The Sex Files
Fact-checking Todd Akin

Todd Akin United States Congress

As you've probably heard by now, in an interview Sunday, Missouri Representative and Republican Senate nominee Todd Akin said he believed that rape-related pregnancy was "really rare." He continued by saying that, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

So, now for the facts. Pregnancy resulting from rape is not rare. In fact, a woman is more than twice as likely to get pregnant during a rape than during consensual sex. That said, there may actually be something to the idea that the human female body has evolved an ability to resist rape-related pregnancies, although the potential mechanism is pregnancy termination, not prevention, so it's almost certainly not what Akin was talking about.

Akin now admits he "misspoke" in the interview, although it's not entirely clear which part he's referring to.

Akin's intentions aside, he's just plain wrong when he says rape-related pregnancies are rare (a fact that's even more frightening considering that he is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology). Melisa Holmes, an ob-gyn in South Carolina, led a study on pregnancies from rape through the National Crime Victims Center. Holmes's study, which was published in 1996, found that 5 percent of rapes in females of reproductive age resulted in pregnancy, amounting to an estimated 32,101 rape-related pregnancies per year in the U.S. Even that astounding number was a "significant underestimation," she says, because so many rapes go unreported.

More recently, in 2003, husband-and-wife team Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall, then at St. Lawrence University, identified even higher rape-related pregnancy rates. Analyzing survey results from 8,000 women around the country, they determined that 6.4 percent of rapes in women of childbearing age resulted in pregnancy. In cases where no birth control was used, the rate increased to 8 percent.

Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010.

Jonathan Gottschall recognizes that there's some "squishiness" in all of these numbers because they're based on self-reported data. Still, he says, "the available data give us no reason to think that conception from rape is rare, or even that it is less rare than conception from consensual intercourse. If anything, the data suggest that things go the other way around." Indeed, a 2001 study out of Princeton and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences found the rate of pregnancy from consensual, unprotected sex to be just 3.1 percent.

Rapists subsconsciously target victims based on their likelihood of conception.No one is sure why forced sex is statistically a more successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex. "We think it might be because rapists tend to target young women at peak fertility," Gottschall says. Holmes confirms that most rapes occur in women under 25, and pre-pubescent girls, post-menopausal women and visibly pregnant women are statistically underrepresented among female rape victims, according to Gordon Gallup, an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY-Albany who wrote about rape-related pregnancy in The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans.

"Rapists don't pick victims at random," Gallup says. "Unbeknownst to them, rapists clearly target victims based on their likelihood of conception. They tend to preferentially target young, post-pubescent females that are in their reproductive prime."

Age alone doesn't it explain it, though, because per-incident rape-pregnancy rates are higher than consensual pregnancy rates even among young women. Seeking out youth and attractiveness -- a fertility cue, according to a growing body of evidence -- gives rapists the reproductive edge, the Gottschalls proposed in their paper. They cited evidence from the 2000 book A Natural History of Rape by University of New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and University of Missouri anthropologist Craig Palmer, indicating that rapists seek out young, attractive women.

The Gottschalls wrote: "We propose...that all men -- rapists and non-rapists -- have the capacity to 'read' fecundity cues and pursue the most attractive/fecund women that they can. However, since rapists circumvent the problem of female choice, while non-rapists must confront it, it is plausible that the average instance of rape occurs with a more attractive/fecund woman than the average instance of consensual intercourse. Thus we propose that rapists target victims not only on the basis of age but based on a whole complement of physical and behavioral signals indicating the victim's capacity to become pregnant and successfully carry a child to term."

I called Gordon Gallup for his perspective on rape-related pregnancy. Last year, during a conversation about the antidepressant effects of semen, he mentioned a theory that the nature of a rapist's ejaculate has something to do with his reproductive success. When I asked him to elaborate on that, he told me that semen contains follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH), which trigger ovulation during the female menstrual cycle. FSH is needed for sperm production, but the presence of LH in high levels is more mysterious because it's not important for male fertility. It's possible, Gallup says, that seminal fluid released during forced sex contains higher-than-normal levels of these hormones -- LH in particular -- which may trigger ovulation in the victim.

There's no direct evidence yet of sex-induced ovulation in humans, although there's some very new research hinting at the possibility. The LH in semen has been shown to trigger ovulation in camels, alpacas and llamas. Semen also makes female koalas ovulate, although LH hasn't been identified as the active ingredient in that species' semen yet. A 1973 study found that 70 percent of conceptions from rape occurred outside a woman's most fertile time. And a 1949 study cited seven women who reported becoming pregnant due to rape, despite having not had a period for up to two years leading up to the assault.

The idea that semen produced during rape is especially primed to promote pregnancy seems less far-fetched considering the well-established evidence that what a man is doing when he ejaculates affects the chemical makeup of his semen. Studies on artificial insemination show that semen collected from a man who used his imagination to become aroused and ejaculate is much less likely to result in conception than a sample collected from a man watching porn, Gallup says. Even more potent is semen collected after coitus interupptus, i.e. pulling out during actual sex. The conditions under which a man becomes aroused and ejaculates has been shown to affect factors like sperm count, shape and mobility.

If semen changes based on context, it's plausible, Gallup asserts, that participating in a rape can affect its chemical makeup. Ovulation-inducing semen would be especially useful during rape, which is usually a one-time encounter. As sinister as it is, the ability to unconsciously adjust semen to make it more potent during rape could be one reproductive strategy that evolved in men to increase their reproductive success.

In addition to the devastating physical and emotional consequences of rape for the victim, things are also grim from the evolutionary perspective. "The problem with rape if conception occurs, is that it precludes making an informed mate choice, which is the principal means by which females maximize their fitness," Gallup says. "And it means that the female is not going to be subject to protection and provisioning by the child's father. Women are left holding the bag, so to speak."

Women appear to have evolved mechanisms to counteract these tactics and control their fertility. I've written about these kinds of dueling reproductive forces, known as antagonist coevolution, before. Some quick examples in human females: Research shows that women engage in less sexually risky behavior around ovulation, when they're likely to get pregnant, and their hand-grip strength, a measure of physical resistance, is enhanced during ovulation if they read a sexual-assault scenario, a mechanism that may have evolved to enable the female to more effectively resist rape when they're fertile.

In saying that women "shut down" pregnancy after rape, Rep. Akin unwittingly stumbled upon the concept that women's bodies reject unfamiliar sperm. In 2006, Gallup and his co-author Jennifer Davis published their theory that preeclampsia, a common pregnancy complication that can result in spontaneous abortion, evolved as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen. (I say unwittingly because Akin was more likely referring to a theory that the fear and trauma of rape causes a woman's fallopian tubes to tighten, thus preventing pregnancy. This idea, proposed by John C. Willke, a physician and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee, has been lambasted by other doctors.)

Psychologist and writer Jesse Bering explained the preeclampsia idea in his excellent post, which I highly recommend you read in its entirety: "By the early 1980s, scientists had started to notice that preeclampsia was more likely to occur in pregnancies resulting from 'one-night stands,' artificial insemination and rape than in pregnancies that were the product of long-term sexual cohabitation. That it was the woman's prior exposure to the male's semen that was responsible for this pattern was evident by the fact that couples who'd been using barrier contraceptives (such as condoms), or who practiced coitus interruptus (in which the man withdraws prior to ejaculation) before they began trying to conceive also had higher rates of preeclampsia than those who'd been engaging in unprotected sex for some time."

Bering continued, "It may be useful to think about preeclampsia not simply as a medical anomaly," reason the authors, "but as an adaptation that may have evolved to terminate pregnancies where future paternal investment was questionable or unlikely."

Now, none of this means that rape-related pregnancies are rare, or that biology should be trusted to ward off these pregnancies. The sheer numbers of pregnancies from rape tell us that it's happening -- a lot. And, obviously, preeclampsia is not the solution. Having the right to choose what to do about it is.

Jennifer Abbasi is a science and health writer and editor living in Portland, OR. Follow Jen on Twitter (@jenabbasi) and email her at popsci.thesexfiles@gmail.com.

91 Comments

Yeah, the guy made a really stupid and ignorant comment that probably came out even worse than what he was thinking. It's wrong and ridiculous.

So why are we giving him more face time on a tech site? It's a pretty big stretch to take a political story like this and try to make it into a science story.

What next? Going to examine the tale of Humpty Dumpty to see if maybe you can put an egg back together or not? Both are fiction, and everybody in their right mind knows it.

"Ignoring or twisting facts to suit one own goals", this is certainly not politically news to me. Sadly, it’s almost typical or normal quo about our own government.

I adore and love our written down government, but I am so so ready for new leadership!

It is perfectly valid having this story on a tech/science site considering Akin makes a scientifically invalid assertion that a woman's body "shuts down that sort of thing" during a rape. By presenting the science that proves his assertion is wrong and, in fact, showing that the exact OPPOSITE may be true, educates the public and presents.... well.... FACTS! Also keep in mind that this man is on the Congressional Science, Space, and Technology Committee and that alone should send chills up you spine.

kimberj,
I applaud the science in regards to the article! With dealing with the realities of life, we are better able to help woman who are abused and raped, and woman with fertility problems as well.;)

am i the only one disturbed by this article? seriously 1 in 5 women have been raped? what the hell people?

also the fact that this idiot is heading up the governments science department doesn't surprise me. unfortunately government has become something that isn't for the smart people, it's a popularity contest populated by idiots. the system is set up so there will never be smart people in office.

to mars or bust!

First just let me say that figures in this article are disturbing. Chances are these estimates range lower then the real numbers. As a man I don't understand it. Every man out there has a mother, probably sisters, nieces, or other women in their life that they care about. How can something like rape even enter their minds?

I find the current lack of basic scientific understanding in the republican party to be just as disturbing,(but not in the same way.) Is there no common sense? Unprotected sex results in pregnancy. It's how we all got here. The only difference is most of us were probably produced in a willingly.

There are currently 2 foot in mouth republicans catching flack for their ignorant statements but the ignorance is something that seems to prevail throughout a good percentage of the party. You get these kinds of statements when you teach abstinence instead of safety, when you teach creation instead of evolution and when you alter text books in favor of revisionist history.

When did common sense become an oxymoron?

Politicians make very stupid comments all the time that could be considered scientific just as much as this loser congressman's comments. Yet we don't see immediate reaction stories about virtually any of those on popsci. I think this is more indicative of it striking a nerve with someone and this piece being mostly an emotional reaction.

If you're going to cover scientifically inaccurate comments from politicians, you should do so more consistently. But of course, that would require probably multiple articles every single day.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, and I sit here and marvel at how people from each call people from the other ignorant about some thing or other. It's silly, illogical, and very divisive to our country.

