Todd Akin

Todd Akin Wants Your Forgiveness

"Used the wrong words in the wrong way and for that I apologize."

|

Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin released a new television ad today begging everybody's forgiveness for his dumbass comments about rape. Politico apparently landed the scoop, but it's all over the Internet now:

Incoherent quote: "The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold."

Politico also points out that the latest polls show Akin is still has a very slight lead over Democrat incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill in the polls.

Advertisement

NEXT: Romney Campaign Has More Cash Than the Obama Campaign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Politico also points out that the latest polls show Akin is still has a very slight lead over Democrat incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill in the polls.

    LOL

    1. Yeah I’m laughing at this too.

    2. What time was the poll taken? Some people might have been polled before they heard the news.

    3. That poll has a +9 republican sample.

      It’s a con to keep the asswhipe in for Claire.

  2. so has akin repudiated his policy of no abortions even w rape? has ryan? or the state gops who pass this nonsense?

    1. While I disagree and think that abortion should be legal and fairly easy to do, opposing it even in cases of rape seems a lot more consistent for people who oppose abortion based on their views of the moral status of a fetus.

    2. Why would he repudiate that stand based on what he said over the weekend?

  3. Wow. Troy Aikman got old.

    1. Troy Aikman played football, silly. This article is about Senator Claude Akins.

      Hth

      1. I think you mean Senator CHET Atkins, EDG. How can MO not love someone who can play guitar like him?

        1. I still think he should have won American Idol. Ruben Studdard? Come on.

        2. You’re right. I always get those two mixed up. Also Valerie Harper and Rita Moreno.

          Also, fried chicken.

  4. The GOP braintrust sees another Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell in Akin.

    Akin is safely situated in Missouri though – they won’t penalize him for his stupidity like NV and DE did the others.

    1. Since Obama has ensured that it is virtually impossible for a Republican anywhere outside of the stupid belt on the coasts, and not even there in some instances, it is unlikely this will keep him out of the Senate. Akin should send a thank you note to the Kenyon village idiot after he wins in November.

      1. It is “Kenyan”, you dumbass. Not that there is a point to the drivel you spout.

        1. I thought it was Keynesian.

    2. Since Obama has ensured that it is virtually impossible for a Republican anywhere outside of the stupid belt on the coasts, and not even there in some instances, it is unlikely this will keep him out of the Senate. Akin should send a thank you note to the Kenyon village idiot after he wins in November.

        1. That first sentence seems to be missing a word or two, doesn’t it?

    3. He’s no O’Donnell or Angle. He’s fairly nondescript and fairly establishment. The TP backed John Brunner in the primaries.

    4. Akin is safely situated in Missouri though – they won’t penalize him for his stupidity like NV and DE did the others.

      Haven’t they already pulled their funding for his campaign?

      1. They’re in a game of political chicken right now.

  5. have to rehash (sorry all participants from ML):

    http://www.newstatesman.com/bl…..-etiquette

    It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, “do you mind if I do it again?”. It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.

    1. Why am I agreeing with George Gallaway? What am I missing here?

      1. What am I missing here?

        A penis inserted in you while you’re unconscious

        1. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you’re already in the sex game with them.

        2. My question is…why would you not wake the person up?at least a little bit?if you’re already in the sex game with them? I mean, someone in ML said something about how this was wack with a one-night stand but less so with a live-in…but this has never happened to me. If my bf did it I wouldn’t like, call the cops and accuse him of rape, but I would seriously question why he didn’t shake me awake because, uh…who the fuck has sex with a sleeping person? That would be way creepy and I would not be happy about it at all.

          I’m actually reading a novel right now, John Willams’s Stoner, and he does this with his wife, who has been completely fucked up by early 20th century sex ed and basically refuses all sexual contact with him. The husband is sympathetic (certainly more so, as a person, than Julian Assange is), and this is his only chance for physical intimacy with his wife (whom he does really love), but still…he’s totally fucking raping her, and it’s pretty uncomfortable to read about. No, it’s not a violent rape, it’s not a stranger rape, etc. etc., but it doesn’t completely bankrupt the term of all meaning to say that in that situation (which, yes, is different from a partner that does want to have sex with you on the regular), it’s rape.

