How do you feel about what Akin said?

The context. Akin was asked about his position on abortion then a follow up was asked about abortion for rape victims.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

“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.”

He's a fucking idiot and no science backs his retarded claim

Yes it does. Stress reduces fertility.

http://www.examiner.com/article/stress-prevents-pregnancy-lowers-fertility

While I don't know if its true or not. Its not a made up statement.

GOP just pulled all of Akins re-election campaign funding.

Funny thing is, he is just trying to protect a position that Paul Ryan holds, that if you are raped you still can't have an abortion.

To bad Akin said what some in the party truly believe. Notice he is the one that gets his funding pulled. BY THE GOP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

even the tea party is calling for him to step down

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

The idea that rape victims cannot get pregnant has long roots. The legal position that pregnancy disproved a claim of rape appears to have been instituted in the UK sometime in the 13th century. One of the earliest British legal texts, Fleta, has a clause in the first book of the second volume stating that:

"If, however, the woman should have conceived at the time alleged in the appeal, it abates, for without a woman's consent she could not conceive."

This was a long-lived legal argument. Samuel Farr's Elements of Medical Jurisprudence contained the same idea as late as 1814:

"For without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely she would become pregnant."

This "absolute rape" is not quite the same as Akin's "legitimate rape". Akin seems to be suggesting that the body suppresses conception or causes a miscarriage, while the earlier idea of Farr relates specifically to the importance of orgasm. Through the medieval and early modern period it was widely thought, by lay people as well as doctors, that women could only conceive if they had an orgasm.

The biological basis for this idea is what the historian Thomas Laqueur has termed the "one sex system". The one sex system suggests that women's reproductive organs are fundamentally based on men's reproductive organs, so the vagina is represented as an inverted penis, the ovaries are testes and so on. Women had "cooler" constitutions, and therefore lacked the heat or force to drive the gonads out of the body, to convert ovaries to testes.

Thinking of the sexual organs as mirrors of each other obviously led to questions about the existence of a female "seed" or ejaculate. There was a disagreement about the roles of male and female seed – did they mingle to create the offspring, or did they contribute different things? Whatever the female seed contributed to conception, it was thought necessary, and so in theory a female orgasm was as important as a male orgasm.

Not everyone agreed with this interpretation. Helkiah Crooke, in his 17th century anatomy book Microcosmographia suggested that women's sexual organs were not simply inverted versions of men's, and said that a woman's orgasm was not always needed, although conception was much more likely, and a pregnancy much more secure, if she had one.

Generally, though, the idea that a women had to orgasm in order to conceive (although not necessarily at exactly the same time as her male partner) was widespread in popular thought and medical literature in the medieval and early modern period. By logical extension, then, if a woman became pregnant, she must have experienced orgasm, and therefore could not have been the victim of an "absolute rape".

Medical theories of sex, reproduction and conception changed gradually through the 18th century, so that by the 19th century the female orgasm was considered much less important for conception, and the female "seed" – if it even existed – was of less significance to the foetus. In popular culture the idea of the essential female orgasm lingered, and seems to still exist in a mutated form today.

Despite the facts, the ancient idea that women have some natural defense against being impregnated by rapists has been endorsed several times in recent years by elected officials who oppose abortion.

During a 1998 Senate campaign in Arkansas, the Republican candidate Dr. Fay Boozman claimed that hormones generated by fear usually prevented rape victims from getting pregnant, according to the doctor’s remarks in a report in The Times that year:

His reasoning: Pregnancy rarely occurs after rape because the stress of the assault triggers a biochemical reaction in the victim that makes conception unlikely. The Senator, who also is an ophthalmologist, said he knew this to be the case from anecdotal information he had picked up over the years and from his own medical residency in the 1970’s at the University of Arkansas Medical Center.
After he lost that election, Dr. Boozman was appointed to run the Arkansas Department of Health by the governor at the time, Mike Huckabee.