Look, our brains naturally try to deal with information overload by grouping things together. But society has not advanced enough to help people control those urges to group everything. Grouping is not very productive, just an effective way to deal with more info than we can remember.

For example, let's look at all the different groups this particular congressman is part of, so we can then decry each of those groups as somehow sharing his own backwards opinion:

Republican
Congressman
Male
New Yorker
Worcester Polytechnic Institute alumni
Phi Gamma Delta fraternity member
member of Missouri National Guard
engineer at IBM
etc.

So why do people want to somehow attach an individual's bad actions to a specific group that he/she is in, and ONLY that group?

Isn't it just as fair to say that all congressmen are as messed up as this guy, as it is to say it's about being a Republican? Maybe it's a New Yorker thing. Maybe it's a male thing. But no, we group people, and then use that grouping to blame individual poor actions on a particular group that we don't care for, or for our own personal gain of some kind.

This guy's comments were moronic and wrong. But those who blame this guy's party are just as moronic and wrong. If a group doesn't espouse a view, then let's not attribute it to that group. Otherwise, every single group in this whole world could be called terrible things, as every single major group certainly has had very very bad and stupid people in it.

marcoreid,
The writer is one person and then we have the commentors on this blog. For a quick survery of groups of people I just listed, the above commentors did not list any political party.

My opinions just reflected upon the fact that our government leaders as a whole has been for a long time currently unable to make a decision and tend to talk out of the sides of their mouths\liars, but while I am very much for the system as it is written down.

Are you aware that our governement for 2 years now is stalled in make budget economic decisions?

Hate to change the subject from the political war being waged above, but I just wanted to say that I liked the article. All attachments to public policy and bipartisan views aside, it's nice to know that there are people that can focus on the facts.
Of course I heard about what he said (and for the fact that I didn't know who he was before and I don't care who he is now, I am not going to scroll up the page to find his name since I already forgot it). And when I heard the comments made I thought, "That's not right. I know that there have definitely been pregnancies from actual rapes." But I didn't know off the top of my head whether Whatshisface was referencing scientific studies or just speaking from his own experiences (oops, didn't mean to implicate anything there! oh, well, I don't have any white-out, so I can't erase it...)
I was kind of wondering whether there were documented studies on the conception rate differences between the two circumstances, but I had not Googled it, when lo, here popsci comes to spread good data! Many of the facts they added I probably would not have found through my Google search, which was also helpful and informative.
The Onion had an entertaining article of a woman thanking the government guy (heretofore referred to as Whatshisface) for letting her know that a brutal encounter she'd had that she thought was rape could not have been so, since it resulted in a pregnancy. It was sarcastic and darkly humorous, because that's what the Onion does.
WTOP reported that he'd made the comments and that it had caused a lot of controversy and they commented on how it might effect the elections. It was very objective, quick, and informative, because that's what they do.
Popular Science wrote this article. It was full of information explained clearly so that the average person could understand and be informed of the scientific facts. Because that's what Popular Science does.
Ask not why the media is reporting topics, but why the topics cannot be more deserving of the media's attention.

One other point: After the Aurora shootings, the families of the victims asked that the media refrain from using the name or photo of the shooter. It's important to not give him fame for his heinous acts as that would be a reward and encourage copycats, but it's also important to understand what happened in this individual's life that led to such a tragedy, so as to avoid future tragedies.
Whatshisface, however, can easily be ignored and not studied, so I move we stop showing his picture, stop using his name, and start referring to him as the government guy Whatshisface. In fact, when a government official says something REALLY dumb that suggests that they will play a part in terrible legislation, we talk about their deeds, but refer to them as "Whatshisface" or "Whatsherface" that did some dumb thing. I will not be using the name of ANY prospective candidate that has proven to be this ignorant, for fear that swing voters may choose them at the polls, solely for having heard their name so much. (Yeah, that really happens.) :(

It strains belief that some of these commenters are actually complaining about an egregiously wrong(not to mention incredibly regressive and misogynistic) scientific claim being fact-checked on a scientific website. Excuse me? You have absolutely NO RIGHT to whinge and whine about politicians being liars if you oppose actually holding them accountable to the facts. How disgusting.

---
Always defer to facts rather than philosophy.

Well.... there is the first amendment that says they can complain about whatever they want, but I think freedom of speech also gives everyone else the right to lose respect for those who prefer philosophizing over edumacating.
Though I like your succinct phrashing, J. James.

I really think the whole adaptation argument is very, very misleading in the context of this discussion. First of all, preeclampsia has a low general incidence, and a widely distributed incidence linked to many different factors. So, it is NOT AT ALL like a "Darwinian morning after pill." It happens fairly rarely and it happens for many different reasons, so even if there is a slightly higher incidence in cases involving insemination by strangers, it's ridiculous to treat it as if it were an effective, target-specific evolutionary adaptation the way Bering does (and of course, the way the medical subculture Akin relies on does to an even greater degree.) The same holds for the rapist's semen advantage--if it exists, it is slight, and is certainly not greater than the semen potency advantage associated with other factors found in especially virile men.

I sincerely doubt that 20% of the female population of our nation has been the victim of a rape. This is all part of an agenda to rid the nation of real men. There is a war against masculinity if you haven't noticed. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that they still consider it rape when both parties are completely inebriated and have lost their ability to make rational decisions. In these cases, the woman usually has the ability to recant her inebriated decisions, charge the male with rape, and commit murder... I mean, have an abortion. Meanwhile, a man cannot recant, he is laughed out of court with the same rape charges, and he cannot even choose to simply not support his progeny and let said child live a full life minus a father (not that any father should ever do such a thing). This whole system is BS and I think that most of you know it.

SGtb
ill tell you what is bs. is that crazy idiots like you are given a forum to speak at. a group of cells isn't a person, and you and your crazy,fake religious beliefs don't have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. you want that group of cells to live? fine. suck it out, and do what you want with it. bit I wont be involved if i don't want. no matter what you, or your crazy,woman hating,gay hating, Muslim hating, space being, "lord" say.
"real men" you're an f'ing retard

lostausername,

Though I'm not religious myself, I find your anti-hatred hatred very puzzling. Are you really hating on others because they hate? Do you not see the inconsistency in that?

Furthermore, I find your definition of a fetus as a "group of cells" very puzzling as well. Aren't we all just a group of cells? If a pregnant woman goes about her normal life without actively trying to harm her fetus, will it not continue to develop as a human? What is it about the process of having that group of cells pass between your hips that suddenly makes it NOT OK to kill off that group of cells?

In my book, there is no difference between killing a group of cells when it is the size of a tennis ball or when it weighs 15 pounds, inside the womb or not. In my book, there is no difference between a group of cells that is dependent on a mother via umbillical cord and one dependent on a mother via food and shelter after birth. In fact, if anything, it is much harder to kill that group of cells when it is the size of a tennis ball than it is to kill that 15 pound 9-month old baby. With the baby you can neglect it to death pretty easily. With the fetus, you actually have to proactively kill it. And before anyone makes an inane comparison to a tumor or a virus, pregnancy is designed as a method of survival in our current natural human design, while a tumor or a disease is not part of our survival, but something we try to overcome to obtain survival.

And my book is not written by a God, which you so obviously and emphatically hate, it is written by logic and the same social compact that leads virtually every society on earth to ban killing people.

Oh, and that politician's comments were still ignorant, wrong, and I still think he should quit. And rape is wrong and very devastating to the victims. And I believe that the 20% rape number is wrong and is an attempt to mislead for a particular purpose. Even the UN's database lists reported rapes in the US as roughly 0.0003% of the population per year. Over the 80 year average female life, that accumulates to about 2.4%, and I have serious doubts that almost 9 out of 10 rapes go unreported in order to bring that number to 20%. I'm sure many do, but 90% unreported? And who exactly comes up with that figure?

I'd hate to seem like I'm on the side of this j@ck@ss by asking a question, but isn't science supposed to be about asking questions without worrying about the politics behind the answers?

I'm just curious to know if they adjusted for the probability that women who become pregnant from rapes are probably far more likely to report them. I mean it seems like this study seems to be based on the percentage of women who pregnant after reporting their rapes. Just guessing, I'd think a high percentage of women who got pregnant from their rapes would report it than just continuing on as if nothing happened. I mean, I suppose if these numbers are based on reports immediately after, then that isn't really a factor. But if this includes women who report their rapes a few weeks later, then that might heavily skew the numbers.

J. James,
Thank god for free speech, mine, yours and others. Yes I do have rights, all of us! God Bless America!
While some refer to this Congressman as a moron, I do not. I find he is itelligent in education and in life to achieve a status and power of where he is at. The real problem being so intelligent, he is willing to distort, change science fact for his own personal goals; he is a clever liar in power. Now that is scary.

I knew all the feminists, and outspoken illiterates would have to speak their 2 cents on this article...was just waiting for it.

Now I will go...the guy misspoke, I don't think he meant it maliciously. However, the data that women are more likely to get pregnant by rape is completely bogus. Are most rapists doctors that know a victim's ovulation cycle? Doubt it... The facts most rapes aren't random? Really?

Also, a lot of people seem to take offense to his reference of "legitimate rape", which is really where the debate started, not really the part of 'self fixing' the problem. Let me clear this up..as I was in the military and saw MANY people fall to this.

Way way way too many women are using the call of rape as a threat, a weapon, or a bargaining chip. You can cry all you want, but it's true. Just about any guy likely thinks twice when a woman(not a girl) claims it. People have no idea the irreparable harm such an accusation can cause. So yes, even if Akin's scientific data is off, putting the line to 'legitimate rape' vs 'fake rape' was well justified. You can not 'un ring' the bell caused by such an accusation, and any women found to have falsely accused a man of this needs to be charged, convicted, and imprisoned for the same offense. Watch the false reports drop dramatically.

Now we let one misspoken issue, fueled by 100000 ignorant people and social media frenzies cloud what could have been a potentially good run for this guy, after all he's a 6-termer. Now he really has no choice but to bow out, even if he saved the Pope, people have already made their decision.

The one thing I do agree with...is this article doesn't belong on popsci.

I'll write that procrastination essay tomorrow...

snowboardsoldier,
No chance of you exagerating huh... lol.
But I appreciate your opinion and hope others comment too.

@ everyone in particular.

Interesting story about the statistics of rape.

I can speak to my small locale in that I teach martial arts. A girl came in to learn how to defend herself because she had been assaulted by some guy. I saw the bruises and the contusions.

I taught her things to do and she successfully defended herself.

The next time she showed up I had twenty women in my class.

It is easy to talk of things that are abstract when they do not directly concern you, or change the subject and talk about unrelated things.

I am of the opinion that the statistics for rape are accurate. In addition, a life/death scenario has the effect of causing an individual to procreate and ovulation can be induced.