          1. Not to downplay nicole’s point, because I agree with her, but…

            So much of whether it was rape rests on Assange’s state of mind and the woman’s response while alseep. If, in the fog of sleep himself, Assange thought she was into having sex again, I’m not sure if he had intent to rape. I have had completely alseep women grind my night-boner in a way that seemed like they knew what they were doing and was into it.

            Assange may have initiated sex in good faith, thinking she was actually awake.

            Sex with a sleeping person you know to be asleep. Rape. Sex with a sleeping person you thought was consenting? I’m not sure it’s rape.

            1. Sex with a sleeping person you know to be asleep. Rape.

              Making the moves while asleep is then sexual assault?

              1. Go ahead and outline the point you’re going to play dumb on here and we can skip a lot of meaningless typing.

                1. It’s a question. If you don’t want to have to discuss your viewpoints, then why the fuck are you on Hit y Run?

                  Seriously.

                  1. If a person has sex with someone who is asleep without some sort of prior consent to further sexual activity, then it is rape/sexual assault depending on the laws applicable. The sleeping person has not given consent to have sex.

            2. So much of whether it was rape rests on Assange’s state of mind and the woman’s response while alseep [sic]

              Yeah, totally. I mean, that’s why my focus is on whether you really just didn’t even try to shake the person awake and just like, woke up from a dream and started back up again all on your own (only not). And mostly because that’s…weird and creepy. Shake me and I might be half asleep but it becomes like 1,000% more chill.

              1. I had a girlfriend who liked to be fucked while “sleeping”. She liked being stimulated while sleeping, would respond, but was still half-asleep, and woke during the stimulus, and then pretended to still be asleep, because that turned her on. But she moved and squirmed and moaned and clearly liked it. I can’t even imagine fucking someone who was unresponsive.

                “She was not unresponsive.”

                1. You are truly the episiarch.

            3. I think the more important distinction is, “If Warty was definitely *not* involved, even if it *was* rape, it wasn’t nearly as super-rapey-bad as it could have been”

    2. This is the first I’ve heard of the sex while sleeping charge. According to my Swedish friend:

      “The 2 girls went to a friend of one of them, who is a policewoman, to ask for advice how to perusade asange to make a HIV test.

      Then the policewoman decided to file charges against assange for rape, totally on her own initiative

      He stayed in sweden for 5 weeks to be able to sort it out with the police, he went to inteviews, etc

      First one prosecutor decided to arrest him. but the next day ;another prosecutor found there was no basis for it and dropped the case but then some other socialdemocratic lawer persuaded his ex girlfriend, a prosecutor to open the case again.

      Plus he sent me this link to a Google translated editorial in a Swedish newspaper.

      1. Meh, link is probably to long. This is the original, run it through google translate if you want to read it.

        http://www.dn.se/debatt/fallet…..attsstaten

      2. Your article does not specify the nature of the acts that are alleged to have occurred.

        There is one charge of sexual assault, which alleges that Assange had sex with Wilen while she was asleep, and the most serious charge is that he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her.

        Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/natio…..z24Cbmv51n

        1. But, but…it’s in Swedish.

          Okay, I wasn’t aware of the more serious charge, which would be a pretty clear cut case of actual rape, although I’m pretty dubious given the circumstances.

  6. Heard Akin on Hannity yesterday. He said something along the lines of: yes, I have apologized. And I’m going to keep apologizing!

  7. Why doesn’t he just say that he’s “Not a Witch” while he’s at it?

    1. Excellent, Hugh, excellent. I really need to sit down and scan all my Bloom County books. But I won’t.

  8. he wants my forgiveness? Fucker looks like he wants my bone marrow

  9. Why does anyone who doesn’t live in Missouri care about this story?

    1. A) Akin is seeking national office

      B) It’s amusing to watch politicians squirm and flame out after saying something so monumentally stupid.

      C) It’s also amusing to watch Team Red know-nothings try to spin this into no big deal.

      1. I’m not sure they all see it as no big deal. Many of them are trying to get Akin to quit. He plays into the idea that he doesn’t actually care about the unborn, but thinks of abortion as a reward given out to virtuous women, and childbirth as a punishment inflicted on loose women. Prolifers don’t need that sort of ally, thank you very much.

