'Legitimate Rape'

southsiderosie

Well here's a big steaming pile of WTF for the day. Keep in mind that this man sits on the House Committee for Science and Technology in the United States Congress.

Rep. Todd Akin, the newly-christened GOP Senate nominee in Missouri, said in an interview airing Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy.
Explaining his no-exceptions policy on abortions, Akin was asked why he opposes abortion even when the pregnancy is the result of rape.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin added: “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Source

The combination of slut shaming and ignorance embedded in this statement is mind-boggling. That this man could potentially become a US Senator is terrifying.

Sadly, the whole idea that there is 'legitimate rape' versus 'kinda fake rape' or 'well she was asking for it' rape is not uncommon. In most sane countries, people who think like this get laughed out of the room, not elected to national office; unfortunately the US seemingly no longer qualifies as a sane country.

Jesus Wept

Someone ought to illegitamtely rape him up the jacksie.

SusieBlue

So, basically the female body can decide at will whether to conceive or not, especially in extremely stressful situations such as when she's being violated against her will. Seems legit.

Pride Fighter

As Abe Simpson said about his 49 star US flag.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I recognise Missouri.

I think we can now see why.

1ZRed

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Someone ought to illegitamtely rape him up the jacksie.

Ugh..do I have to?!

frag420

His first name is Todd so in fairness he was a cūnt long before he came up with this nonsense!!

RaRaRasputin

An interesting idea...I suggest he explains that in further detail to a group of women who got raped and see how long he stands this battle. I'd contribute to pay his flight to Rwanda to make a start.

It's been a while since I heard such bull****

Nodin

Bizarre. If he says he was taken "out of context", somebody should boot the bollix off him.

MadsL

Utter Muppet.

In late June 2011, Akin was discussing NBC's recent removal of the words "under God" from a video clip of the Pledge of Allegiance. Akin told radio host Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that:

Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal, and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God.... This is a systematic effort to try to separate our faith and God, which is a source in our belief in individual liberties, from our country. And when you do that you tear the heart out of our country.

*cough* the what now???


Also

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Voted YES on the proposal of an amendment to the Constitution stating: "Marriage in the US shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Akin also co-sponsored a bill requiring government services in English only.

Benny_Cake

MadsL wrote: »

Utter Muppet.

In late June 2011, Akin was discussing NBC's recent removal of the words "under God" from a video clip of the Pledge of Allegiance. Akin told radio host Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that:

Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal, and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God.... This is a systematic effort to try to separate our faith and God, which is a source in our belief in individual liberties, from our country. And when you do that you tear the heart out of our country.

[31]

*cough* the what now???

Given that "under God" was only added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, it's difficult to see what he's getting upset about..

I'm sure women everywhere will be interested in learning his "contraception through the power of the mind" technique though. What a colossal tool.

Lyaiera

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Given that "under God" was only added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, it's difficult to see what he's getting upset about..

I'm sure women everywhere will be interested in learning his "contraception through the power of the mind" technique though. What a colossal tool.

Is that similar to the rape prevention method of "covering up yourself, you damned, seductive woman?"

SocSocPol

Well if he fails to get elected in Missuri, he's a shoo in, in Donegal!

Joey the lips

You need to see the whole interview and stop reading between the lines.

His comments are skewed and wrong when focusing on this point but his principle and general statement is the unborn should be protected. He also argues that rape should not be a reason to kill a person.

Agreed this is a highly emotive and debatable issue. I dont agree that a women raped should go through the pain of child birth however i dont agree a life should be taken because its not wanted.

I am glad i have not had to make this decision. Its a very difficult one.

Lyaiera

Joey the lips wrote: »

He also argues that rape should not be a reason to kill a person.

I thought they only have the death penalty for murderers, not rapists? Although like you I am against it.

Joey the lips

Lyaiera wrote: »

I thought they only have the death penalty for murderers, not rapists? Although like you I am against it.

I ment the unborn child. He is viewing this as an unborn person not just a fetus. If you catch my drift. He is debating at what time life exists.

Most of us debate that life exists when a child is born but tell this to a mother who looses her child at 10 weeks.

This is a highly emotive issue and again glad i dont have to legislate for it.,

Matt_Trakker

I'm calling shenanigans on this whole thing, the latest article has an apology from him and has a statement from the Romney/Ryan tag-team-of-clowns.

It's all staged so that Romney and Ryan can release something to further their political goals. Both are against abortion except for in the case of rape, they want to hammer this opinion home to get more rednecks to vote for them.