Sperm can last in the female body for up to 5 days.

@snowboardsoldier.. one day I hope you get cornholed and then lets see you tell the whole world when it happens:)

This is off topic from the article, but relates to the comments.

@Marcoreid,

Although I disagree with you, you bring up some pretty good points. I am honestly curious to hear your response to this question.

If a woman has a miscarriage, should she be charged with manslaughter? What if she is found to have eaten foods that are bad for the fetus? Or smoking or drinking?

I'm not trying to play devils advocate (inappropriate term for the line of questioning, I know). Please, someone who shares Marcoreid's opinion on the matter, I would like to hear your thoughts.

@imotep, apparently you have not grasped basic reading or writing comprehension skills. When did I ever justify rape, or diminish the anguish legitimate victims went through? Never. People like you were exactly who I was discounting at the beginning of my post. The statistics are skewed, and you still(as well as many other women) refuse to acknowledge the severity of falsely accusing rape. While Akin's remarks were...ill chosen, I support the purposeful phrasing of the word 'legitimate' because there needs to be a separation. Also my point was that a women that DOES falsely accuse rape to trap/intimidate a man for any reason, needs to be convicted of rape, and serve the time. I bet..at least 25% of men serving sentences for rape, didn't do it, it was consensual, and are serving time based on a he said/she said argument. Just like child support/custody, it's a woman's world, just like everybody is so scared to offend minorities even when they are wrong. This needs to change.

If you want to flame and be a moron, that is your God given right, but at least have it be relevant.

I'll write that procrastination essay tomorrow...

The NY Times reported on the research that this article says concludes "that 1 in 5 women have been raped."

The report was a randomized telephone survey of women, so it relies on self reporting. The Times said this, "nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point." A subtle but different point when including attempted rape. The article also says that the survey defined "sexual violence broadly."

Violence against women is troubling, but my point is to take stats like "1 in 5 women have been raped" within the context in which they are generated, not as a flat statistical fact.

In whole, Abbasi's article was excellent and provides interesting and useful information to counter misinformation with rational thought and science. Without going into Akin's politics, lets just say it appears to get his information from agenda driven sources, rather than science.

This is disturbing news. And it means that human evolution is still almost completely controlled by nature.
We obviously need to do more real science and stop sticking our heads in the sand and relying on superstitious beliefs, because we might wake up one day and find ourselves in...exactly the same state we are now.

@snowboardsoldier

Akin's real problem is that he spoke on a contentious issue using a broad generalization that appears to be sourced from agendized pro-life groups and that he can't point to any science to support himself.

But your contention that in saying "legitimate rape," Akin was trying to differentiate between rape and consensual sex that is subsequently falsely characterized as rape is not supported.

@snowboardsoldier

Oh, we comprehend you loud and clear. You're one of those nutjobs that believes most women "fake" rape. Most women don't go to the doctor immediately after being raped so there is little medical evidence. I'm sure you would say that going to the doctor is the FIRST thing you would do if some guy butt-raped you, but I seriously doubt if you would be able to overcome your embarrassment for that. So what it comes down to is "she said I raped her". Since I doubt there are many rapists who would admit, "you know, I DID rape her", it becomes a he said she said case. With folks like you, your quest for the rapist to be innocent until proven guilty, you have labeled the alleged victim as guilty until proven innocent. The type of rhetoric you use is pretty indicative of someone who actually HAS raped someone before, and am furious she called you out on it. I really love how you called it "murder" and later invoked the name of God. I challenge you and any others to point out in the Bible where it says abortion is wrong. Unlike 99.5% of you, I HAVE read the book in its entirety, and it says nowhere to protect the rights of an unborn child. There is a reason for this. Back in Bible days, the child wasn't considered a human until it was born and received the "breath of life". In the Torah, it describes an unborn baby as "as part of the woman, like a thigh". It was even the duty of the early clergy to PERFORM ABORTIONS. If a pregnant woman committed a crime, and was sentenced to death, it was the job of the priests to repeatedly PUNCH THE WOMAN IN THE STOMACH until the baby was aborted. This was to prevent the child from being born during her captivity and come into the world with her sins. To all you who think this is a politically charged article and doesn't belong in Popsci: It is a scientific article! Unlike you guys who keep saying they are "exaggerating the statistics", you have NO SOURCES TO BACK YOU UP, while Popsci gives SEVERAL! Not to even mention this guy is on the friggin CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE! He is part of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, therefore anything scientific claim he makes is up for Popsci's scrutiny.

" Way way way too many women are using the call of rape as a threat, a weapon, or a bargaining chip. You can cry all you want, but it's true. Just about any guy likely thinks twice when a woman(not a girl) claims it. People have no idea the irreparable harm such an accusation can cause"

"Also my point was that a women that DOES falsely accuse rape to trap/intimidate a man for any reason, needs to be convicted of rape, and serve the time"

... justification pal...

and with regards to comprehension, the main point here is Akin's comments

Besides no need to get bent out of shape. I am certain that if YOU were raped your manly body has ways of shutting down the ensuing HIV and hepatitis C .. right?.. am I right?

And to ToomeyMD: yes, some would have us headed to a point where anything a woman might do to endanger the existence of a collection of cells will be illegal. Women will once again lose control of their own bodies and sexuality. Eating tuna while pregnant will be illegal. Then it would move to riding in a car would illegally endanger this collection of cells. After all, the collection of cells didn't CHOOSE to ride in the car. The leaders of our country will decide for the cells what they choose or don't choose. Paul Ryan collaborated with Akin to try and make several forms of birth control illegal, along with invitro vertilization since some of the testubes are terminated. This is another step backwards to the dark ages. I use the term, "collection of cells", because that what it is! Whether you're a religious freak or not, surely you've read other Popsci articles that show our sense of "self" and intelligence comes entirely from the brain. If you believe in a soul, then the brain is where it lives. You're not a person if you've got no brain! Most cancer cells are more complex than a fetus up to a certain point. Are we going to give them rights as well?

People still not grasping common sense, but please, keep mindlessly touting your closed minded agenda, it makes you less ignorant--no it really does!

I'll write that procrastination essay tomorrow...

@syfyguy you should be a politician, well said soup of nonsense! I call you out on your logic, and suddenly im a rapist and a murderer? What about the victims of those that are falsely accused? What about the mere handslap..if that of those that do it? Get off your high horse. It's not my fault, nor is it others who have been falsely accused that some that DO get raped, don't come forward. That's THEIR decision.

Yes, our justice system is innocent until proven guilty, but advocates like you rather just believe the woman, and fry the guy. Take your feminazi mentality to your other nut job peers, because you clearly have not seen reality lately.

I'll write that procrastination essay tomorrow...

Snowboardsoldier, do you even read your comments, your hateful tone? You claim to have called us out on our logic, yet you cite no sources other than your own opinion? You do realize we are all laughing at you? Typically those who read these articles have a somewhat scientific mind. In science, we deal with quantifiable FACTS, not opinions, exaggerations, or circular logic. I'm certainly "anti-man" as you might believe. I'm simply a husband. One who can't imagine the horror of my wife getting raped, or the horror of someone saying she was "making it up", essentially making her relive the whole ordeal. Then the thought of raising that rapist's child turns my stomach. The idea that every day she would have to look on the face of her attacker, or the questionable genetics of someone who would force themselves on a woman makes me sick. I'll stoop to your level and throw out an opinion: I'm very sorry guys like you can't get a woman yourself, and have to force yourselves on others. How many women HAVE you raped? Once again though, the bottom line is that you have not a shred of evidence to back up a single claim, while this article posts several.

But you know what? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and analyze impartially how you've "called us out on our logic". Your first statement is "I knew all the feminists, and outspoken illiterates would have to speak their 2 cents on this article...was just waiting for it." Hmmm, I'm not sure how you base your estimate that these are "feminists", but your statement about illiterates must be wrong. Not being able to read and write and all makes it hard to post. You then claim that the data in the article is completely "bogus". Well, it's possible you're right, but since you make no references to any source, while Popsci DOES, we can't believe you. We are only able to judge facts by the sources we are given. I'm really not sure at all what your rambling on about "legitimate rape" and your military career is about, but I have to assume you were most likely dishonorably discharged due to a rape charge. This is inductive logic though, and like you, I have no proof. You say way way too many women are using rape as a threat. Once again, no source or credible proof.

You then claim this article has no business in Popsci. Please refer to my previous post about the jurisdiction of members of the scientific community. This could have just as well been a non-political scientist, and no one would have said a thing. You go on to berate imotep for not having basic reading skills. I find no erroneous errors in his composition, so through LOGICAL deduction we can say, yes, imotep does have a grasp of basic reading skills.

Then you accuse imotep of saying you are justifying rape. Read imotep's post again...you will not see it. Then you claim that people are discounting the severity of "legitimate" rape. Everyone here knows that false rape claims DO happen, but we have decades of research to give us accurate accounts, of which your estimate is waaay off. And it's pretty obvious we don't have the same idea of what "legitimate" means. You say you BET 25% of convicted rapists are innocent. By your own admission, this is a guess, and it sets the tone for everything you've written before and after.

So we can see here that no logic has been accurately refuted, and everything thing you've said is simply your opinion...the opinion of a seriously disturbed individual. I feel sorry for you.

Hmmm, just pondering to myself, I wonder if this is a case of Sigmund Freud slip and that the only way the congressman got any woopee was by forcing his way and he accidently vented his frustration to the world, to all his rejections in life.

Food for thought.

Surely 1 in 5 isn't right. I hope it isn't. I'm of the opinion that thinks rapists, and morons like senator what's his name here, should be publicly executed.

@syfyguy trying to patronize me won't make you less of a dumbass. I have spoken, and there is no contesting what I've said. Peddle your wares elsewhere.

I'll write that procrastination essay tomorrow...

Yet again, people still trying to disregard what I've said about falsely accusing, and I have yet to ever diminish women who have been truely raped. I suggest opening your eyes and living in the real world, and stop rehashing the same brain washed garbage pseudo-intellectualism you try to impress your backwoods friends.

My 'opinions' are based on fact, and trying to grasp at straws to support your flame thesis won't work.

This will be the last post on the matter from me, but I have seen your other posts on this forum, and as I preemptively cleared the air beforehand, have completely proved me right and justified in doing so.

Keep ignoring faces, it will make you less intelligent--true story!

ciao.

I'll write that procrastination essay tomorrow...

