Did Akin's blunder show how unwilling we are to openly discuss serious topics?

Seriously. My question is not about this debate but about our ability to debate anything. I think we've lost it.
How common is pregnancy due to rape? More or less than consentual sex? Is this a valid legal exception that should be in the laws or are we only talking about a few cases a year which can be administered as needed by courts?
Maybe he misspoke. His actual point seemed to be about 'statutory' vs 'forced' rape. The idea he expressed is wierd and I can't think that the female body could 'shut that whole thing down' but there are natural processes which occur during consentual sex which do promote pregnancy which would not be present during a horrific and traumatizing attack. Statutory rape is still abusive and evil but it is most often consentual sex albiet with someone who should not be consenting to such things at thier age. The guy used really bad choice of words with 'legitamate' but the point is not invalid. Why can't we discuss it? I would think there is a somewhat reduced likelyhood of pregnancy during an assault than during consentual intercourse but I have no idea what the actual numbers would be. It might really be a small difference and there may be other factors which negate that difference. I'm guessing that some super pro-life lobbiest got a chance to feed him some 'Facts' and he was dumb enough to believe it without question.

The rape and incest exceptions have been used for years by pro-choice groups as wedge tactics. Its a good argument technique. They say 'no abortion ever' and you say 'well what about this very extreme scenario?' and they say 'ok, if that extreme ever occured then fine, in that case sure' then you simply say 'ok, so you don't really mean NEVER, you're open to the idea in some cases, i just have to create more cases'

Akin was fed a counter to that tactic which is to say, 'no, that extreme scenario is too unlikely to be valid'. He botched the delivery of that counter and in fact the counter info is just to weak to be a valid counter. It was a major fail in politics.

I think we could have had pundits talking about these points. Saying, is it true? Is it valid? But instead you get this rabid attack machine that says "gotcha". I don't really care that he was discussing rape or abortion or whatever. We've lost our ability to have conversation. He is a political leader and he raised a point. I don't think it was a good point but we could have at least talked about it.

2012-08-21T12:49:37Z

so far you all are making my point... you dismiss the point and call it stupid and demonize an entire class of citizens. You could calmly and rationally tell us why you think the concept to be invalid but instead we get..... this. Open a diologue with someone whom you disagree. Learn or teach but stop the yelling.

2012-08-21T13:04:42Z

I'm seriously open to any discussion you can imagine. If you think it's stupid or already settled then you are deluding yourself. I actually think abortion has a role in our society but that the current arrangement is not adaquate to protect the rights or health of all those involved. I am amazed at the number of responses here that say, shut up, I refuse to talk about it, We're right you're wrong. Are you children? I know its serious stuff but the absolute shut down of discussion is amazing.

2012-08-21T14:08:42Z

@ioerr : I think you have summarized my point quite well. 200 years ago people did not believe in the female orgasm. Now it is known that the orgasm actually will push sperm to the ovulating ovary. That's pretty useful in reprductive terms. The point is that its not some silly supurstition fueling a lynch mob. I don't care if you wanted to spend all of two seconds to effectively negate the weak argument made by Akins, and yes I know its weak, but to lambast and demonize is just unneeded vitriol. Offering a well reasoned and factual dismissal serves to convince others who have zero exposure to this discussion that in fact the argument offered is not valid. The left has only managed to strengthen this unfounded belief in the same fashion as every other baseless urban legend and conspiracy theory. Calling me a Jack A.. is exactly validating my point that infact we are not able to talk about serious concepts.

2012-08-22T06:33:42Z

@Crbryn: Ok thanks for the research. No I did not look it up. Mostly cause its not vital info to me. Everyone knows rape results in pregnancy. The conquering armies have been doing it for millenia spreading thier genetics to the conquered. The question of "is it less common?" only has merit if the margin is such that the case of pregnancy by rape is actually low enough in frequency that it is a statistical outlier. The data you cite would lead to it being a significant portion of women raped are forced to concieve. That stated, it is reasonable to provide for this circumstance within the law. Regardless of ones opinion on the right answer as regards abortion the question about frequency for any event is worth concidering when deciding whether to encode the situation into laws. If it were one or two a year then a court could adjudicate it without undue burndon on the legal system. If as you establish, it is, sadly all to common, then a writen law allows for the multitude of ca

2012-08-22T06:33:43Z

@Crbryn: Ok thanks for the research. No I did not look it up. Mostly cause its not vital info to me. Everyone knows rape results in pregnancy. The conquering armies have been doing it for millenia spreading thier genetics to the conquered. The question of "is it less common?" only has merit if the margin is such that the case of pregnancy by rape is actually low enough in frequency that it is a statistical outlier. The data you cite would lead to it being a significant portion of women raped are forced to concieve. That stated, it is reasonable to provide for this circumstance within the law. Regardless of ones opinion on the right answer as regards abortion the question about frequency for any event is worth concidering when d

2012-08-22T07:12:15Z

So some debate is possible but it is limited to just a few people. The majority respond with emotionally charged snaps. Its interesting to me to look at how we talk as much as what we have to say. Reading back over the original question I find that the responses pounce on tidbits that elicit emotion rather than the root question. I don't consider myself to be in support of the initial claim made by Akin. I just think if we step back and view it objectively we could respond civally and say what we think or what we know and it would be done and there is not even a fight to be had on this topic. The 1/2 the polulation knew he was incorrect the moment they heard it. The rest of the population had no clue and now 1/4 thinks he's evil

Cirbryn2012-08-21T14:15:34Z

Favorite Answer

> Did Akin's blunder show how unwilling we are to openly discuss serious topics?

Akin’s “blunder” doesn’t reflect a rationally defensible position, so there isn’t a serious discussion to be had there.

