In response to:

Legitimate Rape Arguments

AmyDB Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 1:04 AM
Dr. Adams for once you are wrong on this. There is a basis for what Akin said about rape & the female body's reaction to it.... The idea that rape victims cannot get pregnant has long roots. The legal position that pregnancy disproved a claim of rape appears to have been instituted in the UK sometime in the 13th century. One of the earliest British legal texts, Fleta, has a clause in the first book of the second volume stating that: "If, however, the woman should have conceived at the time alleged in the appeal, it abates, for without a woman's consent she could not conceive." (cont)
AmyDB Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 1:06 AM

This was a long-lived legal argument. Samuel Farr's Elements of Medical Jurisprudence contained the same idea as late as 1814:

"For without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely she would become pregnant."

Generally, though, the idea that a women had to orgasm in order to conceive (although not necessarily at exactly the same time as her male partner) was widespread in popular thought and medical literature in the medieval and early modern period. By logical extension, then, if a woman became pregnant, she must have experienced orgasm, and therefore could not have been the victim of rape.
AmyDB Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 1:31 AM
Medical professionals who oppose legal abortion have published works stating that pregnancy from rape is rare due to a physical response of the woman. In a 1972 article, physician Fred Mecklenburg argued that pregnancy from rape is "extremely rare," adding that a woman exposed to the trauma of rape “will not ovulate even if she is 'scheduled' to."

Also...

Mecklenburg said researchers in Nazi death camps observed this effect by "selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the gas chambers, only to bring them back after their realistic mock-killing, to see what the effect this had on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high percentage of these women did not ovulate.
bgmk Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 1:53 AM
I SAW on Nova? Discover? Health Channel? YEARS back a documentary on a study done on women's physiology during sex CORRELATED with their opinions on whether their partner would make a "good" father/husband. Subconciously or otherwise their bodies changed to "welcome" the "good sperm", smooth the path to the eggs, while "rejecting" the "bad" making the path less easy.
Somebody with a "crack staff" should dig out the documentation on this because this study DOES exist. They FILMED the stuff.
The_Nerd_Warrior Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 2:10 AM
He didn't say there was no basis for what Akin said. Merely that he spoke out of turn on what he was not an expert on.

Yes, there have been studies done on the matter, with significant evidence supporting the theory.

However, results have been inconclusive. Nothing has been proven outright.

Mr. Akin was attempting to show off - and went completely off track for the pro-life issue that was truly at hand. THAT was his folly.
Dollysboy Wrote: Aug 27, 2012 2:36 AM
You are spouting nonsense.
Todd Akin’s grossly irresponsible remarks about “legitimate rape” and conception have received much media attention. As well they should. The sheer weirdness of the remarks calls into question both his intelligence and his personal integrity. How could someone conclude logically that a rape victim’s body has the capacity to prevent conception in the wake of sexual assault? And why would someone assert that the conclusion had been supported by doctors with whom he had spoken? Clearly, Akin contrived the idea on the spot and then contrived the claim that there were doctors who had informed and/or supported his assertion. All of...