Hahaha! Are you guys reading this snowboard nonsense?!?! He says there is no contesting what he says! Hahaha! My coffee just came out my nose! According to him, there is no contesting that we are all feminists and illiterates. There is no contesting that 25% of rape convicts are really innocent. There's no contesting the things he made up that we've said, even though we all can look at the previous posts. Lol, he "preemptively justified" his statements by saying, "I'm right. I have no proof, but I'm right, and you can't question that. He calls us unintelligent when his posts are rife with misspellings and terrible grammar. Take note my scientific friends, because this is the face of the Republican party, and our future under a Romney leadership. It has always been the platform of the GOP to just blatantly lie to try and get their way. Several decades ago a wise man said, "When Republicans stop lying about us, then we'll stop telling the truth about them". It is very sad in a civilized society we have people with the kind of hate and evil we see from snowboard.

Lol, not two minutes after my last post, a Romney-supporting coworker of mine came to my office and asked if I HIRED snowboard to post on here and make them look like a bunch of women-hating racist morons! And he doesn't even know that I'm the one who's been posting here! Damn, I guess he will now! Hahaha, like Todd Akin, you are an embarrassment to your own camp snowboard. I really hope that's not your last post, cause I couldn't possibly make you types sound any more stupid than you do yourselves!

Very important note: The statistics in the paragraph below are a misunderstanding of the CDC report. The CDC is using a definition of rape that includes oral and anal rape as well as vaginal rape, and their definition also includes unwanted penetration with an object such as fingers. This means that the statistics below are not accurate. One would need to check specifically how many vaginal/penile rapes there were.

It also means that the rate (percentage) at which rape causes pregnancy could be even higher than postulated here, though the actual numbers of women impregnated would be lower than what Ms. (Dr.?) Abbasi postulates below.

"Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010."

Thank you for the discussion of an important issue.
Dr. Rosalyn Dischiavo, Institute for Sexuality Education & Enlightenment

Abortion is murder, that's a fact. God spoke to Daniel in the womb. So yeah, abortion is murder. All these women walking around with graveyard bellies.

But on to the science. I find it very interesting that women are more likely to get pregnant from a rape than from normal consented sex.
I'm surprised pop-sci ignored the obvious. Women are more likely to get pregnant by someone who they find genetically worthy. The fact that the rapist got his sperm inside makes him genetically superior to all the losers she turned down. Look at Koala bear for instance. The female never gives into sex, all of their mating is what we would consider rape. Genetically, only males strong enough to force their way in are able to procreate. So yeah this makes perfect sense, and makes me wonder how human genes were passed down over the millennia.

Also to the Akin’s point. There are different kinds of rape. Statutory for instance. Your 18 y/o son has sex with his 16 y/o girl friend, this is statutory rape and should not be in the same category of someone jumping from behind the fence and brutalizing a woman.

If you want to be further depressed, read the CDC Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. The rates of parental sexual abuse are even higher.

Hey Aldron's Last Hope! Have you read the bible cover to cover? I have, and I sure don't remember god speaking to Daniel in the womb. How bout you give us the reference that he did this and that abortion is murder. I'll give you a verse to read where god is ALL ABOUT ABORTION. Numbers 31:15-18. God tells women who were unfaithful to their husbands to go to the priest so he can perform and abortion on her. The Torah..you know, that book the Old Testament was copied from, goes much farther in depth about the duties of the clergy to perform abortions for all kinds of things like rape, incest, infidelity, and how when you attack your enemies you should rip open the bellies of pregnant women (Hosea 16:16). When the early Christian church was voting on what to put in the Bible, even though they considered these works "inspired by god", they voted out some of the ones with harsher language. Please stop quoting books you've never read unless you have the proof to back it up.

My bad, it was Hosea 13:16, not 16:16.

Fascinating article. There seem to be many proposed possibilities for a possible higher conception rate in rape scenarios. The statistics are hard to pin down, they often do not come from very rigorous sources. However one possibility that was not mentioned, is that if the data from these self reported incidents did lead to higher pregnancies (at rates of 200% or higher!) It may be that incidents that result in pregnancy have a higher rate of false reporting because of social pressure on the person who got pregnant. I wasn't fooling around I was raped! I see this as just another possibility, but it seems at least as possible as the other theories out there. It would be interesting if a study looked into how many of the pregnancies became obvious well after the rape was reported as would be the case if report was made immediately, and how many were reported at the time it was clear there was a pregnancy.

Tell you what, I've got a little quiz for all you folks who love to quote the Bible, yet have never read it. You'll see what you've been taught and what it actually says are quite different. I'll give the answers at the bottom. 1. How many of each animal did Noah carry on the ark? 2. How many times does the word "antichrist" appear in the book of Revelations? 3. Who from the Bible walked on water? 4. In what book of the Bible do you find the phrase, "god helps those who help themselves"? 5. Which came first, man or animals? 6. Was Jesus immaculately conceived?

So think about what you were taught all those years in Sunday school before you answer.

Answers: 1. SEVEN of each clean animal, not the TWO people sing about (Genesis 7:2) 2. The word "antichrist appears NOWHERE in the book of Revelations. Antichrists (plural) appear in 1 and 2 John, and refer simply to people who are against Christ. 3. Jesus walked on water...but so did PETER. In fact, Jesus says we all can do it if we have the tiniest bit of faith. I guess no one since then has had any. 4. That phrase is the most common phrase attributed to the Bible that is NOT from the bible. Around 1750, Benjamin Franklin published a newspaper called "Poor Richard's Almanac", and he made that comment in a satirical piece making fun of Christians! 6. This is one is tricky, and requires actual research. Jesus never spoke of his "immaculate" birth. In fact, there are only a few references to this, while there are several that say the opposite. In both Luke and Matthew, a geneology of Jesus is given tracing him back to David. They contradict each other the farther back they get, but they both trace his genetics through Joseph, not god. It even lists a couple of Jesus's ancestors who in the Old Testament god "cursed", and said "none of your descendants shall enter the kingdom of heaven". In Acts 2:30, it describes Jesus as a descendant of David as "the fruit of his loins, as pertaining to the flesh". There's a reason the idea of the virgin birth is obscure in the bible. It was added to the bible a few hundred years later. After a debate whether Jesus was a man or son of god, the son of god guys won, and they added parts to the bible in order to prove their point by fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah.

Oops, I forgot answer #5! The answer is BOTH. Genesis 1 and 2 give two contradicting sequences of events. This is understood by most scholars to reaffirm the deduction that Genesis was not written by Moses alone, and was most likely written by no less than 3 authors.

Troll'en Troll'en, the trolls are really roll'en.
Yea! Whip up! Whip wide! Keep those horse pull'en!
Troll'en Troll'en,....

Sing along everyone... weeeeeee! ;)

You got it Robot. I come to a science site to see science. But then you get folks saying we're all "illiterate" or "feminazi" or "abortion is murder cause the bible tells me so". Unfortunately, I let the trollers get to me, and respond with verifiable facts, history, and science. I'll admit, it is a waste on these folks. I know that they only post like that cause they want to bash folks and don't want to see any actual truth, but I just can't let them have their fun.

@syfyguy LOL I think Robot was referring to you!

Anyways her is my proof, I'm not going to quote scripture here as it bugs some of the community. But if you go to this link it clearly says in the bible that unborn babies are people too.

http://www.crusadeforlife.org/prolife_scriptures.htm

That being said, you may have read the bible, but without praying to God to give you understanding when reading you will never understand the lessons.

Abortion is murder. Not in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of parents and God.

I also need to correct you, Hosea is not in the Torah, it is in the Hebrew Cannon, they are different things.

The fact remains that a fetus is a person. Ask any mother that is 2 months pregnant. That fetus is a little person.

Also I reiterate subconsciously these women's bodies are accepting the rapists sperm as superior

I haven't read the bible cover to cover, though I did go to the site recommended by Aldron's Last Hope. The line from the bible is
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven." -Matthew 18:10
(Sorry if this annoyed anyone, but it seems easier to read it here than having to open a tab. Let's call this tangent debate a "theology" debate and say it's a sort of science.)
Back to the line. I don't see how that says that abortion is wrong (I asked God for understanding. So far, have not heard back). So I went back to the first line of Matthew 18, and from what I can tell it sounds like the line is saying not to hurt children that believe in God, which would imply that they would have to have been taught to do so, which seems difficult if they were not born...
Though it also recommends various self-amputations if you find that your limbs or eyes might cause you to not get into heaven.
Then it says that if your brother trespasses against you, tell him alone, then if he doesn't heed you, tell other people so they can tell him, then if he doesn't heed any of them, tell the church, and if he doesn't heed the church, consider him a heathen and a (I kid you not) "publican" (Matthew 18:17).
This makes me giggle.
So, Whatshisface has trespassed against... well a lot of people appear to be rather upset. But it looks like we can skip the trying to tell him and have him heed us, since he's a self-proclaimed 'publican! Yay!

PS. Falsely reported rapes are very serious. Saying that women who report a rape that didn't happen should be punished is not being sexist or misogynistic or speaking as a rapist. Women who falsely accuse a man of raping them when either consensual or even no sex occurred are committing a very serious offense in two parts. One, a man that did not rape a woman will have his life destroyed by the accusation. Even if he's not convicted, friends, loved ones, and possibly employers will always wonder. Second, every time a woman says she was raped when she wasn't, it plants the seed of doubt in every other report. Then when women are actually raped, the women who've lied about it make it that much harder to convince people of the occurrence of a crime that often has little if any concrete evidence. Although, there are already laws that deter this. They are perjury laws. Duh.
Any chance we can get some slightly more eloquent conservatives to argue the other side of the debate? I know there are some out there that can hear their opposition and argue their beliefs for more than one post without using profanity or resorting to insulting their opponent, rather than addressing the argument.
I want to hear more from SyFyGy and marcoreid.

b

While covering this idiot's comments in a science-centric journal may be sort of legitimate, maybe, in a way, the point could, and should, have been made in six paragraphs or less. The man is a colossal fool, he should sit on only one thing in Washington, that being a commode. His remarks of late should have him on the same bus his party threw him under (his remarks do, after all, reflect Republican Party policy -- feel free to look it up) back to Missouri. If there was a law preventing fools from holding political office, Washington and most other capitols, national and international, would be deserted, but an exception might be made for this wingnut. But I digress. Giving him this amount of press is not necessary, and the nice, albeit very old, photograph of his smiling face should not have made it past the editors. Get focused. Please.

Nice try Aldrons. I really like how you said "I won't quote scripture here". It's because you have NO SCRIPTURE TO QUOTE! Like prittywitty here, I read your link, and it absolutely says nothing to address personhood of an unborn child. In fact, it's very repetitive of the word "birth", emphasizing its importance to their beliefs. No one back in those days believed an unborn child had a soul until it received the breath of life. This is all in that book you haven't read, so I definitely encourage you to read it. You say I can't understand god's lessons, but at least I know what they are! If you guys want to be ignorant of your own religion, that's fine and dandy. What is wrong and immoral is stating your beliefs as "facts", and basing your pseudo-logic around it. This is not only ignorant, but extremely dangerous. Those like you would choose to legislate based on this book no one reads. In this case, your "faith" is not in christianity, or the bible, or even god. It is based on what some preachers told you. Look up the definition of "trollers", and see who this most applies to. I am a scientist. I do not deal in opinion or ideology. I deal in quantifiable facts and research.

