"Legitimate Rape" victims rarely get pregnant

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

As someone who did some research on this subject, in the past, there are actually some scientific studies that reflect what he stated as being accurate.
There are also some studies, (albeit fewer), that reflect the opposite.
With that being the case, why do you suppose the outrage over what he said?

Let me clue you in.
It is not really about rape, it is about abortion.
Even in the "church" today, we have become desensitized to this issue.
We do not really believe that life begins at conception.
We have bought into the idea that life begins when the "fetus" exits the womb.


Now, this guy was not bright enough to understand that he was treading on a minefield, so he probably needs to withdraw.
However, he was not wrong on his statement.
He was just wrong in voicing it in a public interview.

No comments on the above?

[canam]

so who participated in this scientific study ?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

No comments on the above?

I think when the guy said "legitimate" rape, it was a poor choice of words and what he said about a woman's body shutting down or preventing pregnancy sounds far fetched. But I think what he was getting at was making sure that women couldn't claim rape just to get an abortion.

But liberals and the MSM are going to sensationalize any and every gaffe or statements that could be twisted as gaffes by a Republican in order to divert attention from the real danger in America---our poor economy and our diminished standing in the world.

My sense is that a majority of Americans will make this election about the economy. The Obama campaign cannot tout any economic achievements, so they must do all they can to focus on other things, nibbling around the edges and trying to provoke a full blown scandal or controversy because they know if the conversation is about the economy they lose.

The President paid a "sudden" visit into the WH Briefing Room yesterday. It was the first time in a long time since he had faced reporters questions (besides interviews with Entertainment Tonight and People magazine, hardly hardball journalism). Reporters have been bugging Jay Carney about why the president had been avoiding tough questioning. "Suddenly" he appears to talk to reporters yesterday after the Akin gaffe and the skinny dipping Republicans. And of course one of the first questions from a MSM reporter was about Akin. Not about high unemployment, slow growth, unfulfilled promises about job creation, high gas prices, etc. issues that are every day ones for most Americans. But for a liberally educated, New York City/Washington DC Press culture woman, the MO Congressman's gaffe is the big story of the day. And of course Obama knew this would be the focus, so he faced the reporters for the first time in a long while.

I watched Morning Joe on MSNBC yesterday and today. The lead story? Akin. I flipped to some of the MSNBC shows in the evening last night. More Akin. Even Joe Klein said that the Obama Campaign was only regretting the fact that this didn't happen in October. Why? Because the focus would be diverted from the real issue---the economy and Obama's complete and utter incompetence in handling the challenges it has presented right before November 6.

Mark it down, this will be one of many many attempts to jump all over something the Republicans do, or the Romney/Ryan campaign does that in the big scheme of things is chump change compared to the real issue: THE ECONOMY.

If most Americans vote on the economy and Obama's performance over the past four years...he loses. And they know it.

[Cindy]

I wonder if he can define "legitimate rape"?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Cindy

I wonder if he can define "legitimate rape"?

I haven't followed the story closely because although it's a dumb statement to make on a highy sensitive subject, I see it for what it is---a diversion. I believe if asked he is trying to say that some women could claim rape just to get an abortion.

I am not for abortion in the case of rape because it punishes the innocent baby for something it had no control over. I know a woman who has a seven year old son who is the product of a rape. She loves her son and I'm thankful she didn't abort him. Furthermore I have a friend who is a preacher who is the product of a rape. He is a wonderful man of God, a great husband and a super dad. Glad he wasn't aborted.

And when it comes to abortions, somewhere in the 90% plus range abortions are conducted out of convenience---not rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are because having a child would be an embarrassment, an inconvenience or a financial challenge. Inexcusable in my book for killing a baby when individuals could make the choice to not engage in sexual behavior when there isn't a willingness to be responsible for a baby should one become the product of such activity.

[MissBrattified]

Mr. Akin was referencing some old studies and I'm sure he felt his comments were "legitimate." The problem is, even if the science he's referencing is correct (and that's debatable), it immediately flips into a blame the victim rhetoric which says: If a woman gets pregnant when she's raped, it's because she secretly enjoyed it. To continue the reasoning, if a woman's body somehow manages to enjoy the rape (which has happened), that negates the idea of it being rape. Mr. Akin, in his haste to illustrate the minuscule amount of pregnancies resulting from rape, used information that was only going to inflame. It was short sighted because it made him an easy target and allows pro-abortion factions to continue talking about how uneducated pro-lifers are.

John Wilke is one of the doctors who published an article about this in 1999:

"...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.”

...“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.”

Unfortunately, while this MAY be a factor in the low number of pregnancies resulting from rape (not proven scientifically), this does nothing to help rape victims and says nothing impactful about rape. So what if a woman's body "shuts down" or her hormones don't work properly during rape? There's still a possibility she could become pregnant and heaven forbid women should want to HIDE that fact for fear someone would think she enjoyed the experience. This scientific "fact" actually HURTS the pro-life movement because it makes pregnant rape victims MORE ashamed of what happened and therefore more likely to hide the pregnancy by aborting the baby.

Very short-sighted by Mr. Akin and this "science" needs to be left in 1999--even if it is illustrated by other scientists or doctors to be true. It's unhelpful.