As David Waldman, a Daily Kos editor, noted on Twitter, the argument Mr. Akin advanced last weekend was even more similar to one floated in 1995 by a dentist named Henry Aldridge, who was then a Republican member of North Carolina’s state legislature. As The Associated Press reported at the time, during a 1995 debate over a proposal to eliminate a state abortion fund for poor women, Mr. Aldridge claimed, “The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant.” When Mr. Aldridge was pressed to explain his comments, he added: “To get pregnant, it takes a little cooperation. And there ain’t much cooperation in a rape.”

The Buzzfeed blogger who writes as Southpaw traced the idea back another decade, finding a 1988 report from the Philadelphia Daily News on a Republican state legislator in Pennsylvania, Stephen Freind, who claimed that the chances of a woman getting pregnant from rape were, “one in millions and millions and millions.” Mr. Freind gave a version of the same explanation then that Mr. Akin relied on: the trauma of rape, he claimed, causes women to “secrete a certain secretion” that kills sperm. When the newspaper asked a professor of obstetrics and gynecology for a response, he said simply: “There’s no basis for that. That’s nonsense.”

Despite constant debunking, this old husbands’ tale has endured for centuries. “The legal position that pregnancy disproved a claim of rape appears to have been instituted in the U.K. sometime in the 13th century,” the medical historian Vanessa Heggie wrote in a blog post for The Guardian on Monday. She explained that one of Britain’s earliest legal texts, written in about 1290, included a clause based on this bit of folk wisdom: “If, however, the woman should have conceived at the time alleged in the appeal, it abates, for without a woman’s consent she could not conceive.”

Ms. Heggie added: “the idea that a women had to orgasm in order to conceive (although not necessarily at exactly the same time as her male partner) was widespread in popular thought and medical literature in the medieval and early modern period. By logical extension, then, if a woman became pregnant, she must have experienced orgasm, and therefore could not have been the victim of an ‘absolute rape.’”

While Mr. Akin’s remarks about rape drew the most attention, another part of his answer explaining his opposition to abortion also contained some curious logic. When the subject of abortion was first raised (about two minutes in to a longer clip of the Missouri television interview), the congressman digressed to say:

One of the things that I love about this country is the fact that Americans do consider life really important. And it’s not because of some theoretical thing, that you’re on a talk show and somebody asks you about it, but you have September 11th, and you’ve got these guys that are running into a building that’s about to collapse; they find somebody in a wheelchair — they never check their ID, or anything like that, or whether they’re important — they grab ‘em and they get ‘em to safety and they run back and get another one.

I don't see the big deal. He's anti murdering babies, even if the baby is from a rape. He heard a doctor say women have a defense against getting pregnant from rape. The stress relation I posted could easily back that claim up. Obviously not everyone holds that to be true though. Now I hear people getting pissed off about legitimate rape. I think he's clarifying physical violence rape vs stautory or date rape.

You gotta stop posting full articles. Just link them and post the exert you want.

his own party saw what a problem he had just become with that one sentence.

Seriously maybe the only bigger fuck up in politics was when General Motti said, "Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn't helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels hidden fortre- eh, uhh,......"


and shit, Tarkin still kept Motti in the Galactic Empire, GOP is like get da fuck outta here Akin.

shit just got real, Piers Morgan aint playin

Akin has apologized for his remarks, and insisted he'll stay in the race. However, the media firestorm shows little sign of abating after two days.

Staring at the empty chair, a nonplussed Morgan issued this challenge to Akin: "Congressman, you have an open invitation to join me in that chair whenever you feel up to it, because if you don't keep your promise to be on the show, then you are what we would call in Britain a gutless little twerp."

I wouldn't do it just based on the fact I wouldn't be spoken to like that.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/

not a real story, but implications hold merit.

Birdofthad wrote:

GOP just pulled all of Akins re-election campaign funding.

Funny thing is, he is just trying to protect a position that Paul Ryan holds, that if you are raped you still can't have an abortion.