Jochle, W. (1973) Coitus induced ovulation. Contraception, 7, 523-564.

The effect on LH could be expected to come from the influence of pheromones on gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) neurosecretory neurons. The olfactory/pheromonal stimulus doesn't change when force is used and neither does its epigenetic effects on intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression that result in the GnRH-directed response common in mammals due to conservation of the GnRH molecule in vertebrates across 400 million years of Creation (e.g., via evolution).

I think this may indicate how many people can be offended by the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory stimuli to genetically predisposed effects on hormones and their affects on behavior. But wait, what if the epigenetic effects of pheromones on hormones associated with the physical trauma caused PTSD that affected subsequent behavior? Would that not exemplify taking the understanding of socioaffective neuroscience too far?

yup!

Beyond9, I agree folks like myself let the trollers and rape-buddies try to get us wrapped up in a philosophical debate, but unfortunately the root of the problem cannot be fixed because of the philosophy. As long as there are those who believe it is fact most women lie about rape, or women shouldn't be able to make decisions for their own health because it is a fact abortion is murder, the problem will continue to grow. It is the duty of the thinkers to refute these philosopher's supposed "facts" by presenting undeniable truth. We are not simply arguing a point, but fighting against a history and future of physical and intellectual oppression for not only women but humanity as a whole.

Oops...I have a correction. I quoted the wrong Bible verse about abortion in my above post. Instead of ch.31, it's actually Numbers 5:15-30 that says the priest's job is to abort children of unfaithful women. Numbers 31:15-18 instead talks about when god commanded the Israelites to kill their enemy's boy children and women, and to rape all of their virgin girls. My bad!

@syfyguy that was so bad of you. Truly!

Strangely, bizarrely, cycles of violence can and do repeat themselves in generations. Whatever the statistics are, we humans must really look outside ourselves to try and grow beyond our past generations.

Some children, who grow up in violent homes, having felt the harm of the violence, still grow up to repeat the violence that happens to them, because it was taught to them. Children that are beaten, in-appropriate touching to them or sex force upon them, suffer horribly and know firsthand it is wrong, yet some as adults repeat this offense as it was taught to them.

Babies are innocent and love freely. They learn from the environment that is presented to them. Be kind, gentle and loving to those babies, please!

@syfyguy, buddy you are a troll. And I find it laughable that you think you are a scientist. My God your post had be ROLFLMA. “I don’t deal in opinion” Everything you said is a biased opinion, you are not only a bad scientist, you don’t comprehend what you are saying. The fact remains abortion is murder. Go to any maternity ward and speak to a women that is in pre-term labor. Even @ 5 months that baby is a human being. And does not to deserve to get killed by a feminazi like you. Your whole argument has so many holes in it. First you don’t believe in God, then you say “babies don’t have a soul until they have the breath of life” please which one is it?? You can quote scripture all you want, you do not understand the true meaning. You think you are all righteous, fighting tyranny…LAMO, you see yourself as some do gooder standing up to oppression? You are not, you are just a lost little troll. This country, and every country in the world was built on a legal system that was morally based on some religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Hinduism etc. You have the theists to thank for a civilized society. Without religion, heathens like you would turn this world into ruin. Over 90% of people in this world believe in higher forms of consciousness, and you think you’re buddies (1/2 of which secretly worship the devil) are going to stop this, or convince us we are wrong?? Throughout history I’m sure there were always people who are unable to comprehend higher forms of existence. I pity you and those like you.

But what I don’t understand is this. How is my religion bothering you,? Why do you and your kind always troll all over the internet trying to disprove religion? Just give it up you are getting nowhere.

Let’s leave God out of this. Even if I didn’t believe in God I would believe that life begins at conception. Again ask any parent trying to conceive, they value that babies life throughout the pregnancy. Just because loose women, and cowards don’t does not make that baby any less valuable. All hard working good people know this. You are encouraging an easy way out for loose women, that’s all abortion is. Baby murder.

Also why are you in denial? The fact is women lie about being raped all the time. Usually because they feel guilty. Sometimes for personal gain. Sometimes for revenge. Sometimes because they come from a religious family and have to lie to preserve their dignity. So yeah, this happens often, to deny this is to deny reality, which you seem fond of doing. This is why we have a court of law. The CDC stats are based on testimony not on convictions, so we can already discount a percentage of those “1 in 5” as being false accusations. Please understand reality and our court system.

Now..be gone troll!!

Aldron, you say "everything you've said is biased opinion". Yes, I have interjected some my "educated guesses", which are ultimately opinion, but when I do, I clearly state that it is an opinion. Unlike you, when I state something as a FACT, I give a source or location where you can look it up for yourself. When you say something like "abortion is murder, and that's a FACT", it is in fact, an opinion. The only source you give for this "fact" is the bible, which as everyone who is not blinded by misguided faith understands has no evidence to substantiate it. While my facts, and the facts of the Popsci article have several credible sources. The bible is only considered a credible source by those who believe in it.

The source I give for the bible quotes I cite, is in fact the bible itself. I'm not at all saying that it is a credible source of truth, I'm simply saying that that is what the book itself says. Last night I did discover an incredible terrifying secret. While every other bible version in the world says the Numbers verses say the word "miscarry", the new-fangled versions completely change it to "shrink the genital organs". It appears someone finally got wise to the contradictory passages in the bible, and are changing the book itself to try and hide the reality of it's original writing. Oh sure, there have been numerous translations throughout history, but when the official "words of god" start to change from different translations to injecting interpretation, and claiming it is god's exact words, you have a terrifying view of things to come. This of course is not a "new" translation, as folks back then didn't believe women even had "genital organs". If the verse was meant to say "unable to bear children" instead of "miscarry", then they would have used the hebrew word for "barren", like they do everywhere else in the bible. This illustrates exactly why your religion is so dangerous.

I personally could care less what people believe, but when you and Todd Akin and Paul Ryan and others like you start claiming the your religion is "fact", you then start legislating in accordance with it. You're basically saying, "you have the freedom to worship your own religion, but you're going to jail if you do". Remember blue laws? When the so-called "truth" of the bible can be changed to someone's interpretation, what is to stop even more changes? What is to stop them from changing it to "blessed are the rich" or "it's easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than a POOR man to get into heaven"? And since none of you read the bible, how would you know any better? Freedoms would be stolen from you, and you not only wouldn't know the difference, but you'd be happy about it because it secures you a place in heaven.

And no, I don't believe in a soul. If you'd actually read my posts instead of INTERPRETING them, you would see that I never try to justify anything by saying a soul exists. Though science tends to lean more toward who we are is more a combination of neurotransmitters and chemicals rather than some kind of immortal soul, science at this point cannot prove or disprove the existence of a soul. If you read my post, you'll see clearly I'm simply stating for those who BELIEVE in a soul, the bible says certain things about when that soul enters the body.

And I say again, you need to look up the definition of "troller". And I guess I must clarify. I'm not a scientist by trade. I have bachelor's degrees in chemistry and physics, but also one in industrial design, which is what I do for a career. I've spent years designing exhibits for science museums like the Smithsonian, Epcot, and the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, and now I do design consulting. Since I am trained in it, I still consider myself a scientist.

It is such a shame that while we have freedom OF religion, we do not have freedom FROM religion.

Troller from the Urban dictionary:
Someone who likes to troll, a person who either intentionally or pointlessly yells and swears and insults someone with no or some purpose. Usually spawned by agruements, disagreements, or just hatred. Trolling can also be conducted as a self-entertainment to the troller by causing a ignition in chat or in a internet forum.

Trolling is usually accompanied with spam, capital letters, bad grammar, and immature comments. They can be racist, elitest, or anything else that has to do with stereotypes.

Now when you make statements like "baby murder", "1/2 of you worship Satan", "feminazi", "loose women and cowards", and "women lie about rape all the time", who does this definition best describe?

And packstrap, how exactly do you believe it is bad to quote the bible? True, while it is clear god is telling the Israelites to kill all the boy children and the women, it does not use the word "rape". Some translations say "TAKE as your own the virgin girls", and some say "SAVE for yourselves the virgin girls", but considering the context of the rest of the chapter, you cannot infer that this meant to "rescue" or "adopt" those girls. The reason for this is that back then, it was a common practice to not only defeat an enemy, but breed them out of existence. It's your book. Don't blame me because I'm simply stating what's in it. I imagine the new-fangled verions of the bible say something like "give the virgin girls lollipops and balloons".

@Syfyguy, so you are not trolling with statements like "TAKE as your own the virgin girls"," kill all the boy children " "give the virgin girls lollipops and balloons"???
That's all from your last post. So ummm yeah take your own advice buddy.

Since you are a scientist, I would think you would consider that the religious experience is based on qualitative not quantitative arguments.

That's great, i have a BEng. in Electrical Engineering. Stop pretending everyone in higher learning institutions don't believe in God when most do.

It's a fact that fetus’s are living beings. It's a fact that they have a heartbeat, and brain wave patterns. It's a fact that they respond to stimuli, like touch and sound. So when I say the fetus is a living person, i don't need the Bible to back me up. Just because science is utterly ignorant on Fetus mental development, and bleeding heart feminazi's take every opportunity to stamp out innocent life. Does not make it right. When our technology is advanced to the point where we can read thoughts, and we are able to read the unborn child's thoughts, all the bleeding heart feminazi's and pro death camp will have a lot of apologizing to do.

History has been filled with people like you. People that are so blindly sure of themselves. Guess what, not even 200 years ago leeches were the height of medical technology. And if you told the doctors back then they were wrong you might have been run out of town. 90% of all science has been proven false over time. Like Earth being the center of the galaxy, the heart being the seed of intellect. And in the future 90% of what we know now will be proven wrong or at least incomplete. But God remains steadfast, and thank Goodness for that, despite the changing world, we are able to keep our morals. For instance if we let the feminazi’s get into power, how do we know they won’t impose a rule to kill everyone with an I.Q below 100 or maybe kill all fat people, or short people. Scientifically in makes perfect sense to improve the species no? We need God as a moral compass, we cannot depend on man, he will always go astray.

Anyways, like I said thank goodness for religion, w/o it the world would be in utter chaos, with a bunch of feminazi’s running around perpetually thinking they know everything. Destroying the world, and human rights.