A far better explanation on the low number of pregnancies resulting from rape is pure statistics:

•A recent Justice Dept. report returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes. Nat. Crime Victim Report, US Justice Dept. Aug. 95, R. Bachman
And how many pregnancies result?
•About 1 or 2 for each 1000. This translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.
•A study of 1,000 rape victims, who were treated medically right after the rape, reported no pregnancies. L. Kuchera, "Postcoital Contraception with Diethylstilbestrol," JAMA, October 25, 1971
•In another series of 117 assault rape victims, of whom only 17 were given hormone treatment after the attack, none became pregnant. Everett & Jimerson, "The Rape Victim," 237 OB & GYN, vol. 50, no. 1, July 1977, pp. 88-90
Only one or two out of 1000? Please explain.
There are about 100 million women in the United States old enough to be at risk for assault rape. Let’s use a figure of 200,000 forcible rapes every year. The studies available agree that there are no more than two pregnancies per 1,000 assault rapes.
So much for the numbers. Let’s look at it from another angle and see if that figure makes sense.
•Of these 200,000 women who were raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk of pregnancy.
•A woman is capable of being fertilized only three days out of her 30-day month. So divide 133,000 by 10, and 13,300 women remain.
•One-fourth of all women in the United States of child-bearing age have been sterilized. That drops the figure to 10,000.
•Only half of the assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm. Cut it in half again. We are own to 5,000.
•Fifteen percent of men are sterile; that drops the figure to 4,250. Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600.
•Another 15% are on the pill and/or are already pregnant. Now the figure is 3,070. Now factor in something that all adults know. It takes from five to ten months for an average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Using the smaller figure, to be conservative, divide the 3,000 figure by 5, and the number drops to about 600.

In a healthy, peaceful marriage, the miscarriage rate ranges up to about 15%. In this case, we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate is higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If she loses 20% of 600, there are 450 left. Finally, we must factor in one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that is psychic trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get pregnant 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 which 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. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one really knows, but this factor certainly cuts the last figure by at least 50%, and probably more, leaving a final figure of 225 women pregnant each year, a number that closely matches the 200 found in clinical studies. --http://realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I haven't followed the story closely because although it's a dumb statement to make on a highy sensitive subject, I see it for what it is---a diversion. I believe if asked he is trying to say that some women could claim rape just to get an abortion.

I am not for abortion in the case of rape because it punishes the innocent baby for something it had no control over. I know a woman who has a seven year old son who is the product of a rape. She loves her son and I'm thankful she didn't abort him. Furthermore I have a friend who is a preacher who is the product of a rape. He is a wonderful man of God, a great husband and a super dad. Glad he wasn't aborted.

And when it comes to abortions, somewhere in the 90% plus range abortions are conducted out of convenience---not rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are because having a child would be an embarrassment, an inconvenience or a financial challenge. Inexcusable in my book for killing a baby when individuals could make the choice to not engage in sexual behavior when there isn't a willingness to be responsible for a baby should one become the product of such activity.

A better course of action for reducing the number of abortions would be to concede on the rape point and require women wanting such an abortion to first file a police report. Very simple. According to the stats I read this morning, less than half of the pregnancies resulting from rape are aborted. Let's increase the number of rape-pregnancies to a generous 450/year in the U.S, leaving out the deduction for trauma. Even if half of them abort, you're looking at 225 abortions/year nationwide.

Abortion clinics would go out of business with those numbers.

[aegsm76]

MB - good points.
I just think it is interesting that he is being "demonized" for something has some scientific dispute behind it.
As we all know, he should have just hidden behind the mantra of political correctness, instead of telling us what he believes.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

MB - good points.
I just think it is interesting that he is being "demonized" for something has some scientific dispute behind it.
As we all know, he should have just hidden behind the mantra of political correctness, instead of telling us what he believes.

I tend to blame him somewhat, though--or at least his staff. Poor fact-checking will get you into trouble. 1999 science is old science in pretty much every field. A highly-opinionated article published by a doctor without a lot of data to back it up doesn't qualify as science at all. It's an expert opinion at best.

ABC News published their take on this and offer some different, interesting data:

"A 2003 study using data from the United States National Violence Against Women survey found that the rate at which women get pregnant after an incident of sexual assault is more than double that of a single act of consensual sex. In this report, published in the journal Human Nature, the per-incident rape-pregnancy rate was 6.42 percent, and as high as 7.98 percent with statistical correction. Of women having consensual sex, the per-incident pregnancy rate was 3.1 percent.
Dr. Lauren Streicher, an assistant professor at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said she was not surprised by the data.
“Women that have consensual sex are usually aware of where they are in a cycle…part of consensual sex is being able to say no. It makes sense,” she said."

Also from the ABC News article: "In response to Akin’s comments, ACOG released a statement on Monday: “Each year in the U.S., 10,000-15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest.”

IF that much larger number is true, as opposed to the stats I posted earlier in the thread, it is still a much smaller number than the 1.2 million or so abortions that took place in 2008.

IMO, the pro-life movement gets bogged down in an all-or-nothing mentality. A step at a time would be more effective. Start with eliminating the abortions for convenience or "unconditional abortions." Most Americans disapprove of abortion for mere convenience. --Source It would be a much easier argument to win.

[aegsm76]

"IMO, the pro-life movement gets bogged down in an all-or-nothing mentality. A step at a time would be more effective. Start with eliminating the abortions for convenience or "unconditional abortions." Most Americans disapprove of abortion for mere convenience. --Source It would be a much easier argument to win. "

Totally agree here!!!