        1. You’ll notice I didn’t say anything about what Red Teamers actually think or believe.

          1. I see, maybe I missed that.

    2. Because the office he is running for is part of the federal behemoth that affects us all?

    3. You do know that when senators vote on things, those things affect the whole country, right?

  10. This is like the Ron Paul newsletters. In a week no one will care about what right now everyone is claiming to be the worst thing EVER!

    1. Nobody is saying it’s the worst thing ever, it’s just another in a long line of stupid or horrible things said by politicians.

      1. Nobody is saying it’s the worst thing ever

        They aren’t saying it, no.

        But the Manufactured Outrage Industry sure is acting like it.

        1. the Manufactured Outrage Industry sure is acting like it.

          Well, that is their job.

          1. Production quotas.

        2. But the Manufactured Outrage Industry sure is acting like it.

          Anything at all to keep the plebes from seeing what’s actually going on in regards to our economy still in the shitter, and our president having decided that he can kill anyone in the world via his own personal drone squadron, including Americans, using secret evidence that isn’t reviewable. Or that he can detain Americans indefinitely on nothing but his say-so that they are engaging in terror activities.

          Anything at all to keep the general public occupied with anything but the fact that Obama is fucking terrible on ALL fronts.

  11. His mistake is in not quitting the race and letting someone more sensible go run for Senate. Then he can spend the next two years apologizing and run for some other office if he’s into that.

    He is objectively pro-choice by taking attention away from the innocent unborn baby and analyzing how the woman got pregnant, as if different methods of conception translate into a sliding scale of human rights.

    Until what age is it OK to kill a human being who was conceived in rape? The second trimester? Five years old? Twenty-five?

    If we *must* kill someone, kill the rapist, not his innocent child.

    1. If only we could kill your obsession with abortion.

      1. What was the topic of this post, again?

        1. Politicians being stupid and making weak apologies.

    2. At what age is it appropriate to let a mother off the hook for hiring someone to murder her child?

      If there were a series of rogue veterinarians who set up clinics where they would euthanize toddlers to help out poor mothers, and the law refused to intervene because our rulers felt having less poor people and minorities was probably for the best and it wasn’t their place to second-guess parenting choices, would you restrict yourself to complaining and (if you’re feeling very extreme) protesting? Or would you do whatever it took (including direct violence) to punish the murderers and make sure no one dared to try that again?

      Is killing a fetus exactly like killing a two-year-old? If so, why aren’t prolifers treating it as such? Why did they stop executing those who mass-murder children? No one today thinks slavery maybe was ok because of John Brown. Is there a philosophical basis for this, or is it just moral cowardice?

      1. Maybe it’s because the prolife movement is actually achieving legislative victories, and these new laws are actually cutting down on the number of abortions.

        This puts into context all the concern-trolling about “lol why don’t you become terrorists you’re so insincere lol.” It is the choicers who want prolifers to be terrorists – and who paint prolifers with that brush if they can – because they *want* the prolife movement to get out of politics – because the prolifers are beginning to achieve some actual successes, like reducing public funds for abortion, enacting informed consent, etc., etc.

        1. So, again, if a group of people were running baby death camps, you could live with some minor legal victories that imposed a few regulations and cut them off from government funding, without establishing any sort of moral victory at all?

          Either you don’t take murdering children seriously, or you’re lying to yourself about abortion being equivalent to baby-murder. Maybe it’s a lesser evil, like torturing animals, but it’s not the equivalent of infanticide, because you yourself don’t treat it with the moral urgency of infanticide.

          1. William Lloyd Garrison was a pacifist; he obviously wasn’t serious about slavery. Yawn.

            1. And that hypocrite John Woolman, who helped persuade American Quakers to give up slavery, was obviously insincere because he was also a pacifist, even criticizing fellow-Quakers for not being pacifist enough. If he sincerely believed that slavery was wrong, why didn’t he go around killing people, huh?

              1. And w/r/t infanticide, obviously the Church was being insincere when it criticized infanticide in the Roman Empire, caring for abandoned infants and finally getting laws against the practice enacted. I mean, something something something they were either lying or didn’t take infanticide seriously.

            2. So, your answer is that if people were murdering toddlers and small children in your community in the same manner and at the same pace and with the same legal protection as abortionists, your preferred response would be to work slowly within the system to impose some restrictions on the practice.

