21

Aug 12

1999, Journal of Medicine backs Todd Akin’s claim that Rape Pregnancies Are Rare?

“In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).”

“Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones.”

Read more: christianliferesources.com
Research done by the “New England Journal of Medicine” and “Mahkorn & Dolan, “Sexual Assault & Pregnancy.

New England Journal of Medicine research: Sexual Dysfunction during Rape: nejm.org

This is the main article that talks about it which Akin must have read. His wording was off but it takes a bit of an IQ to understand what he meant without going nuts over it.
Webster dictionary= RAPE: (transitive verb) “1 a archaic: to seize and take away by FORCE” Majority of people like to vote for Politicians that want to “force”(RAPE) their views on others. In US just like most countries Rape means force, and many find it odd that Americans likes to be raped or rape another. Akin is guilty of wanting to rape (force) his views on others just like the Republicans and Democrats. Nit picking on what they want to rape does not make it less rape. As Obama said “Rape is Rape” and he wants to “force” (you know synonymous with rape) laws that most don’t want. The word for rape is force in most countries, but only in America did they slowly change the meaning over time so that people feel better about being raped. ;)
http://trenchpress.com/?p=17441

Regarding the recent Todd Akin’s comments the same site had a follow up article:
“Akin suggested that the emotional trauma of a rape creates some sort of natural birth control reflex in a woman’s body. He does not say pregnancies never occur, but in fairness he does not acknowledge that fact either.”
“Is it true that the trauma of the rape reduces the chances for pregnancy?
I have yet to see a study that demonstrates some sort of contraceptive effect from a rape. I do believe, however, it is not an unwarranted conclusion.”

“Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.”

“I would counsel Akin to focus on that larger picture and leave the emotionally distorting event of pregnancy from a rape for a later day when society is better educated. ”
christianliferesources.com

Society better educated? Well that may be so since the IQ of most went as low into the mud and their loyalty got stuck in the mud as well. As misspoken Akins words are people’s reactions indicate that they are at least 1 out of “16 Signs That People Are Becoming Stupider

It also stated “Hard to conclude anything but thoughtlessness to speak of a “legitimate rape,” as if there were any other kind of rape. In a world of sound bites Akin got bit. But is there such a thing as an “illegitimate rape”?”
Yes real rape getting raped for real, fake rape saying you were raped when it was consensual. Example is the next link.

Rape victim says:
“I was forcibly raped in 2001. It happened while I was ovulating. I was scared to death that I would become pregnant. When I asked the physician what my chances of being pregnant, he handed me a AMA journal that highlighted a study done in 1999. That study was done concerning all the reported rape cases in Minnesota. Not a single case resulted in a pregnancy. I also did not get pregnant, and thankfully I didn’t get an STD either.
I now work in a rape recovery center in a major city. I have met with women who claim to have gotten pregnant while raped. These women tend to be 16 or 17 year old girls with their parents standing over them. When I get them alone and they open up, all of them said the sex was consensual. They were going through the motions because they didn’t want to upset their parents. In the last 6 years, I have never seen a true rape case result in pregnancy.”
http://answers.yahoo.com

So what the rape victim stated is that women lie to say it’s rape from talking to many other rape victims, and from the “original” medical journal stated too much trauma “might” hurt the body be pregnant but nothing solid to prove it, despite saying no pregnancies emerged form rape.

Akin confused the article in a way and people should also look at the research they present. Since the report of rape and pregnancies will skyrocket (fake rapes) so that they can have an abortion if you can only get one that way by law. Statistics will then be manipulated by women for personal gains to have an abortion. what Todd Akin believes and wants laws to impose should be 2 different reasons which he should stick to what he believes for himself and what others believe for themselves.

CNN commented on the 1999 article.
“”What we know is that chronic stress can decrease fertility,” said Dr. Sharon Phelan, a fellow at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)…”
“While the stress associated with rape may not lower a victim’s risk of becoming pregnant, rapists often do not ejaculate, thereby decreasing their victims’ risk of pregnancy, said Phelan.”
edition.cnn.com

People have to think how the research was done on what the motives were then and now. Todd Akin was off a bit in his wording but generally its the original research that should be the target. Research usually can be tainted and it gets worse year by year due to political reasons. Even now Dr. John C. Willke commented still saying its “just downright unusual” to get pregnant from rape.
At least some sites went after the source while other sites attack only Akin as if he made it up or the Huffington Post that makes insensitive rape jokes where the masses laugh.Todd Akin Legitimate Rape Kit or Legitimate Rape Song

The GOP is not that stupid and they never wanted Akin out for many political reasons.
Palin comments on what she thinks. and Good Morning America he states “I don’t know the future”

If you need help in how to determine yourself what is true or not see.
Psychetruth

(NOTE: pro or anti sites both make extreme arguments which point to “scientific” research. The point is science is not perfect and changes, and that definitions or understanding the definitions are changed for political reasons.

