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

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

Jason P 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.

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

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: