"Rape pregnancies are rare"

[Valigarmander]

If you repeat a falsehood enough times, does it become true?

SACRAMENTO -- A leader of a California Republican group may have inadvertently revived the controversial subject of rape and pregnancy.

Before arriving at the state GOP's spring convention here, Celeste Greig told this newspaper that pregnancies by rape are rare "because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized."

Greig is the president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, the state's oldest and largest GOP volunteer organization. Ronald Reagan once called it "the conscience of the Republican Party."

Ironically, Greig was in the midst of criticizing former Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin for saying that victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." It was a remark that many believe led not only to his defeat in November but also helped tarnish the Republican brand around the country.


"That was an insensitive remark," Greig said. "I'm sure he regretted it. He should have come back and apologized."

Greig, however, went on to say: "Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don't know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act."

The issue drew a quick rebuke from Democrats, who said Greig's comments were no different than Akin's.


"If a woman is near-ovulating or ovulating, and sperm comes in direct contact, she gets pregnant -- it doesn't matter what the nature of the act was," said Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. "It's just outrageous, beyond absurd. It's insulting. It's the same line of thinking of 'If we just dress differently, or behave differently, we won't be raped.' They're basically saying 'while we're being raped, if we hate it enough we won't get pregnant.'"

Most research on rape and pregnancy has shown roughly the same rates of pregnancy as pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. But one 2003 study from St. Lawrence University showed the rate at which women get pregnant after rape to be more than double that of a single act of consensual sex. The study used data from the United States National Violence Against Women survey.

With consensual sex, the authors theorized, women have the option of declining sex or using contraception when there is a high likelihood of getting pregnant because of their ovulation cycle.

 The per-incident rape-pregnancy rate was 6.42 percent, according to the report, which was published in the journal Human Nature. Of women having consensual sex, the per-incident pregnancy rate was 3.1 percent.

Tom Del Beccaro, outgoing chairman of the California Republican Party, declined to discuss the issue Friday.

"It is not what we're going to discuss this weekend," he said.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Poison Tree]

How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?

[Thumpalumpacus]

How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?

Probably as many statements as it takes for Democrats pleading for outlawing all guns before people see all Democrats that way.

When you pick up the broad brush, you lose the credibility to complain when it is applied to you.

[Alaric I]

I wonder if the number of per incident pregnancies in rape is higher.  I mean stress can cause a woman to abort the process, you'd think that would be likely in incidents of rape.

[Aroura33]

How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?

Probably as many statements as it takes for Democrats pleading for outlawing all guns before people see all Democrats that way.

When you pick up the broad brush, you lose the credibility to complain when it is applied to you.

I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns?  Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing.  Whereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up.  Apples and tomatoes there.  
I get the broad brush point, but it seems like there could be better examples.  Like all democrats want to legalize marijuana, or no democrats support the Defense Against Marriage Act (both false but often treated as true0, or something along those lines.

[Alaric I]

How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?

Probably as many statements as it takes for Democrats pleading for outlawing all guns before people see all Democrats that way.

When you pick up the broad brush, you lose the credibility to complain when it is applied to you.

I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns?  Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing.  Whereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up.  Apples and tomatoes there.  
I get the broad brush point, but it seems like there could be better examples.  Like all democrats want to legalize marijuana, or no democrats support the Defense Against Marriage Act (both false but often treated as true0, or something along those lines.

Dianne Feinstein did back when the initial gun ban was implemented.  She said "If I could have gotten the support I would have banned them all. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."

I think the reason she can't get the support is that to repeal the 2nd amendment it needs a 2/3 vote of the federal congress and the 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment that will repeal it.  No chance in hell she gets it.

[Jason78]

pregnancies by rape are rare "because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized."

I don't care if that only happens one in four quintillion times.  It's not a reason not to provide medical care.

[Mermaid]

My second biggest problem with this is that these douchebags, who are ELECTED OFFICIALS are spouting this crap without any clue if it's actually true or not, it's just them gassing and guessing. Fuck the facts.

What else are they saying that's just coming out of their asses?

[Mermaid]

Why do I even read this forum? The things I read here bum me out daily.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns?  Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing.  

Sure, Dianne Feinstein said that she'd ban 'em all if she could.

Whereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up.  Apples and tomatoes there.  

Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate".    Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans.  What do you mean by "keeps coming up"?  How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?

I get the broad brush point, but it seems like there could be better examples.  Like all democrats want to legalize marijuana, or no democrats support the Defense Against Marriage Act (both false but often treated as true0, or something along those lines.

You might wish to look up the Democratic attitude towards gun control.  I think you're in for a little surprise.

[Nonsensei]

Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?

What keeps coming up is the Republican war on women. This is just the latest attack, in which anyone who cares to read between the lines can see the real message: If a woman is pregnant it wasn't because of rape since rape victims don't get pregnant; therefore if she claims it was she is likely a liar and there is no need to take her rape claim seriously.

This heart warming social conservative message is brought to you by the same party that passes laws to allow doctors to legally lie to women regarding abortion, subject women to lecturing and a mandatory ultrasound performed with a medically unnecessary "rape wand", and many other wonderful pieces of legislation.

Greig and Aikin's statements may have differed but they both had the same message: that rape isn't a big deal because women can't get pregnant from it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?

What keeps coming up is the Republican war on women. This is just the latest attack, in which anyone who cares to read between the lines can see the real message: If a woman is pregnant it wasn't because of rape since rape victims don't get pregnant; therefore if she claims it was she is likely a liar and there is no need to take her rape claim seriously.

This heart warming social conservative message is brought to you by the same party that passes laws to allow doctors to legally lie to women regarding abortion, subject women to lecturing and a mandatory ultrasound performed with a medically unnecessary "rape wand", and many other wonderful pieces of legislation.

Greig and Aikin's statements may have differed but they both had the same message: that rape isn't a big deal because women can't get pregnant from it.

I disagree.  I think this is more a matter of desiring to eliminate abortion, rather than minimize the evil of rape.  It is still, to be sure, an attempt to impose control over women (by dint of dictating what they may do with their own bodies).  

Granted that I feel that restricting abortion is shitty, there is a clear moral difference between wanting to restrict women's rights, and justifying rape. Mistaking one for the other is not the mark of the percipient mind.

I'm not arguing that the Republicans are gender-friendly, just so we are clear on that.  One of the major reasons I've never cottoned to Republicans is their willingness to use government to enforce their traditional views of gender relations.

[Mermaid]

Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?

What keeps coming up is the Republican war on women. This is just the latest attack, in which anyone who cares to read between the lines can see the real message: If a woman is pregnant it wasn't because of rape since rape victims don't get pregnant; therefore if she claims it was she is likely a liar and there is no need to take her rape claim seriously.

This heart warming social conservative message is brought to you by the same party that passes laws to allow doctors to legally lie to women regarding abortion, subject women to lecturing and a mandatory ultrasound performed with a medically unnecessary "rape wand", and many other wonderful pieces of legislation.

Greig and Aikin's statements may have differed but they both had the same message: that rape isn't a big deal because women can't get pregnant from it.

I disagree.  I think this is more a matter of desiring to eliminate abortion, rather than minimize the evil of rape.  It is still, to be sure, an attempt to impose control over women by dint of dictating what they may do with their own bodies.  

Granted that I feel that restricting abortion is shitty, there is a clear moral difference between wanting to restrict women's rights, and justifying rape. Mistaking one for the other is not the mark of the percipient mind.

Don't forget that they are also implying that women who get pregnant from rape also kind of really wanted it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Don't forget that they are also implying that women who get pregnant from rape also kind of really wanted it.

I think they want to convey that impression, but anyone with half-a-brain can see that the alleged biological refusal is not a reflection of conscious desire.

It's quite the leap to go from "her body rejects rape-seed" to "her mind welcomed violation".