Both presidential outfits have been trying to stay away from the thorny issue of abortion, as per usual, and this is a way for Romney & Ryan to get their opinion out there in an indirect way, while Obama can't really come out and say anything now other than to disagree with Akin, which is what Romney & Ryan have already done and thus he's just seen to be agreeing with them and in the eyes of conservative yank voters, he's simply playing catch up to Romney & Ryan.

Shenanigans. Shenanigans. Shenanigans.

southsiderosie

Joey the lips wrote: »

You need to see the whole interview and stop reading between the lines.

His comments are skewed and wrong when focusing on this point but his principle and general statement is the unborn should be protected. He also argues that rape should not be a reason to kill a person.

Agreed this is a highly emotive and debatable issue. I dont agree that a women raped should go through the pain of child birth however i dont agree a life should be taken because its not wanted.

I am glad i have not had to make this decision. Its a very difficult one.

I did watch the interview. He was being questioned about when abortion may or may not be viewed as appropriate. When asked about abortion in the case of a woman who became pregnant because of a rape, he tried to assert that she wasn't likely to become pregnant if the rape was 'legitimate'.

Setting aside the issue of what does or does not constitute a 'legitimate' rape, the idea that the likelihood of becoming pregnant as the result of a sexual assault is significantly less than the likelihood of becoming pregnant from a consensual sexual encounter is absurd. Yet he is using this as a justification to prevent women who have been raped from having access to an abortion - because he thinks she is unlikely to become pregnant anyway. This is patently false.

But, hey, who needs science when a woman's uterus can magically discern if a sexual encounter was consensual or not?

The mind boggles.

mikemac1

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Both are against abortion except for in the case of rape, they want to hammer this opinion home to get more rednecks to vote for them.

Supporting that view doesn't make you a redneck

southsiderosie

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I'm calling shenanigans on this whole thing, the latest article has an apology from him and has a statement from the Romney/Ryan tag-team-of-clowns.

It's all staged so that Romney and Ryan can release something to further their political goals. Both are against abortion except for in the case of rape, they want to hammer this opinion home to get more rednecks to vote for them.

Both presidential outfits have been trying to stay away from the thorny issue of abortion, as per usual, and this is a way for Romney & Ryan to get their opinion out there in an indirect way, while Obama can't really come out and say anything now other than to disagree with Akin, which is what Romney & Ryan have already done and thus he's just seen to be agreeing with them and in the eyes of conservative yank voters, he's simply playing catch up to Romney & Ryan.

Shenanigans. Shenanigans. Shenanigans.

I think you need to take your tin foil hat off for a minute. Akin has a long history of these kinds of crazy statements, which is exactly why his opponent, Claire McCaskill, wanted to run against him. He's this election cycle's version of the "I am not a witch" lady.

meoklmrk91

This is why the republican party is a complete and utter joke, they let clowns like this stand up and spout their bull**** with a (R) after their names. The funnier thing is that people actually vote to elect such clowns and give them actual power and a forum on which to keep spouting off.

I'm completely prochoice and a lot of the tactics and statements from prolife people get me quite angry (this guy is no exception). But I can understand the no rape exception, because as far as anyone is concerned, it's either a living person in there or it isn't regardless of how it was conceived. It would be even worse "pro-punishment/anti women" stance if they made an "it's not her fault" exception - that would mean they aren't actually pro life at all.


But legitimate rape? the body can magically stop pregnancy if it wants to? Needs a good kick up the backside

The Big Red Button

If his sister, or his friend, or his girlfriend/wife got pregnant as a result of having been raped, I wonder if he'd really say directly to them:

"Well you got pregnant, so you obviously wanted it to happen. You wanted to be raped, and you enjoyed it."

It's absolutely sick.

And it's really sad that these beliefs are still held, in this day and age. And particularly by someone in a position of such political persuasion.

padd b1975

SocSocPol wrote: »

Well if he fails to get elected in Missuri, he's a shoo in, in Donegal!

Half of Kerry are queueing up to shake his hand.

Where To

SocSocPol wrote: »

Well if he fails to get elected in Missuri, he's a shoo in, in Donegal!

?

What's that supposed to mean?

Wibbs

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

This is why the republican party is a complete and utter joke, they let clowns like this stand up and spout their bull**** with a (R) after their names. The funnier thing is that people actually vote to elect such clowns and give them actual power and a forum on which to keep spouting off.

Well they're adaptive. If this stuff didn't go down well with their electorate they'd not come out with it, so clearly it does(like it does with some of the croooked gobshítes we've voted in over the years). There was a time when your average American was a member of one of the most informed people on earth. Sadly caught between their mass media and failing pre college education system that's so not the case today.

Todd Umptious

frag420 wrote: »

His first name is Todd so in fairness he was a cūnt long before he came up with this nonsense!!