Hahaha! Thanks for proving my point Aldrons...aaagain. No, quoting your own book is not trolling. I shortened to the word "virgins", but since you obviously refuse to even read that book you think is so important and wonderful, I'll quote it word for friggin word for you: Numbers: 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but take for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This is not my interpretation, or a misquote, or a quote out of context. This is word for word from your damn book! Hahaha, I supposed now you'll try and say I retroactively stole every bible in the last thousand years and changed the writing!

And my quote about "lollipops and balloons" is not trolling either. What you seem to be completely ignoring is that I use the words "I imagine", or "I believe", or "I suppose" before statements like these. These kinds of words come before or after an opinion, not a fact. When you say things like "1/2 of you worship Satan", without any of those prefixes/suffixes, you are stating it as a fact. When you do this, it is textbook trolling. Please see definition above.

And I wonder if your mouth is truly big enough to fit both of your feet in. How does that shoe leather taste? Lol, in your quest to show how science can be wrong, you invoke the antique belief that the Earth was the center of the galaxy and the heart was the seed of intellect. That was the church, not science! Bwahaha, your church would burn at the stake anyone who said otherwise. It was revolutionary scientists fighting against your religion at the risk of their own lives who proved wrong these ridiculous beliefs!

You believe, or state as fact, that we need your god's "moral compass". Is this the same moral compass from the bible that says it's ok to beat your slaves as long as they get up after a couple of days? Is this the same god who tells Aaron that as the high priest he's to take a young boy to bed with him? This is the same compass that calls Lot a "rightous man", whose righteousness was so great he offered up his virgin daughters to an angry mob to protect his houseguests! The same righteous man who got so drunk he didn't even know he was having sex with his daughters! You wouldn't know any of this of course since you apparently don't know anything about the bible, but have you ever heard of the dark ages? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? What about the horrors of the Crusades? Salem witch trials? In FACT, it wasn't until we started rebelling AGAINST christianity that we started to make significant growth as a species. The christian god certainly had little to do with greatness of man today. I understand that there are people like yourself in technical fields who have a hard time reconciling technology with your faith. It's because many of our core technologies and advancement directly contradict the bible. It's because science and the scientific method and religion are polar opposites. You're an EE, how bout you read about what the catholic church thought about electricity in the late 1800s? I won't spoil it for you :)

Please, please keep posting. I'll admit I do take a certain guilty pleasure from seeing folks like you make complete fools of themselves.

I will give you a bit of credit for stating a couple of actual facts. A fetus at a point indeed has a heartbeat, brainwave patterns, and responds to stimuli. Does that make it a person? Unfortunately, your logic from your earlier post doesn't support your point. You made the claim that you "know" it is a person from the moment of conception. As doctors have known for quite a while, there is no heart, no brain, no eyes or ears, no nothing at the point of conception other than a few cell divisions less complex than most protozoa. By your own logic, it is not yet a person. When a woman miscarries, is she to pick up the ball of cells and raise it as a child? But the truth is, we have no knowledge of when a zygote or fetus obtains what you would call a "soul" or realizes it's sense of self, and I wouldn't try to speculate on it. What we do know is that your source (the bible) does not support your staunch beliefs in this at all. We also know that not having freedom from religion breeds oppression and theft of rights. We've seen it throughout our history. So whether you are right or wrong, to state it as a "fact" that we all have to accept without empirical evidence is just plain wrong. My cousin was born with extreme cerebral palsy. She's one of those that can't get out of her wheelchair, can't hold an apple, and can barely raise her head. I imagine you would consider her one of those "lazy freeloaders who are dependent on the government". She was actually one of triplets. The doctors told my aunt that if they didn't terminate 2 of the 3, then they would all die, and likely my aunt too. It was a tough decision for her, but she made it. Do you believe my aunt is going to hell for being a baby killer in order that at least she and one survive? The kind of thinking you and Akin and Ryan have will take away that choice from a mother, and in order to save some babies, thousands or millions will die.

@syfyguy are you so liberal you have to be P.C about your trolling and quote urban dictionary as if it is Websters? LMAO!

You said:
"I supposed now you'll try and say I retroactively stole every bible in the last thousand years and changed the writing!"

No I don't have to go to those lengths to refute everything you've said.

First off read the KJV version of the Bible, the others will lead you astray.

You quoted numbers verse 31, fyi you failed to mention that. I hope that verse taught you a valuable lesson. God is taking revenge on a pagan culture that led Israel astray. He instructed Moses to spare the female children and take them as slaves which was customary in those days. He instructed Moses to kill all the men and women. Such is God's wrath. It's very harsh isn't it? That's what it took to survive 5000 years ago. It took harsh discipline to keep Israel together, surrounded by pagans at every turn. This verse teaches of God's vengeance, that paganism idolatry, heathenism will not be tolerated. This has nothing do with the killing of innocent babies. Unborn children. And you are guilty of taking this verse out of context, you may have quoted the lines but you miss the point entirely.

Then you loosely bring up the story of Lot. What you failed to mention was that those "strangers" were actually Angels. Lot was so righteous that he offered his own beloved daughters to the mob that came to rape the "strangers". Instead Angels blinded the sick sodomite Mob. This verse teaches us that the Angels are beautiful, that Lot was so in awe of the Angels that he would sacrifice his own daughters, and that God protects and can harm. Again you miss the point. And again this has nothing to do with baby murder which you seem to be very keen on.

It was the Egyptians that thought the heart was the seed of intellect and taught that to the Greeks who taught the Romans. Not the Church as you suggested. So again you are wrong. But if you want more modern examples of science getting it wrong, look at DDT. Which was actually sprayed on children as they ate their lunch in the 50's. So again science is a work in progress.

It is a fact atheists worship Satan. Ask anyone wearing a pentagram, they will tell you they are atheist, but they unwittingly worship the Devil in protest to Christianity..they don't believe in God, but they wear satanic paraphernalia. I only state facts.

I'm not catholic so I'm not going to speak for them. The Godless commies killed over 100 million in the last 100 years alone, I don't suppose you want to answer for them?

That's an outrages assumption you've made, we've only made progress by rejecting God?? What planet are you from? Take a look around 90% of the people believe in God. It's natural for many scientists to be religious. Because on one level, God is math. The Universe is expressed through mathematical functions,there's nothing for me to reconcile, I am not the one struggling to cope with two spheres co-existing, you are.

Let me educate you, babies start developing their brains at week 6, their heart at 21 days. Late term abortions can be be preformed up to 24 weeks. Babies born at 24 weeks have 50/50 chance of survival. (mayo clinic) These babies have all their organs, and fully formed eyes, ears, fingers toes. Baby murder.

About your cousin, no Christan would say those things about a disabled or afflicted person. You're letting your atheists belief cloud your judgement. To us she is just as innocent as the babies that you would gladly have killed by the millions.

Then you off into a political tirade about the thousands or even "millions" that will die if abortion is outlawed? In order to save "some babies" HA!! You admit they are babies. First off millions won't die. It's a doctor's responsibility to keep the mother healthy. Having an abortion to save your life, and having an abortion because it's a convenience are two different things. Millions already die yearly because of abortion.

So I destroyed your post and exposed all of your assumptions and just wrong statements quite easily. And you even admitted that they are babies. So abortion IS baby murder.

Destroyed my post huh? Exactly how? I cited the Urban Dictionary simply because it was the first to pop up. trollers in this context isn't in Webster's you moron! Fine though. Since I've quoted a source, the impetus is now on you to cite a source that contradicts or supports it.

You said you wouldn't "go to those lengths", yet you've lied repeatedly to try and get your points across. Why would that assumption be any different?

Of course once again, it your OPINION that the KJV is the only bible that won't lead you astray. Of course most christians I've talked to would completely disagree, but hey, you're entitled to your own OPINION. So let's quote it:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Wow, that sounds even worse than the one I quoted! True, it has nothing to do with killing innocent babies, and I'll get to that in a second, but it does command god's people to kill "little ones". Were these boys not innocent?. Is the 2-year old boy at fault for his parents' "evil heathen ways"? You staunchly defend the rights of a fetus, but by golly the second they're born, slaughter em! And let's say for giggles they did do the "nice" thing and only took the little girls as slaves. You're actually proud of a god that commands slavery? You're right, slavery was customary in those days, but from this passage alone, we see god commanded it! There was absolutely nothing taken out of context here. I'm guessing you didn't read the whole CHAPTER (not verse).

So I'll get back to why I quoted that verse. As my earlier posts states, I did quote the wrong chapter originally when I was pointing out the priest's duty to perform abortions. It's been a while since I've read the fairytale, so I get god's acts of atrocity mixed up sometimes. I corrected it later, so I really can't fathom what you're trying to accomplish by lying about it.

As far as Lot goes, I guess you have no rebuttle for his drunken sexcapades with his daughters. Your comment obviously shows you have no daughters. I pity them greatly if you do. Of course, you probably wouldn't make your statements about women faking rape either if you did. It's my OPINION here, but I think 99.9% of christian fathers wouldn't have even mentioned they had daughters to give over, and if the men had demanded their daughters they would have said, "theses are angels of the lord. I think they can probably take care themselves. Leave my daughters alone!". Of course the angels could take care of themselves, which they did by striking everyone blind.

You are correct sir in that the Egyptians believed the heart was the seat of intellect. This was not due to science, but was a religious belief. Then when the Greeks copied and modified their religion, they believed it too. Of course all these religions were based on one another, so it was a firm belief by the christian church as well. The bible doesn't even mention the brain in a single passage. The reason for this is that they thought it was a useless organ. They were more caught up in the heart and blood being where the soul lived. So it wasn't until finally the church's all encompassing power was challenged, and in the 16th century Descartes became the first one to not get executed by the church for suggesting intelligence might just live in the brain.

"It is a fact atheists worship Satan"....wow, that's quite an absolute to be calling a fact. And you're basing this because you've seen some atheists wearing pentagrams? I think you might need to look up the definition of atheists in Websters or where ever the hell you want. The entire premise behind atheism is the rejection of any spiritual beings! Of course this also shows you know nothing about even the word Satan. This is another example of how preachers skew the bible to their own goals. The word "satan" translates as "someone who opposes". This did not mean in any way a name of the devil as over time it is considered. So when Jesus would say, "get the away satan", he was saying "get away fellow that argues with me". You've really gone from the realm of hateful and misleading to the world of complete and total ignorance. I almost believe you're making all this up, and you can't really be as much of an ignorant bigot as you prove yourself to be. That definition of troller that you dismiss talks about how you get a rise from slander and hate.

Of course you're "facts" about fetal development are off too. It's actually even a week earlier that the brain starts developing, but the brain isn't fully formed until after it's born. Once again though, this neither proves it has true consciousness, nor does it support your earlier claim that "I know from the time of conception it is a person". None of your absolutes can be backed up with anything.

