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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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
@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
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