Well this is awkward:eek::eek::D

Matt_Trakker

mikemac1 wrote: »

Supporting that view doesn't make you a redneck

:D:D:D hahah of course it does.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think you need to take your tin foil hat off for a minute.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not wrong about Romney & Ryan using it as an opportunity to lay their cards out while Obama can't really do anything other than watch.

newmug

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

mikemac1

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

:D:D:D hahah of course it does.

Says the pinko liberal out of touch elite

We don't like your type around here, go back to your city :mad:

southsiderosie

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm completely prochoice and a lot of the tactics and statements from prolife people get me quite angry (this guy is no exception). But I can understand the no rape exception, because as far as anyone is concerned, it's either a living person in there or it isn't regardless of how it was conceived. It would be even worse "pro-punishment/anti women" stance if they made an "it's not her fault" exception - that would mean they aren't actually pro life at all.e

I agree - I actually think the 'no abortion under any circumstances' approach is more logically consistent and less of a not-so-sly commentary on the sexual activities of women than the "only in the case of rape or incest" position.

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not, but I'm not wrong about Romney & Ryan using it as an opportunity to lay their cards out while Obama can't really do anything other than watch.

Of course Obama is watching and rubbing his hands with glee. Why does he need to say anything while this man's campaign collapses in front of the whole country? He desperately needs McCaskill to hang on to her seat to maintain a Democratic majority in the Senate, and gaffes like this are manna from heaven. Historically these kinds of mistakes can cause around a 10-point swing in political support, and that is just what Senator McCaskill needs right now. Plus I'll bet dollars to donuts that she gets a significant uptick in donations to her campaign from angry women across the country.

Matt_Trakker

mikemac1 wrote: »

Says the pinko liberal out of touch elite

We don't like your type around here, go back to your city :mad:

Vigilante modding? :p:p

Disagreeing with abortion is really out of touch?........man, I must've stepped into a time machine thinking it was a phone box last night and it brought me back to 1970s Ireland, except it has the internets, something's gone wrong with the flux capacitor. Doc, Doc, what do I do?

Annasopra

Where To wrote: »

?

What's that supposed to mean?

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2012/07/30/donegal-county-council-back-call-opposing-abortion-legislation/

Show Time

When "God" comes into any sort of debate than reason and common sense go out the window.

humbert

newmug wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

I think this is worth saying. His choice of words was poor, and suspiciously so, but I don't think he meant that rape is sometimes legitimate.

I'd be curious if the shock of a violent attack does in any way reduce the chances of conception. Though it's still a flawed argument because you can't ignore something like that on the grounds that it is infrequent.

I also agree with bluewolf's argument, if you're dumb enough to regard a foetus as a person, it can't really matter how it got there.

I hate pro-life anti-abortion religious nutters.

Lollipops23

I'm curious to know exactly how this mechanism of "shutting down" to avoid a pregnancy after a rape.

If I'd known our bodies could do that I wouldn't have wasted money on the pill for the last 8 years.

The Big Red Button

newmug wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

OK, apart from anything else ...

Do think that the chances of a woman becoming pregnant depend on whether or not the sexual intercourse had been consensual, or not?

Honestly, I don't see the relevance of your comment in the context of the politician's argument?

blacklilly

humbert wrote: »

newmug wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

I think this is worth saying. His choice of words was poor, and suspiciously so, but I don't think he meant that rape is sometimes legitimate.

I'd be curious if the shock of a violent attack does in any way reduce the chances of conception. Though it's still a flawed argument because you can't ignore something like that on the grounds that it is infrequent.

I also agree with bluewolf's argument, if you're dumb enough to regard a foetus as a person, it can't really matter how it got there.

I hate pro-life anti-abortion religious nutters.

Pro-life, anti abortion "nutters" are not all religious. I'm pro life and I'm not religious. Stop generalising and using the standard religious nutter phrase to try and strengthen your argument.

I don't hate pro choice people, I don't call them liberal fruitcakes

Colmustard

First of all I am pro abortion if a woman wants an abortion it is her choice no matter the circumstances fullstop.

But I ask, has the senator twat got a point. To what I know about the biology of pregnancy, conception resulting from rape would be difficult and it would be rare.

Wibbs

Colmustard wrote: »

To what I know about the biology of pregnancy, conception resulting from rape would be difficult and it would be rare.

I'd say it's simply down to statistical chance. Average couple trying for a baby would rarely get lucky on the first try and would require a fair few attempts to conceive. So a one off rape event is less likely to result in pregnancy. Nada to do with what that eejit was suggesting. PLus there are enough babies born of rape to severely brutalised women in war torn areas to knock that idea on the head.

The Big Red Button

Colmustard wrote: »

First of all I am pro abortion if a woman wants an abortion it is her choice no matter the circumstances fullstop.