              There’s nothing inconsistent about that, but it is an extremely pacifistic position. Would you describe yourself, generally, are an extreme pacifist? Do you feel that war is never justified? Do you disavow the use of violence in self-defense?

              1. You have basically acknowledged that your “Either you don’t take murdering children seriously, or you’re lying to yourself” talking point is utter crap.

                I used, as counterexamples, two pacifists and a religious organization (which was not exactly pacifist throughout its history) and your new angle is to have me defend absolute pacifism. No thank you.

    3. That’s problematic for Akin. He’s already a 6-term Congressman in MO-2. If he gets out, it would be almost impossible for him to go back to being a Congressman with a Republican (and the R will win in this district) incumbent already there. Assuming a new R candidate wins the Senate seat currently occupied by McCaskill, that would pretty much preclude him from running in that election in 2018, too.

      Akin’s a mechanical engineer. Maybe he needs to go back to his chosen profession.

      1. Well, I’m not saying crawling back into Congress would be easy for him. Cry me a river.

        1. EvH, I know you are trying to preserve your own quixotic campaign to take us to pre-Roe days, but what exactly is your malfunction with this guy?

          1. He’s de facto a choicer, or at least his rhetoric bears that construction. He seems to suggest that abortion should be illegal in order to punish loose women, not to protect children.

            And if the pre-Roe era was so bad, why did the choicers find it necessary to throw out hilariously exaggerated statistics about the number of women who died from illegal abortion? If the pre-Roe status quo was so awful, why make up stuff?

            1. He’s de facto a choicer, or at least his rhetoric bears that construction. He seems to suggest that abortion should be illegal in order to punish loose women, not to protect children.

              This is some self-serving bullshit on your part. He’s radioactive and you are looking for a way to distance yourself.

              The very next thing he said was: “but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

              He is expressing the same rationale as you are for getting rid of the rape exception, he just let the mask slip for the fence-sitters and he has to be cut loose.

              1. “The very next thing he said was: ‘but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.'”

                Well, I should have read the article. It’s good he said that.

                But it’s bad that he suggested that rape victims can’t get pregnant. That plays into the hands of the choicers, it advances their narrative that they have a monopoly on concern about rape, and it gives them a chance to drag down candidates who aren’t as dumb as Akin.

                Already we’re hearing people suggest that *all* prolifers think like Akin – which is like saying that all prochoicers agree with Margaret Sanger about the need to reduce black population.

          2. Most people against abortion know better than to advocate forcing rape victims to remain pregnant, because it makes them look like a monster to the fence-sitters.

            1. Most people against abortion know better than to advocate forcing rape victims to remain pregnant, because it makes them look like a monster to the fence-sitters.

              Well, I know the practical reasons, I am just asking EvH what he’s so pissed off about.

            2. Amusing as it is to be on the receiving end of SugarFree’s moral indignation, the fact is that the prolifers cannot enact their agenda by a wave of the wand (or the Supreme Court). They have to persuade the public piecemeal.

              The fence-sitters are coming around to the idea that you can’t kill a child because its mother had consensual sex. This already describes the situation leading to a vast majority of abortions. So outlawing those abortions would be progress. If that’s as far as the fence-sitters want to go, prolifers can’t force them any further.

              At some point, perhaps the fence-sitters will see the problem with killing a child for the sins of its father. Until then, we’ll have to put up with rape exemptions, and the choicers should have to put up with limits on the vast majority of abortions.

              1. SugarFree’s moral indignation

                Now there’s a phrase I thought would never be written

              2. There’s no moral indignation. I’d love for you to get a total ban on abortion enacted. It would be the death of so-cons as a political force for decades and tickle-me-pink. Getting the GOP back from the snake-handlers would be a boon for libertarians.

                1. “the death of so-cons as a political force for decades”

                  I’m not invested in the current crop of so-cons, and anyway I suspect that many of them, even if they knew that protecting the unborn would cost them their political positions, they’d do it anyway.

              3. At some point, perhaps the fence-sitters will see the problem with killing a child for the sins of its father.

                I just don’t think anyone actually thinks that’s why there’s a rape exception. There’s a rape exception because there can be no question that it was a totally unwanted, nonconsensual pregnancy. So questions about how old a child can be before you can kill it for the crime of its father make literally no sense to me (as a super-duper-pro-choicer), because once it’s born, there isn’t a pregnant woman anymore who doesn’t want to be pregnant.

