US Republican ignorant of female biology. Again.

Can you imagine if this was true? They'd be able to create the most natural form of hormonal contraception ever!

confuddledDOTcom Mon 27-Aug-12 14:29:54
I read on one link that he said the female body secretes something that kills sperm of an attacker

and this twat is a legislator?

I read on one link that he said the female body secretes something that kills sperm of an attacker

Confuddled- I'm glad you got the support you needed.

Regarding the original post I'm never surprised by the crap spouted by American right-wing Christians, but I presume he is referring to the female body shutting down or delaying ovulation in response to a traumatic event which is biologically possible, though certainly not a conscious decision.

However any traumatic event post ovulation would have very little impact on fertilisation as it is the traumatic event in itself that delays the ovulation. Once pregnant the female body is very good at preserving an embryo regardless of personal wishes or emotional trauma - the exact opposite of what Todd Akin suggests.

Again a great example of twisting the truth to suit an argument and placing all responsibility for unwanted pregnancy on the woman - even in the most extreme context of rape.

What scares me is the amount of support this man must have had to get to the position of being elected to the senate, (or nearly) - that's an awful lot of people holding similar views - he has just been the one unwise enough to spout them publicly at a sensitive time. I have no doubt that Mitt Romney's personal views are pretty similar to Akin's (Romney's running mate Paul Ryan has been very vocal and very scary in his views) and this man could end up as the next president - yes very scary.

Thank you. Everyone was lovely TBF and it was really the situation that forced me into it, knowing it would affect things with the CPS was a small part.

I had only ever thought of abortion/ MAP as being something bad and had never faced the reality of it in that situation, which is something the councellor helped me to work through, doesn't mean it was an easy decision but I saw it differently. It's a similar process in a way to what I had to work through when I divorced. I'd grown up thinking Christians don't so to be walking away from a marriage after 15 months wasn't easy and I had to go through a similar process of understanding that no it's not good but some times necessary.

I'm pro-life but I'm also pro-choice, my choice is life BUT can I say that if I was in any of those circumstances I wouldn't change my mind? Nope.

I reluctantly took MAP when I was raped, I was told it would harm the chances of the CPS taking it up if I didn't and our church councellor and minister both told me I should do it (councellor was lovely, spent an hour talking about having a baby wiith someone you love, our minister just said "what are you messing abuot for? Just take the thing!") I'm not sure if I would abort if I found out later on but I've never been in that situation to be able to judge. Things like health though, putting the unborn before my health and my living children's future or carrying an unhealthy baby and putting them through whatever it is, maybe a horrible death. A friend recently aborted because she was having a boy and boys in her family die a slow horrible death in childhood. At some point she has to watch her son die, does she do it nicely when he won't feel it or leave it until he's in a lot of pain? Someone once described it as at some point she would have to turn off life support, she decided it was kinder to make herself the life support she turned off. I'm just glad I don't have to be brave enough to make that decision because it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't do when you're not in that situation.

IIRC, they were talking about the embryo's right to life, regardless of the mother's personal circumstances, health or the viability of the pregnancy. I don't recall them talking about any dangers to the mother.

The SPUC lecture was along the lines of:

"Pregnant due to rape? Not the baby's fault. Get it adopted if you don't want it.

Pregnant due to careless sex and can't cope with a baby? Not the baby's fault. Get it adopted if you don't want it.

You had a planned pregnancy and now scans show the baby will be horribly disabled and you don't know if you can cope with that? Well, you wanted the baby, so have it and just deal with it. If you can't deal with it, get it adopted.

You had a planned pregnancy and now scans show the baby will has xyz condition and hasn't got a chance of survival outside the womb? Well, what do doctors know. Maybe they're wrong. Do you really want to risk killing a baby if they're wrong?

You had a planned pregnancy and now the doctors say you should have an abortion because you've got xyz health condition and the pregnancy's likely to kill you? Well, that's just selfish. And the doctors might be wrong anyway. You should continue with the pregnancy, cross your fingers and hope for the best. "

Followed by touching stories of women who'd decided not to abort in the above circumstances and were very happy about their decision. Theyalso had graphic pictures of abortions.

I should state here that I'm pro-choice and believe that women should have the right to choose abortion. I believe that the rights of the person who already exists outweighs the rights of the embyro / foetus, at least up to the point where the baby can survive outside the womb.

@StormGlass - fair enough. Do you remember what they said? Was it purely opinion-based "abortion is wrong" or did they include facts? Did they teach that abortion is dangerous, or just say that it's morally wrong?

SPUC came into my school to give us a lecture on the evils of abortion when I was about 15 or 16. But it was during an RE lesson, so not promoted as sex ed. We didn't get a pro-choice lecture though.

Equally scandalous is the fact that SPUC is going into schools in the UK to teach the same thing to schoolchildren. Is this what passes for sex ed these days?
educationforchoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/todd-akins-not-only-one-claiming-that.html

I didn't mean that. Two sides as in keeping or not keeping. Choice for the mother, no one else. I didn't mean that it should be used politically, nothing about this should be political.

Two sides to what, though? No-one who opposes the Akin position thinks that abortions should be enforced for rape victims. The two sides of this argument are not 'everyone should keep their babies/no-one should keep their babies'. I'm sure there are lots of women who would decide to keep a baby conceived during rape - particularly given the number of rapes which happen within the context of a relationship. Having counselling and being supported to make the decision which is the best one for them should surely be the right of every woman considering an abortion, particularly in such awful circumstances.

Have you seen this?

I think it shows there are two sides to it, I think it would be wrong to use her in isolation.

I was talking to a woman awhile ago who kept her baby after she was raped, built up a relationship with his mother who took the baby on. Because of this contact she ended up being raped by the same man again, another baby who the paternal grandmother also brought up. I didn't ever talk to her anymore than that, it's fascinating (maybe in a slightly morbid way) and I'd love to have had a good chat with her.

www.channel4.com/news/akin-row-prompts-heartfelt-response-from-rape-survivor

Channel 4 News tonight. A very moving and articulate interview.

However, I am left with a certain unease. The fact that this rape victim kept her child and is so positive and (I paraphrase) would say to another pregnant rape victim take time to think (before you opt for termination) almost plays into idiot Akin's and the Republicans' hands i.e. in giving them succour that rape should not be a reason to allow abortion.

But what do others think?

Own more guns and make the public pay for war seems counter-intuitive. The right bear arms is in order to form a militia, thus actually they could privatise war.

How very modern.

But their 'focus' also doesn't include anything about jobs, growth, industry etc!

It basically reads as repress women, own more guns & make the public pay for war.

Wow they really don't like women do they? :/

And finally, the GOP reveals their draft plans should the republicans win in the 2012 US elections.

thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/22/723241/gop-approves-most-conservative-platform-in-modern-history/?mobile=nc

One of the main points - No abortions for victims of rape or incest...

The most depressing thing? This poltroon was on a Congressional Science Committee.

Geek "non-forcible rape would be when a woman is asleep, when she is drugged, when she is too scared to fight back, when she believes she has no other choice. Also in the US they have statutory rape (sex with someone under the age of consent), which is one of the big areas they target in regard to federal funds.