You may be right that no christians would make the claims I attributed to you about my cousin. But then, you are not a christian. To be "christian" or "christ-like", you have to follow his teachings. Almost everything you've said to this point is exactly the opposite of what christ's teachings were. I'm sure you really have no idea what christ was all about since you get your information second and third hand. Yes, I do believe it's possible there was once a prophet named Jesus, and other than the invention of eternal damnation, his message was about compassion and love, not the hate rhetoric you're spouting. You haven't said it, but I would deduce you're one of those who would happily kill every "baby killing" doctor out there. Of course now you'll use an infantile come-back like "no, you want to kill people". Lol, I'm really surprised that with the examples of childish arguments you've posted so far, you haven't pulled out "I'm rubber and you're glue".

So I was wrong about one thing. I assumed at first you were simply a typical blind-faither who was naive of the facts of his own religion. Now we all can see that really you may or may not about the atrocities of the god of the bible, but regardless you're all in favor of the kind of god that commands slaughter and slavery, oppression and repression, and bigotry and racism. Of the "legitimate" christians (lol) out there who might be reading the madman Aldron, are you proud that he represents your faith? By all means, cheer him on if I'm wrong and his positions and statements represent your beliefs.

Lol...nevermind Aldrons. I should have done this sooner, but I went back and looked at several of your posts on other articles. 1 out of 3 of all of your posts are politically and pseudo-religiously charged. I stopped counting but read how you've been accused of trolling no less than 13 times. And that was just in the last 6 months! That was why Robot made the troller comment, cause he/she has had to deal with you before. Why did none of you long-time members warn me about his career trolling? I do feel silly now. I fell right into the lap of a professional troller. I guess I was the one who was wrong to think that a science site might be less likely to have career trollers. Do you really get that big of a kick by lying and spewing hateful nonsense to others? Don't answer that. I of course believed I knew the kind of person you were, but now that I see how you've treated others, there really is no way you would ever respect a fact or truth. Post again or not...I won't respond. You are sooo far beneath me I can't even see your posts.

syfyguy,
ZZzzzz.... roll over, adjust my pillow, crack open an eye and see nothing interesting, back to sleep.... ah.

Zzzzz...

Hey, I was raped and ***didn't*** report it, because I'd been hitchhiking and was embarrassed my risky behavior led to the rape. The guy didn't take me to my house, he took me to his rural home where I had no way to get away. I went along with it because I felt helpless and didn't want to get him angry. He actually gave me his phone number and I threw it away! Not only that, I got pregnant!!!

As to the parental sexual contact, my father molested me between the ages of 12 and 13. An uncle was really creepy to me and later went to prison for fondling his own five-year old granddaughter. My grandfather on the other side lost his job teaching schoolkids because he was a pedophile. My cousins sexually molested me from the age of five.

So Sgt B is sadly mistaken. Aldron is really looking for attention (or troll money), that's all. Poor guy. Or girl, I'm not sure.

By the way, I've related all this in the past on comment sections and the trolls accused me of lying. All I can say is too bad there ISN't a hell, because guys like that ought to burn for eternity.

Syfyguy, your comments are right on the money. I was ROTFL LMAFAO! Wish I knew ANY guys like you!

p.s. OF COURSE I had an abortion--Dan if you're out there still, I killed your demon spawn, so there. Grrrrr. Sorry if that's OT.

Your profile is 24 minutes old. .... suspiciously could be syfyguy.

Just to be clear, I am against all violence!

Dude, you're insulting. I joined this website this morning because I had to respond. You can f off. I think syfyguy is evolved and I'm a female. Therefore I have positive feedback for him. You, I know nothing about except that you're paranoid.

I live in Seattle. I'm very real.

Justice dept. annual crime survey says 54% of rapes go unreported NOT 90%. About 90,000 rapes are reported each year. This does not extrapolate to 1.3 million rapes per year. Some studies get these outrageous numbers by saying that if you give in to sex when your partner repeatedly asks for it or says that they are unhappy with your refusal, then you were raped. I can't recall how many times my wife "raped" me this way. The 32,000 rape related pregnancies is extrapolated from the 1.3 million figure.
I'm a devoted enemy of Akin's religious right politics but his critics are way off base. They are criticizing his factual inaccuracy (fair game) but their facts are further from reality than his. He is right to use the term legitimate rape to distinguish actual rape not only from the false charges of rape but the fake rape of feminist social science.

Give me a break, gasbag. If someone were to poll me, I wouldn't be able to REMEMBER all those instances you speak of. But I sure as hell remember the real one.

First of all Cheyenne accept my deepest heartfelt sympathy for the crime against you, even if it comes from a gasbag. I'm glad can distinguish between "other instances" and the "real one". I think that distinction is what Akin meant by legitimate rape.

My point is that it's fine to criticize this guy's position on abortion (it's scary), but it is amazing that what makes national news is this one statement. Politicians make inaccurate statements all the time, sometimes deliberately, and certainly on scientific matters - evolution, global warming, and other issues. If Akin was misinformed about pregnancy, and he admits his error that should end it. But there are some politically incorrect things that are simply not allowed in public, especially when race and gender are concerned. The reaction would be the same or worse if he said that most homicides in the US are committed by black people, or women's brains are smaller than men's. These are factually true statements that you just don't say.
When Akin makes an inaccurate statement about rape and pregnancy, and dares to point out that not all the alleged rapes are really rape he's demonized. Not primarily because it was inaccurate, but because it offends women. If the statement were true most people would still be outraged. In fact they are just as outraged by the true part of his statement as the false one. Not all assertions of rape are really rape.
Some surveys, eg. the CDC, show that women are 7 times as likely to have been raped compared to the Justice department survey. Why? Because some surveys define rape in ways that even Akin's strongest critics themselves wouldn't consider rape, and in ways that the "victim" doesn't consider rape. When countless politicians use the grossly exaggerated numbers about rape they are not demonized even though the inaccurate assertion implies much worse behavior by men than is true. Men like white people just don't matter in the politically correct world. False insults about them are ok, but accurate but unpleasant statements about women and minorities are not ok. Or consider what would happen to a politician who said that gays brought AIDS on themselves through reckless and irresponsible behavior. True, but gays, like women, and minorities are "special".
Akin's stand on abortion for rape victims has been public information forever. It is no better or worse than before he made this one statement, and no different that the position taken by lots of other politicians. What is it about this one statement that made such a scandal?

@Robot :) No, Cheyenne is not me, or related to me, or do I know her an any way. Getting back into the conversation now?

I've been coming to this website for years but never really even read the comments. I let myself get wrapped up in this one and fell right into the trap. You think you might be able to educate someone or share an experience or at the very least prevent someone else from believing their crap. You can't. They know they're lying and radiating hate, and they enjoy it.

It's no use Cheyenne. Don't fall for it like I did.

Ugh...I can't believe I'm typing again, but I have to say thank you old fart for expressing your take on it in a decent and coherent fashion.

You're right. Politicians make dumb statements all the time that don't get immediate media hype. I've seen tons of other statements now from GOP members you've never heard of that you wouldn't have heard of if others weren't trying to link them to Akin. I don't know how many of their connections are true or quotes that may be taken out of context until I research them myself, but I think with the politically charged atmosphere anything like this is going to be big.

Pregnancy by rape throws a wrench in certain politicians' philosophical beliefs and economic plans, so they choose to solve the problem by pretending it doesn't exist. People are already believing it. The damage is done.

And if it concerns a statement that claims to be backed by science and research, but is completely inaccurate, you better believe the journalists of the scientific community are going to jump on that!

@Robot, can you believe this guy!! syfyguy, makes up a profile, pretends he's a chick that got raped, just so he can call me a troll? OMG what a loser. This guy is a definition of a troll. He probably has 50 friends on facebook and they are all his alter egos. HAHAH OMG what a loser. Oh god that was good for a laugh.

@syfyguy, I didn't read your posts, casue they are pointless, I destroyed you. But pretending to be a rape victim, and writing down your sick twisted fantasies here are truly telling about the person you are. Maybe you created "cheyene" to deal with your abuse? Whatever it is get help. You are the type of person that makes multiple avatars on blogs, cause you don't even have any virtual friends, let alone real ones. Get help. You need Jesus.

God bless all. I am for science and free speech to force our leaders and politicans to be correct in their decision making. I am always against violence. I look forward to seeing all or your comments on future articles. Take care. ;)

Dear Lostausername,

You Sir or Madam assume too much. I am in no way shape or form a religious zealot. I simply believe wholeheartedly that when you create a fully formed diploid cell from two parent haploid cells and that resulting cell with its' own unique and never before seen genome successfully attaches to the uteran wall, a viable member of the human species comes into legal existence. It is nothing magical or spiritual in nature. It is nature itself. Lots of the time, a diploid cell from fertilization never properly implants and simply dies, such is nature. What isn't natural is shoving a vacuum tube into the womb and suctioning out the limbs of a developing human being (what other species would it be?) and then crushing the skull with forceps before finishing the cleaning out of the uterus. I get the feeling that you are one of those self centered progressive liberals who fancies him/herself to be above everyone else and I'll bet that you detest having to think that all human beings are equal. But, I might just be assuming too much like you have a habit of doing.

I just have to say... I love you, syfyguy.
I wish everyone would back up their claims with qotes and scientifically proven facts.

And by the way: I have seven (girl-)friends to whome I'm close enough to talk about such private matters. One was raped and another was sexually abused by her stepbrother when she was a child. Both of them never reported the crime.

syfyguy, I'm looking at the Hebrew text of Numbers 5. The woman is not described as pregnant, only suspected of adultery. If she's guilty, when she drinks the consecrated water, it will "cause her belly to swell and her thigh (yarekh) to fall." Yarekh can mean "loins" as seat of procreative power, as well as "thigh" (Brown/Driver/Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 437-438) (also "side" or "base"), but there's no evidence it ever meant "fetus." (Yotze yarekh, "that which comes out of the 'thigh,'" but not yarekh by itself, means progeny.) The Septuagint reads "to inflate the belly and cause the thigh to fall away." The Vulgate reads "to cause the thigh to putresce and the uterus to swell up and burst." This does not resemble abortion but some kind of abdominal and vulvar necrosis that would deprive her dramatically and painfully of future fertility.

You still haven't cited where the priest is supposed to beat the woman in the abdomen until she aborts.

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but there's an angle to this nobody has addressed.

First, kudos to opinionated old fart for being one of the few voices of reason in this cacophony of irrelevant and emotion-based reactionism.

Second, while I found the science in this article interesting, a thinly veiled political opinion piece ("And, obviously, preeclampsia is not the solution. Having the right to choose what to do about it is.") is inappropriate for a magazine that wishes to maintain an air of scientific credibility.