                1. But, you see, this states the problem, it doesn’t solve it. It suggests as common ground (the “right” of a pregnant woman to kill off an unwanted child) that which is the very thing in dispute.

                  1. It suggests as common ground (the “right” of a pregnant woman to kill off an unwanted child) that which is the very thing in dispute.

                    Well, I thought I was actually pointing out how there is no common ground here. You are framing it in terms of looking for someone to kill (the baby or the rapist-dad?); I’m saying that the people on the other side from you aren’t looking for someone to kill, they are looking to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

                    1. A “rape exception” *does* mean looking for someone to kill – euphemisms like “avoid [sic] an unwanted pregnancy” can hardly hide this bottom line.

                      So we’re back to actually debating the issues – is it OK to kill a living member of homo sapiens while it’s in the womb, so long as the mother consents?

                    2. Well, I did say I was a “super-duper-pro-choicer,” so yes. I don’t usually get into the actual abortiony parts of threads like this because it seems about as pointless as trying to convince you to change your religion (and is, really, exactly that). I don’t think a fetus is a person, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with killing one if the woman carrying it (not a mother, unless she has other children) consents, and I don’t think infanticide is morally different from animal abuse.

                      But then I also think it’s much more morally questionable to have a child than to abort one, because being born is never consensual and arguably a net harm. I wouldn’t bother trying to catch me in any moral inconsistencies here; I’m just way further on the other side of this than most people you’ll ever talk to (and of course, I know that).

                    3. “I wouldn’t bother trying to catch me in any moral inconsistencies here”

                      I’m not into the gamesmanship of “straw-man the other guy’s position and then claim (s)he isn’t really sincere” – I’ll leave that to the experts.

                      I will simply say that I don’t agree with you – I won’t insult you by claiming that you don’t actually believe what you believe (see above for examples of this tactic).

                    4. I also think you’re wrong about the euphemism?the killing is a side-effect, not the goal. The goal is to not be pregnant. If you could not be pregnant without killing “someone,” I’m sure that’s what people would do.

                    5. Well, there is some such idea in the “just war” doctrine – the goal is to win the battle, not to kill Private Pyle who happens to be in the other side’s army.

                      But I don’t think abortion is the same situation. The abortionist will think he’s failed if the fetus is still alive after the operation. In contrast, if after the battle Private Pyle is still alive, the opposing general won’t think he’s failed – so long as he captured the enemy position, he’s fine if he did so without killing Pyle.

                    6. The abortionist will think he’s failed if the fetus is still alive after the operation.

                      Well, if the fetus is still alive and in the womb, yes, that would be a failure. But people talk about the issue of, like, “if we could teleport the fetus out of you and into an artificial womb” or whatever, and I don’t think that would be considered any sort of failure for the majority of women who want an abortion (for any reason).

                      And I appreciate the civil disagreement.

                    7. I would certainly applaud new technology which could transfer the fetus into an artificial (or real!) womb. Without being an expert, I have the vague impression that we may be getting there.

                      If that happens, then one rationale for legal abortion will disappear, since there will be non-lethal alternatives. So that would be a welcome development.

                2. The rape exception is also there because many if not most women who are mildly against abortion don’t want to get into a situation where they have carry around their rapist child for nine months. They have some unfathomable objection to getting raped and having the evil shitbag’s rapebaby. Go figure, right? I mean women are like, crazy, you know?

                  And the pro-lifers that want that mostly know not to say it in public like Akin did.

                  1. I repeat that if we’re going to kill someone, let us kill the “evil shitbag” rapist, not his innocent child.

                    Akin doesn’t speak for all prolifers any more than the abortion doctor who talked about “ugly black babies” speaks for all prochoicers (though he speaks for some of them, obviously).

  12. The mistake was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold.

    BZZZZZT Sorry wrong answer you ignorant intolerant religious-fanatic dipshit

  13. This guy’s going to say something stupid and offensive like this, and not bow out of the race?

    What does he think he is? A Democrat?

    1. I noticed Joke Biden has been silent about this so far.

      1. Ball gags have a tendency to cause that.

  14. OT: Anybody else getting random PHP errors when trying to post comments? Or is it just me?

    1. It’s you. Delete all your root files and that will fix it.

    2. No it happened to me too.

    3. I’ve gotten a couple.

  15. This nonsense has circulated among the religious right for decades–they really believe it, because otherwise they’d be forced to choose between a woman and a fetus, and they side with the fetus every time.