I have heard of people being pro-choice. Pro-abortion is a first, for me!

An abortion is never an ideal or happy outcome, and I would think it is almost always going to be a very difficult and sad decision for any woman to make.

Colmustard wrote: »

But I ask, has the senator twat got a point. To what I know about the biology of pregnancy, conception resulting from rape would be difficult and it would be rare.

What. The. Fuck.

Tell me more about what you know of "the biology of pregnancy"?

I'm intrigued. Because I truly can't see how conception resulting from rape would be any more difficult or rare than conception resulting from consensual intercourse, all other factors being identical.

Wibbs

chatterpillar wrote: »

I'm intrigued. Because I truly can't see how conception resulting from rape would be any more difficult or rare than conception resulting from consensual intercourse, all other factors being identical.

This. The egg is either in the position to be available to the sperm or it ain't, regardless of the situational state of the woman.

hoochis

newmug wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

I thought legitimate rape was when you had sex with your wife without her consent!

Colmustard

Wibbs wrote: »

This. The egg is either in the position to be available to the sperm or it ain't, regardless of the situational state of the woman.

Also the conditions for the sperms passage has to be right which would be disrupted by rape. But as you posted above it does happen, but I would imagine rarely.

It was just a question I do not agree with the twat what so ever.

lazygal

newmug wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks that he meant "legitimate" rape to mean a brutal assault where sex was non-consensual, as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

Do you have any facts or statistics to back up the numbers of women who change their mind post coitus? Or is this another one of those 'my mate shagged a bird who cried rape, what a b!tch' anecdotes?

Colmustard

chatterpillar wrote: »

I have heard of people being pro-choice. Pro-abortion is a first, for me!

An abortion is never an ideal or happy outcome, and I would think it is almost always going to be a very difficult and sad decision for any woman to make.

Because pro/choice and the moronic meaningless chant of pro/life makes little sense to me.

I say if a woman wants an abortion it is her decision and never a mans no matter the circumstances. So I am pro/woman.

Why is always in the majority of cases, its always men that oppose abortion, if by some freak of nature men were to suddenly be the ones to carry a pregnancy I bet they would change their tune.

B0jangles

newmug wrote: »

as opposed to the type of "rape" which happens nowadays sometimes, whereby two people have consensual sex, but the woman decides afterwards she didn't actually want it?

False rape claims are estimated to be in and around 2-8% of all rape allegations, leaving 92-98% to be legitimate. Many rapes are not even reported - I have two friends who have been raped who didn't go to the police; they didn't think they'd be believed. Rape is an awful lot commoner that maybe you'd like to believe.

Also 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, apparently that's in and around the same rate as via as ordinary unprotected intercourse. -I'll see if I can dig up the study that demostrated this now.

Edit: Here's a link to the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248

Wibbs

hoochis wrote: »

I thought legitimate rape was when you had sex with your wife without her consent!

The joke is it was the 90's in this country before marital rape was added as an offence to the law books.

kowloon

southsiderosie wrote: »

But, hey, who needs science when a woman's uterus can magically discern if a sexual encounter was consensual or not?

Perhaps he's implying that a uterus has a conscience. Some are sluttier than others. There's nothing worse than an immoral uterus. We all know the type. A secular uterus.

A god fearing wholesome uterus only churns out moral babies and would never allow itself to be the host to a tool of saytaaaaaan.

Or something along those lines...

RDM_83 again

Wibbs wrote: »

This. The egg is either in the position to be available to the sperm or it ain't, regardless of the situational state of the woman.

Well stress hormones have been scientifically shown to reduce the chances of conception but I'd presume this effect is more long term.

blacklilly

Colmustard wrote: »

chatterpillar wrote: »

I have heard of people being pro-choice. Pro-abortion is a first, for me!

An abortion is never an ideal or happy outcome, and I would think it is almost always going to be a very difficult and sad decision for any woman to make.

Because pro/choice and the moronic meaningless chant of pro/life makes little sense to me.

I say if a woman wants an abortion it is her decision and never a mans no matter the circumstances. So I am pro/woman.

Why is always in the majority of cases men that oppose abortion, if by some freak of nature men were to suddenly be the ones to carry a pregnancy I bet they would change their tune.

Your logic is sexist and discriminatory, you believe men should not be allowed a say on this matter, none of us would be here were it not for men .
Do you believe people only have the right to an opinion if they themselves have had first hand experience of a certain situation?

Wibbs

blacklilly wrote: »

Your logic is sexist and discriminatory, you believe men should not be allowed a say on this matter

To be fair to him, the notion that male partners shouldn't have a say about a termination is common enough.