And if we take away science to deal with just factual definitions of rape for example, then many are for laws that rape (force) people. This applies to the far left and far right of political commentary. Local news is a bit more honest than global corporate news. For example “The left-right illusion” http://pix11.com/2013/01/08/left-right-illusion/ )

5 Comments

  1. John E says:

    Would you be so kind as to provide a citation to the Journal of Medicine that backs up your headline.

    Because given what you can show, the headline should read “Anonymous Yahoo commenter claims that she read an article that supports my assertion”

    (Admin: Click on the link and email them where they got it. I only pointed out the article which he must have read for his reference. He should have used the world never happened than can’t happen. And explained “legitimate” to say that many falsify rape claims as the Yahoo commentator stated while working at rape centers. Usually people shorten their explanation and when on national TV they are not use to it and mess up their wording. But most are guilty of misunderstanding the world of what “Rape” means, and have shortened the world for “sexually raped” to just “rape”, which is hypocritical of them to attack another for wording it wrong, shortening the word, and not under the stress, while they throw an entire definition out the window. This was all political by the GOP since they never wanted him for many reasons while lawsuits against the GOP by members for favoritism.)

  2. Zuma says:

    You claim that Claire McCaskill gave $2 million to the Todd Akin campaign. You say that the New York Times was your source. However, the link that you gave is to be YouTube video of hyperpartisan ANN COULTER saying that the New York Times is the source. And when I search the NYT Website, an August 7, 2012 article claims just the opposite (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/us/politics/todd-akin-to-challenge-senator-claire-mccaskill-in-missouri.html?_r=1), that “Ms. McCaskill and her Democratic supporters, who spent close to $2 million on ads that painted Mr. Akin as too conservative for the state….”

    (Admin: I think you are confused. Both sides are presented and this site didn’t make any claims, just a links to youtube of CNBC news having Coulter say that which got negative votes since most know she exaggerates. 2:35 into the video http://trenchpress.com/?p=17576 you comment on that part for that post, yet you comment in this post against Coulter being wrong, while this post points out that Coulter was wrong. So your Point is?
    Coulter: “Contributed 2 Million Dollars To Akin’s
    NYT: “spent close to $2 million on ads that painted Mr. Akin as too conservative”
    To waste money to paint someone as too conservative in a conservative race is considered free advertising which if something is free they consider it a contribution. I guess Coulter is a hypocrite too for wording things differently as well while attacking others that word things differently. She see it as a “contribution” for McCaskill to spending money against Akin since as the saying goes no such thing as bad publicity, which those ads helped him. That’s Coulter’s POV in how she and many others see it, despite that the wording is improper. If you are liberal and someone wasted money to say you are the most liberal candidate to a bunch of liberals then that’s free advertising and despite it backfired on them. Get it?)

    1. Zuma says:

      You guys scrub your site very thoroughly. And all that trouble just to win an argument.

    2. Fritz Katz says:

      Claire McCaskill DID give $2 million to the Todd Akin campaign in the form of attacking Akin’s primary opponents.

      “.. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) spent $2 million on ads in the GOP primary and got what she wanted: conservative Rep. Todd Akin as her opponent. Now that he’s damaged goods, so much the better. …”

      This was reported by Politico, and many others.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0821/Why-Claire-McCaskill-wants-Todd-Akin-to-stay-in-Missouri-race

  3. John E says:

    Yeah, that\’s the thing about blogging, isn\’t it – you put up the headline, I ask for proof that it reflects reality, you insist that I do the legwork to prove it.

    Blogging means never having to be responsible for what you write, I guess.

    (Admin: You got the link where Akin’s most likely got his info from which was the main thing. Let’s say I read your mind and gave you what you wanted, and then you or another might want more info on the doctor, info on the research, how reliable it was, a link to the book, a review of how reliable the researchers are, who authorized it, what religion they are, what political affiliation, what sex they are, etc and the requests can go on and on to no end. Do not be like the the homeless beggar that if someone gives you food you complain since the food in not warm enough, where they got it, proof that if it’s good for you, how many calories it has, etc or else no one will feed you. Go to youtube, wikipedia, facebook and contribute to them to give them content, while complains about others not putting aside their life to do work for you. The last commenter could not read between the lines and I had to spell it out. So, I will assume you are joking.)

Leave a Reply