    It’s a defense against cognitive dissonance, because they can’t imagine allowing the death of a fetus any more than they can imagine a story in the Bible like Noah’s Ark being mere allogory, or even worse, wrong. The whole house of pro-life cards falls down.

    1. What an eloquent summary of the prolife position. Jonathan Haidt would be proud.

      http://hotair.com/archives/201…..positions/

    2. what? that a woman can prevent a pregnancy?

      why not just go the Catholic route? It’s the same position — opposed in all cases — but doesn’t come across as idiotic.

    3. Speaking as a religious pro-life type, I can’t say I’ve ever heard this until Akin blurted it out.

  16. Akin said something dumb about biology. But it’s too bad 99.9% of the Media Universe is too dumb to counter it. Instead, he’s getting grief over “legitimate rape” because every shrill harpy in America is screaming ALL RAPE IS LEGITIMATE RAPE.

    1. Change what Akin said to “forcible rape” (which, in context, is very clearly what he was trying to say) and this whole thing is a minor kerfuffle AT BEST.

      1. True. As opposed to statutory rape where a high school senior knocks up a high school sophomore consensually.

      2. You underestimate the productivity of the Manufactured Outrage Industry.

        1. I do, that’s true.

    2. Channeling George Carlin: If it’s legitimate, then what’s the problem?

    3. He said something dumb about biology? Really? That’s what you’re down to?

      1. It’s all he had in the first place.

      2. He said something dumb about biology? Really? That’s what you’re down to?

        Again, change the words “legitimate rape” to “forcible rape” and you have little controversy.

        1. You really think the statement “If it’s a forcible rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” is a non-controversy? He’s still wrong on the science and still calling “most” women lairs when they claim rape to obtain a rape exception abortion.

          1. He’s still wrong on the science

            Right, and as stated, it is a common belief among old people, and not intuitively false. After all, if women are expected to relax in order to increase the chances of becoming pregnant, one may inductively think that a stressful event would decrease the chances of being pregnant.

            still calling “most” women lairs when they claim rape to obtain a rape exception abortion.

            Only if those women choose to be called liars. I sincerely doubt that was his intent. But, like I said, if you want to be outraged, you’ll be outraged.

            1. Akin wanted to pop off about his pro-life bono fides and forgot the audience he was speaking to wasn’t part of the secret-handshake club.

              Forgetting your audience is rookie mistake.

            2. and not intuitively false. After all, if women are expected to relax in order to increase the chances of becoming pregnant, one may inductively think that a stressful event would decrease the chances of being pregnant.

              Okay, here’s what I think I find offensive about the idea that this concept isn’t patently ridiculous. Saying “women are expected to relax in order to increase the chances of becoming pregnant” is coming at the whole thing from a “trying to get pregnant, probably because you’re having trouble conceiving as quickly as you’d like to” angle. You only come from that angle if you’re seeking a pregnancy. If you’re not, you’re probably thinking much more about all the things that could go wrong and cause you to get pregnant by accident.

              Women grow up hearing all kinds of stories about things you wouldn’t think would get you knocked up but can?like anal, or coitus interruptus, or whatever. That you have to be really, really careful about not accidentally getting pregnant. Because if you do, your body does not in fact shut that shit down. How stressful do you think it is on a 14-year-old girl to find out she is accidentally pregnant and doesn’t know what to do about it? That’s fucking super stressful, but all teenage girls know that your body won’t just shut that shit down for you. Shorter version: unwanted pregnancy is fucking scary and stressful to begin with, and yet it happens all the time and we all know that.

              1. We are talking about two different things here.

                Akin was repeating a mistaken belief that a woman would not conceive if said conception occurred during a violently stressful event.

                You are talking about events that were likely not stressful when they were happening, but where the stress was induced later (either immediately after due to regret/fear or at some point down the road).

                1. And what exactly would be the mechanism that would prevent conception because you’re afraid while you’re getting fucked but wouldn’t prevent it because you’re afraid thirty seconds later when you find out your condom broke? I get that there’s a difference, but it doesn’t seem to be a biologically relevant one.

