GOP: "Legitimate" rape will not cause pregnancy

Not a chance. He's already "clarified" and said he was attempting to reference "forcible" rape and chose words totally inappropriate for what it was he was trying to say. Believe him or not, he isn't withdrawing. And yes, political opponents will seek to define the sum of the man according to one interview, but that too is part of the rough and tumble arena we call politics. Just as in the private sector, one mistake can, and in many instances should, end an otherwise promising career in the public sector if the mistake is large enough.

FWIW, though I am an ardent supporter of the view that creation is the point at which each of us is endowed with our inalienable rights by Nature and Nature's God, I recognize that the decision to destroy the human life that is created through the crime of rape is properly an extension of the natural right of self defense that each of us was created with. A majority of those who label themselves pro-life share, if not the logic I employ, the same position that rape should be one of the exceptions under which an abortion is allowed by law. In our society today the number of individuals which hold either extreme view, that abortion be allowed without restrictions of any kind and that no abortions should be allowed at all, are roughly equal. The majority opinion is that it should only be allowed under certain circumstances and the most popular "certain circumstances" are when the life or health of the mother is imperiled, rape and incest.

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin want him to quit.

PrintSmith wrote: Not a chance. He's already "clarified" and said he was attempting to reference "forcible" rape and chose words totally inappropriate for what it was he was trying to say. Believe him or not, he isn't withdrawing. And yes, political opponents will seek to define the sum of the man according to one interview, but that too is part of the rough and tumble arena we call politics. Just as in the private sector, one mistake can, and in many instances should, end an otherwise promising career in the public sector if the mistake is large enough.

He can "clarify" all he wants. Legitimate, forceable, those aren't the words that people are upset about. It's the idea that a woman can't get pregnant from rape because the woman's body rejects the sperm. He is an idiot and so is anyone who defends this POS. His words are consistant with his record, so it's not just one interview that defines this asshole. RMoney is running like Usain Bolt from the guy and his stance, the problem is that his running mate is tied to Akin through co-sponsored legislation that is about the very subject that Akin brought to the forefront with his opinion. The NRSC has already said it will not support him with the $5mil they have set aside for his campaign. The TEA Party Express has called for him to step down. If he clings to his campaign, it is a gimme for the Democrats. If he stays in the race, it gives the Democrats the issue. The top Repubs are gonna lean hard on him and he will tearfully bow out in a day or two, as he should.

In an interview with the NYT, Romney supporter and former head of the National Right to Life further expounds on this theory embraced by leading conservatives:

“This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight,” Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”

Leading experts on reproductive health, however, dismissed this logic.

“There are no words for this — it is just nuts,” said Dr. Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Mr. Akin’s statement did have supporters. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, defended Mr. Akin on his program “Focal Point,” citing “John Willke, who is an M.D. by the way — a lot of these ignoramuses on Twitter are not.”

He read from Dr. Willke’s 1999 article, which described what is “certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma.”

He continued with the article: “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.”

Mr. Fischer concluded: “In other words, ladies and gentleman, Todd Akin was exactly right.”

And what does Romney think of Dr. Wilke:

In 2007, however, Romney’s campaign had embraced Willke – who served as president of the National Right to Life Committee for a decade. In a statement announcing Willke’s endorsement, his campaign said the doctor would be “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... z24CUpLOzV


So Wilke/Akins speak on behalf of Romney in terms of abortion.

Akin is a rotten politician. He spit out something that a considerable number of people find offensive. There are many politicians that hold an extreme view on one subject or another - they learn to temper their remarks. Akin didn't learn that necessary skill to stay in politics, so he has to quit.

Comeback of the year if Akin can bounce back from his comments. What do you think his chances of being elected Missouri senator are now? There are still a couple months before the election for the furor to die down and Missouri is a pretty religious state.

FredHayek wrote: Comeback of the year if Akin can bounce back from his comments. What do you think his chances of being elected Missouri senator are now? There are still a couple months before the election for the furor to die down and Missouri is a pretty religious state.

Politicians can come back from anything if they have time to kiss enough ass, blowing sunshine up there while they're at it so the sound byte driven self absorbed voters that have the attention span of a gnat only remember the latest and greatest proise that has no possibility of being realized.

Probably all it would take is for Claire McCaskill to make a politically incorrect statement too.

And I could see a national fundraising campaign starting from conservative Christians.

Soulshiner wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Not a chance. He's already "clarified" and said he was attempting to reference "forcible" rape and chose words totally inappropriate for what it was he was trying to say. Believe him or not, he isn't withdrawing. And yes, political opponents will seek to define the sum of the man according to one interview, but that too is part of the rough and tumble arena we call politics. Just as in the private sector, one mistake can, and in many instances should, end an otherwise promising career in the public sector if the mistake is large enough.

He can "clarify" all he wants. Legitimate, forceable, those aren't the words that people are upset about. It's the idea that a woman can't get pregnant from rape because the woman's body rejects the sperm.

Which is a distortion of what the man actually said. What he said was that women becoming pregnant from rape was rare. He may be an idiot as to why it is rare, but he is correct in stating that it is rare.