> How common is pregnancy due to rape?

“There are … numerous studies regarding rape and pregnancy. Some data show that rape can not only result in pregnancy, but it may even lead to higher rates of pregnancy than consensual sex.”

“A 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) reported that “among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.” This study said the rate of becoming pregnant after sexual assault is considerable, estimating that “the national rape-pregnancy rate is 5.0 percent per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45).”” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/21/todd-akin-challenged-by-doctors-on-rape-and-pregnancy/

Note that this information was not difficult to find. Had Akin bothered to look he would have found it. Had you bothered to look, you would have found it. No discussion necessary.

> His actual point seemed to be about 'statutory' vs 'forced' rape.

I suppose it’s possible. I tend to think he was trying to differentiate between situations where a woman fights as aggressively as she can, versus situations where she submits without putting up a serious fight due to having a gun to her head or a knife to her throat or because she was drugged or because her children were threatened, or for any number of other reasons. If you want to have a discussion, that’s a better topic: why do some people seem to assume that it’s not rape unless the victim fights and screams? Is that an assumption that you make yourself, even subconsciously?

> The guy used really bad choice of words with 'legitamate' but the point is not invalid.

Yes, the point was completely invalid, as I’ve demonstrated above using a 3 second Google search. As for the choice of words, what type of mindset do you have to have to come up with a word like that? How out of touch do you have to be to imply by your choice of words that the incredible trauma of rape, undergone by thousands of women every year, is somehow not legitimate if the woman didn’t fight back forcefully enough?

But let’s stretch the benefit of the doubt as far as possible and assume Akin was only differentiating “legitimate” rape from statutory rape. Does that help him? His ultimate point was that, in an abortion ban, an exception for rape isn’t necessary because victims of “legitimate” rape don’t get pregnant. Ignoring the blatant falsity and poor judgment of such a statement, we’re still left with the idea that it’s OK to ban abortions without exception, because “legitimate” rapes (and thus not statutory rapes) don’t result in pregnancy. Apparently rapes of children do result in pregnancy, but Akin doesn’t think that’s important enough to provide an exception to the proposed ban.

You think about that. If you have an underage daughter, then think about it extra hard.

Anonymous2012-08-21T12:47:26Z

It shows that the republican party is full of horses rear ends who blithely spew worthless opinions on subjects they know nothing about. And you're just providing another example of that.

The idea that rape made it "less likely," or impossible, for women to conceive was once indeed "taken seriously," in the same time period when witchcraft was taken seriously, and when people were subjected to absurd ordeals to prove they weren't possessed.

It has not been "taken seriously" by modern medical science in over two hundred years. If you think you know better, please feel free to spend 8 or 20 years getting through medical school, and you can then enrich the medical community with your valuable knowledge on the subject. You jack a..

What the hell do you mean, "they didn't believe in the female orgasm?" What orifice are you pulling that "factoid" out of? They knew all about the god damn female orgasm. Half the human race was HAVING female orgasms on a regular basis. They believed that if the woman had an orgasm, then it wasn't rape. Apparently you do too, or you wouldn't stress the god almighty importance of the orgasm and all that great "special help" you claim it gives to conception. And where the hell do you get off telling women they weren't raped if they had an orgasm anyway? What the hell's that got to do with it? And yeah, they believed that the woman couldn't get pregnant without an orgasm, ergo, if she had a kid then it wasn't rape. Which is exactly the same line of crap you're trying to find an excuse for, and you've got no more back up for that line of crap than they did. It is indeed, nothing more or less than a stupid superstition for a lynch mob, in your own words, and it has never been taken seriously, in any other context.

bad girl2012-08-21T12:49:56Z

The very wisest thing you could do right now is delete this question. As soon as you grow a uterus, think about it and decide if you really want to post this foolishness.

There are many subjects we should, as should our media, be discussing. Not in any order of importance:
Economy
Jobs being shipped out of the country
Deteriorating infrastructure.
Poor quality of our education system.
The home foreclosure crisis
Unfairlyt structured personal income tax policy

eye welcome their hate2012-08-21T12:43:41Z

Um, noooooo... it shows how unwilling HE is to discuss serious topics.


Akin is trying to turn back the clock on the reproductive rights 'topic' fifty years and the answer is still NO. We had all these arguments decades ago, it is settled and we're not going to revisit it now or ever. That is not 'unwilling' to address an issue. It is just 'unwilling' to regress. We're not going to legitimize this goon or any of his 'issues' by pretending he is worthy of serious consideration.



EDIT: I appreciate your appeal is articulate, disciplined and coherent. That establishes YOU as serious but it establishes neither Akin nor this subject matter as serious. I respect your position and sympathize with your passion on this subject but the fact remains we had this argument decades ago, it lasted decades, it is settled and once progress is determined, civilization never goes backwards. It's not as simple as "I'm right / You're wrong", it's just that we've already exhausted this argument and nothing constructive is going to come from repeating it. You're probably young and the subject doesn't feel exhausted to you yet so you're just going to have to read about the history on this if you need something of more substance to process it. Sorry. Try another subject. I'm real longwinded and patient on most subjects and I love to argue but just not to such an extent that I think repeating arguments I already had eight times thirty years ago are worth that time and effort.

logan2012-08-21T12:46:55Z

I really don't care what Akin said or what he meant. What I care about is that abortion remain legal and has no limitations (beside gestational age) set by ignorant men in Washington or any state capital around the nation. It's a woman's body, future and life dammit. Not yours or anyone else's.

Whether you like it or not, extreme cases do exist. The numbers don't matter. If a woman feels the need to have an abortion, for any reason, no one should be able to tell her she can't and no one should think they have the right to tell her what she should do.

Show more answers (13)