                  1. I thought we were talking about finding out later a girl was pregnant.

                    As to your question, wouldn’t the answer to both questions be “stress”?

                    And please note that despite the headlines, the man did say “rare”, not “impossible”.

                    1. I’m just suggesting you are not thinking that women who don’t want to get pregnant are as afraid as they are that they will accidentally get pregnant.

                      But you’re not really answering my question–why does the magic biological response work during but not immediately after when, in terms of what’s actually going on in your vagina/uterus, it’s the same?

                      No woman goes around thinking “well, good thing I noticed right away that the condom broke, because that scared the shit out of me and that means I probably won’t end up pregnant.” Because we know that we should be that scared, because we might.

                    2. nicole, I haven’t compared the rates of women who burst into crazy tears immediately after a possible conception event versus those who don’t, and I suspect no one has because it would be wildly difficult to measure.

                      See because when you say this:

                      why does the magic biological response work during but not immediately after when, in terms of what’s actually going on in your vagina/uterus, it’s the same?

                      I actually have no idea if it ‘works’ or not. And if we are imputing this train of thought to Akin, he stated his lack of knowledge with “as doctors tell me” this is “rare”, not that it is “impossible”.

                    3. I’m not imputing any train of thought to Akin; I’m saying that anyone who heard him can draw analogies that make what he says seem ridiculous in light of everything else we think about female reproductive biology. Women do not trust their uteruses not to betray them with an unwanted pregnancy. We don’t expect to be protected by our bodies from that.

                    4. I’m not a biological researcher and so my information may not be totally up to date, however I’ve studied this issue a little (as a layman) and here is what I remember of the situation.

                      Yes, the womans body actually does have some way of choosing whether it wants to get pregnant from any given instance of sex or not. This ability is obviously not foolproof but more importantly it is not under conscious control (it is entirely autonomous).

                      Basically there are mechanism’s by which it can choose how quickly to begin ejecting the semen from the vaginal area, how much to allow into the cervix, and a few other factors.

                      For example, a woman in a comitted relationship who has not seen her partner for at least 2 weeks is significantly more likely to concieve than one who has been having regular sex. She is also significantly more likely to concieve if she is cheating on her monogamous partner. On the reverse side, she is significantly less likely to concieve if she has young children and a few other factors (can’t remember them off the top of my head).

                    5. That said I am not aware of any research on the likelyhood of conception following rape and whether it is more common than conception following consentual sex. It would be very hard to make a meaningful comparison if for no other reason than the fact that forced sex is so much less common than consentual sex (thankfully). That said my guess is that it is slightly more likely that she concieves from being raped than from consentual sex, however given how relatively rare rape is compared to consential sex that would still make pregnancy from rape a very rare event.

      3. I think that’s the case. I took the “legitimate” comment to mean a rape that was truly forcible as opposed to a “rape” where the woman consents, then changes her mind a few days later.

        1. It’s pretty clear the intent was to say “forcible”.

          And one thing I know is that when the Twittersphere, the President, the RNC, DNC, the Koskids, Facebook et. al. think that something is just the Worst Thing Ever, I know to run in the opposite direction.

  17. The unaddressed issue in all this is that Aiken is so obviously gay, NTTAWWT of course, except that should be totally unacceptable to the constituency that spent the money to get him into the position to make such a retarded comment.

    1. is that Aiken is so obviously gay,

      With that combover?

      Nancy, please.

      1. Some guys are really into the cadaver-at-mortuary-school look.

  18. “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.'”

    “‘Each year in the U.S., 10,000-15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest.'”

    1. There are about 85,000 rapes in America each year. Is it really possible that 37.6% of them result in pregnancy? I doubt consensual, unprotected sex produces that high a rate.

      And I think that validates what Akin was saying: basing one’s overall position on abortion because of those that are sought because of rape is basing one’s decision on a very small portion of the actual cases.

      1. Considering how many days a cycle a woman is fertile, and how many men and women have fertility problems, and how even sex “at the right time” isn’t 100% conducive to getting pregnant, and how after-rape treatment at the hospital usually includes a morning after type pill, if there are 37,000 pregnancies still resulting, then there must be hundreds of thousands of rapes, not 87,000.

  19. I can forgive him. I still want him to drop out.

  20. He’s an idiot just like everyone else in congress. yawn.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.