To bad Akin said what some in the party truly believe. Notice he is the one that gets his funding pulled. BY THE GOP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-todd-akins-rape-comments-abortion-is-back-in-the-campaign-spotlight/2012/08/20/c497bae4-eac7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html

To be fair, and why this has nothing to do with Paul Ryan(and you shouldnt try to make it about him to suit your agenda) is that Akins position on abortion, even in the case of rape, is not what stirred up this controversy. Nobody would be talking about this if he had not put his foot in his mouth about rape not leading to pregnancy. Ryan has never said that.

I support the right to abortion, though it does bother me that a lot of rats use it as the new birth control and are trying to put it on the tax payer.

You have to realize that Akin is in a key race for the senate which the GOPbadly wants to win.
He was trying to justify a pretty unpopular position (against abortion in case of rape). a position that Paul Ryan supports. Akin went out and commuted political suicide (what's your feelings on that kind of suicide freak?) , the GOP and even Rush Limbaugh had said he is wrong and should withdraw from the race.

Abortion was settled 40 years ago, there's still a portion of the GOP that can't handle that.
That's the real non issue.

I'm suggesting that he get out," Palin said. "He should have reached that deadline today, I believe, personally, and gotten out of the race, but because he did not do that, Greta, then we have to figure out, okay, well, what is next? Again, without trying to pile on Todd Akin, and what he's going through now, maybe it's a third-party run of Sarah Steelman, that I can get behind."

Steelman tweeted about the controversy, calling Akin's remarks "inexcusable, insulting and embarrassing to the GOP." However, she's demurred at the prospect of re-entering the race.

"I won't gloat about it, but I was right," Palin said of her earlier endorsement of Steelman.

With her latest comments, Palin joined the chorus of Republicans calling for Akin to exit the contest, with many assuing that his remarks have put him on the fast track to defeat in his race against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) Mitt Romney issued a statement today calling for Akin to leave the race, urging the congressman to "very seriously consider what course would be in the best interest of our country."





damn even Palin and Romney are piling on Akin

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Pretty fucking sick comment section as expected. Those people essentially affirm her message and worse.

it is true a woman is more likely to get pregnant when she has an orgasm because of cervial contractions but it certainly isn't the case that you can't get pregnant from rape, a woman is no less likely to get pregnant from rape than she is after drunken, loveless sex in a catholic marriage.

this is just another example of why politics should never be driven by religion imo. would akin be so anti abortion if it wasn't a religious belief? because he goes to church every sunday he probably considers himself a deeply religious and righteous man, and when politicians mistake their religious beliefs for knowing what they are talking about, there's always a risk ridiculous comments like this will come out of their mouths.

cheekynffc wrote:

it is true a woman is more likely to get pregnant when she has an orgasm because of cervial contractions but it certainly isn't the case that you can't get pregnant from rape, a woman is no less likely to get pregnant from rape than she is after drunken, loveless sex in a catholic marriage.

this is just another example of why politics should never be driven by religion imo. would akin be so anti abortion if it wasn't a religious belief? because he goes to church every sunday he probably considers himself a deeply religious and righteous man, and when politicians mistake their religious beliefs for knowing what they are talking about, there's always a risk ridiculous comments like this will come out of their mouths.

Akin never said they couldn't get pregnant. He said a woman has defenses and that it is rare which it is.

If that is your opinion about religion and politics then only atheists should run. Religion isn't just a thing on Sundays. Its you whole life. It effects the way you see things and how you make your decisions.

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

it is true a woman is more likely to get pregnant when she has an orgasm because of cervial contractions but it certainly isn't the case that you can't get pregnant from rape, a woman is no less likely to get pregnant from rape than she is after drunken, loveless sex in a catholic marriage.

this is just another example of why politics should never be driven by religion imo. would akin be so anti abortion if it wasn't a religious belief? because he goes to church every sunday he probably considers himself a deeply religious and righteous man, and when politicians mistake their religious beliefs for knowing what they are talking about, there's always a risk ridiculous comments like this will come out of their mouths.

Akin never said they couldn't get pregnant. He said a woman has defenses and that it is rare which it is.