The angle nobody has addressed is this--What did Akin mean when he said "rare." Ms. Abbasi seems to think he means, at least in part, few in actual numbers. She points to estimates ranging from 32-89k pregnancies per year resulting from rape to show it is not rare.

That's a flawed assumption. "Rare" doesn't mean "few," it means "uncommon." In practice it is often used as a relative term, not an absolute term. For example, if I flip a coin only twice and it comes up heads both times, I cannot validly claim landing heads-up is a rare occurrance. Conversely, gold is commonly thought of as a rare metal, despite the fact that, according to one estimate (www.coinweek.com/bullion-report/how-much-gold-is-there-in-the-world/) the total amount of mined gold equals to 158,000 tonnes, or roughly the size of a cube 66' long per side. It's obvious to me a numerical count is not sufficient to categorize something as rare or not, so although 32,000 women impregnated from rape is a lot of women, it doesn't mean it is not rare.

Ms. Assabi also attempts to support her assertion that "he's just plain wrong when he says rape-related pregnancies are rare" by comparing pregnancy rate of rape to the pregnancy rate of consenual sex. Unfortunately, her sloppy writing and inaccurate portrayal of what Akin said undermines her argument.

The beginning of the article says, "Akin said he believed that rape-related pregnancy was 'really rare.'" If we are willing to set aside the rightous indignation, one can see that is a supportable position. It all depends on what you're comparing it against, and "rape-related pregnancy" is not defined well enough to decide if it rare. Pregnancy from rape is a small fraction (~5 out of every 1,000) of the total number of pregnancies in the US every year. (6m, according to www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html) That's uncommon enough for me to consider it rare. If we compare rape pregnancies against the total number of opportunities for pregnancy (i.e. number of times couples have intercourse) the occurance rate of rape-related pregnancies will obviously nose dive to very small numbers. Both are valid comparisons in different contexts, and Ms. Abbasi's choice of words is vague enough to prevent the objective reader from ruling them out.

As it turns out, Ms. Abbasi's comparisons do a reasonably good job of countering what Akin *actually* said, but I didn't discover that until I searched for other articles and watched the video. (fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/ -- Unfortunately the video in this article doesn't contain the comments.)

Akin, according to Ms. Abbasi:
"rape-related pregnancy was really rare."

Akin, according to the video:
"It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare--if it's a legitimate rape the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down."

After watching the video I think it is fair to interpret his comments as the rate at which raped women get pregnant, though given the context (legality of abortions for rape victims) he may have intended to compare the number of abortions resulting from rape vs. number of abortions resulting from consensual sex. Regardless, the post rape pregnancy rate (what his comments meant) is very different from the more general rape-related pregnancy rate (what Ms. Abbasi claimed he meant.) Her inaccurate portrayal of his meaning in the opening paragraph creating the impression that she either didn't understand his argument or didn't understand statistics.

It appears, though I admit I do not know this to be true, that Ms. Abbasi was so intent on demonizing Akin and his personal views on abortion, that she allowed the "science writer" part of her brain to be silenced while writing this article. (Or maybe she just needed filler material to hit her word count... I don't know.)

For example, near the end of the article she states:

"In saying that women 'shut down' pregnancy after rape, Rep. Akin unwittingly stumbled upon the concept that women's bodies reject unfamiliar sperm. In 2006, Gallup and his co-author Jennifer Davis published their theory that preeclampsia, a common pregnancy complication that can result in spontaneous abortion, evolved as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen. (I say unwittingly because Akin was more likely referring to a theory that the fear and trauma of rape causes a woman's fallopian tubes to tighten, thus preventing pregnancy. This idea, proposed by John C. Willke, a physician and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee, has been lambasted by other doctors.)"

This paragraph is clever (and manipulative) writing, but it certainly is not science. To justify her negative opinion of Akin, she has the difficult task of dismissing his views even though there is, as she admits, a scientific basis for them. She does this by denying the possiblity that he was aware of existing researching supporting his claim and instead attributes his knowledge to a discredited theory. What evidence does she give to support her assertion that her explanation is "more likely?" None. If Ms. Abbasi is going to claim knowledge of what Akin was thinking about during the interview, at the very least she needs to explain how she came to that conclusion. She doesn't, so I can't see how the paragraph is anything other than wild, and inappropriate, speculation.

There are other things about the article bother me too. For a writer and publication that purports to be based on science and facts, the title of the article is flat out wrong. Rape does NOT result in more pregnancies than concensual sex. Six million pregnancies in the US every year; 32,000 of them from rape. The math isn't difficult and the wording is inexcusable. Often writers don't have control over the titles, so maybe Ms. Abbasi isn't at fault here, but if accuracy in the media is more important than sales (as I hope it is for PopSci) somebody really dropped the ball on this.

Like I said at the start, I enjoyed the scientific aspect of the article. I learned stuff I didn't know previously. The political opinions I could have done without. It's awfully hard to trust scientists and science writers when they are using it as a platform to push their idealogical agenda.

---------

One final comment on the responses to this article. One thing the article (or any of the media reports I saw) didn't address at all was what Akin said at the start:

"It seems to be... from what I understand from doctors..."

He's not asserting it as truth. He's not claiming it is his opinion. He is clearly saying "this is my understanding based on the information I have received." I had never heard of Akin before I read this article today, but when I watched videos of the interview he struck me as an intelligent, reasonable person who holds views I disagree with.

Over the past decade or more the two political parties have become more and more antagonistic towards each other to the point where congressmen do not even acknowledge each other. The public complains about it and points fingers at the other side of the aisle.

IMO the problem isn't the politicians--it's the public. In general we have very little tolerance for people whose views do not coincide with our own, and we are far too quick to assign negative traits to them. The phenomenom is plainly apparent in the comments. (Among other things, the left often views the right as intellectually deficient and the right often views the left as morally bankrupt. And both sides view the other as corrupt.) The consequence is any politician caught compromising with the opposing party is considered a traitor and rewarded by removal from office in the next election.

If you want this country to move forward, do yourself a favor and spend more time trying to understand others' ideas and less time evangelizing your own. Ask why they believe what they believe. If you have an open mind and your experience is anything like mine, you'll discover they have logical reasons for their beliefs. After that spend some time studying epistemology. Acknowledging we don't know nearly as much as we thought we did will go a long ways towards cooling the overheated political atmosphere.

--------------

Pre-emptive answers to unasked questions. (Maybe this will reduce the flaming.):
1. Yes, I did just create this account for the purpose of responding to this article.
2. No, I am not a alternate name for someone already logged on here.
3. Yes, I expect I will get flamed heavily for this post.
4. No, I probably will not respond. I've learned most people are not ready to explore whether their own beliefs are justified or not. Nothing I can say will change their mind. At best I can hope a handful of people get what I'm trying to say.

I cannot qualify my comments enough as to how horrible rape is and, worse yet, how bad it would be to deal with a pregnancy from rape as well. What really caught my attention were the reported statistics in this article. Any rape is bad and it is no less bad if it happens to a few or to many, but here goes:

There is greatly conflicting information out there.

The article: "Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010.

The FBI: "There were an estimated 83,425 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2011.
"http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape

The FBI: "There were an estimated 83,425 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2011.
"http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/forcible-rape

This is kind of what women mean when they say, get off of me. Basically all male commenters, telling me I have a graveyard belly, telling me I'm probably lying about being raped, saying ignorant, misogynistic things. It's exhausting, and it's exactly why "Team Rape" and Republicans lost the election. It takes men and women to stop rape, we have to do it together. Stop blaming and look in the mirror.

Thank you, Imotep and Syfyguy for standing up for women, esp. to other men. I'm sure it's frustrating for you, too. Some people seem to think there's such a thing as illegitimate rape. Let me educate you. If she's too drunk to respond, it's rape. You NEVER are entitled to someone else's body. Ever. Snowboardsoldier, I don't know if you have raped, but your confusion about what it even is tells me you at least think like a rapist, i.e. if she's passed out, if she wears a skimpy outfit, if my friends are pressuring me, I have no control over whether I rape her. As for men's rights and hardships, broken up families are one thing. When it comes to rape accusations, no, men are not victims. Some people lie, the vast majority don't. I've had many, many female friends who did not have consensual sex but did not report it. For every man falsely accused (which is never right), there are many walking around who didn't even know what they did was wrong. People today blame feminism, because it's easier than looking within and maybe finding out that you have raped someone. It won't happen overnight, but I hope in the future victim blaming will not be a knee jerk reaction to rape discussions.

As for the comments on how awful abortion is, let me just say that no matter what science uncovers, women aren't incubators. If it's revealed that my fertility peaks during a rape, or that my rapist's sperm is designed by evolution to be more potent during rape, it won't change the fact that I'm a person with my own life, and it comes before my ability to get pregnant. No matter what findings Akin had come up with, it wouldn't change how important choice is in a woman's life. Please, safe, legal abortion (and easily accessible contraception), not illegal, deadly, black market ones.

The headline "Rape Results In More Pregnancies Than Consensual Sex, Not Fewer" may be misleading. If the speculation that rapists "target young women at peak fertility" is true, then the age and health of the persons involved could explain any increase in per-incident pregnancy rates, rather than the fact that it was rape.

And it is not clear that there is an increase. A problem with the 5% statistic from the 1996 study is that may have included both pregnancies that resulted from rape and pregnancies that did not. ( see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577605292434990750.html )
I see no indication here of how Gottschalls attempted to sort out the two groups in their study, or even that they tried.

There was also some commentary here that women are reluctant to report rape. Doesn't it seem likely that women who become pregnant are more likely to end up coming forward than women who don't? It would be more difficult for them to try to forget that the rape happened. If so, that would skew the apparent rape pregnancy rate higher. So would face-saving false claims of rape after consensual sex that results in a pregnancy. Pax the previous poster, saying that some rape claims are false is not at all the same as saying that all or even most rape claims are false.

As a separate issue, even if per-incident pregnancy rates really were higher for rape, that would still not make forced sex a more successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex. Not when the number of incidents for the two strategies differ so much. You'd need to look at number of children conceived over a lifetime, and beyond that, whether they in turn reach adulthood and have children of their own.

Finally, whether mothers have the right to snuff out the lives of their children in the womb is a moral question that does not depend on the frequency with which rape results in pregnancy.


140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.



Popular Science+ For iPad

Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page



Download Our App

Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing



Follow Us On Twitter

Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed


February 2013: How To Build A Hero

Engineers are racing to build robots that can take the place of rescuers. That story, plus a city that storms can't break and how having fun could lead to breakthrough science.

Also! A leech detective, the solution to America's train-crash problems, the world's fastest baby carriage, and more.



Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email

Contributing Writers:
Clay Dillow | Email
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Colin Lecher | Email
Emily Elert | Email

Intern:
Shaunacy Ferro | Email

circ-top-header.gif
circ-cover.gif