's interesting because they are concerned about the fetus, but i wonder if they understand the impact that ongoing emotional trauma of the mither has on the developing fetus and the ability to form secure attachments later in life. The concern for the wellbeing of the fetus should extend beyond the first 9 months

Like I said my sister chose to have her baby... never regretted it of course.
It is so individual but the morning after pill is really not allowing a woman
a chance to even consider keeping her child. The emotions involved those
first days weeks ... who could?

I have feeling if that was available 44 years ago
I would not love a beautiful woman with long black hair
and the most stunning green eyes you have ever seen.
She is a gift to her four children, who would not be here either, she is a blessing to us all.
Life really needs to be cherished much more than it is.