If that is your opinion about religion and politics then only atheists should run. Religion isn't just a thing on Sundays. Its you whole life. It effects the way you see things and how you make your decisions.

i wouldn't go that far but if a man can't distinguish between religious belief and fact he isn't fit for congress.

he's been voted into office to serve the people of missouri, not to serve god, and i would assume missouri has the same problems as everywhere else in terms of unfit parents shitting out kids into poverty by the score. all the physical evidence indicates there aren't enough abortions being conducted and people in akin's position have a responsibility to find socio economic solutions as opposed to pushing their religious beliefs.

just to add, it's nothing personal against akin, there are some seriously fucked up views and bills in and around this type of subject matter throughout america

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1345214

conservative christian extremism is no healthier or more righteous than muslim extremism.

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

it is true a woman is more likely to get pregnant when she has an orgasm because of cervial contractions but it certainly isn't the case that you can't get pregnant from rape, a woman is no less likely to get pregnant from rape than she is after drunken, loveless sex in a catholic marriage.

this is just another example of why politics should never be driven by religion imo. would akin be so anti abortion if it wasn't a religious belief? because he goes to church every sunday he probably considers himself a deeply religious and righteous man, and when politicians mistake their religious beliefs for knowing what they are talking about, there's always a risk ridiculous comments like this will come out of their mouths.

Akin never said they couldn't get pregnant. He said a woman has defenses and that it is rare which it is.

If that is your opinion about religion and politics then only atheists should run. Religion isn't just a thing on Sundays. Its you whole life. It effects the way you see things and how you make your decisions.

i wouldn't go that far but if a man can't distinguish between religious belief and fact he isn't fit for congress.

he's been voted into office to serve the people of missouri, not to serve god, and i would assume missouri has the same problems as everywhere else in terms of unfit parents shitting out kids into poverty by the score. all the physical evidence indicates there aren't enough abortions being conducted and people in akin's position have a responsibility to find socio economic solutions as opposed to pushing their religious beliefs.

Last I checked it isn't a religious belief that it's rare for women to get pregnant from rape.

But such an incredibly silly notion is in part spawned through his religious belief. He made the statement to back up his perspective on the issue of which his religious belief is the basis.

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

it is true a woman is more likely to get pregnant when she has an orgasm because of cervial contractions but it certainly isn't the case that you can't get pregnant from rape, a woman is no less likely to get pregnant from rape than she is after drunken, loveless sex in a catholic marriage.

this is just another example of why politics should never be driven by religion imo. would akin be so anti abortion if it wasn't a religious belief? because he goes to church every sunday he probably considers himself a deeply religious and righteous man, and when politicians mistake their religious beliefs for knowing what they are talking about, there's always a risk ridiculous comments like this will come out of their mouths.

Akin never said they couldn't get pregnant. He said a woman has defenses and that it is rare which it is.

If that is your opinion about religion and politics then only atheists should run. Religion isn't just a thing on Sundays. Its you whole life. It effects the way you see things and how you make your decisions.

i wouldn't go that far but if a man can't distinguish between religious belief and fact he isn't fit for congress.

he's been voted into office to serve the people of missouri, not to serve god, and i would assume missouri has the same problems as everywhere else in terms of unfit parents shitting out kids into poverty by the score. all the physical evidence indicates there aren't enough abortions being conducted and people in akin's position have a responsibility to find socio economic solutions as opposed to pushing their religious beliefs.

Last I checked it isn't a religious belief that it's rare for women to get pregnant from rape.

statistically speaking it's rare for a woman to be raped, never mind get pregnant from being raped, i really don't think that's the point here though.

i don't have a problem with people who are pro life, that's their viewpoint and i respect it even if i don't agree with it. i don't have a problem with akins religious views, he's free to hold those beliefs. his comments however could be viewed by victims of rape as extremely insensitive though.

he's a congressman, not an archbishop, at the end of the he has to be able to take a step back and evaluate what's best for the community he represents. i can tell you 100% he doesn't have any evidence that his religious beliefs are fact.