Was Todd Aiken right?

Answering commentary on WND’s article about Todd Aiken’s book:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/was-todd-akin-right-all-along/

Three reports that back him up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-391616/Stress-causing-infertility-women.html

Two years after CNN’s lineup laughed at Todd Aiken, CNN reports a medical study that says he was right:
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/24/study-stress-may-reduce-fertility/

The Guardian is not to be outdone:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/stress-infertility-women-us-study

And yet there will be people who will continue to say other unscientific pronouncements in spite of the facts, like the indented comments to follow here:

(1) So let’s see- first, you seem to confuse “stress” with emotions such as fear, anger, shame…the list goes on.

Who ever told you “emotions such as fear, anger, shame” are not causes of “stress”?

There are studies linked in the article of dramatically higher numbers of successful pregnancies after embryo implantation when a comedian visited the women during the minutes after the process.

(2) Second, you ignore Aiken’s own other comments, something to the effect that “I have several people on my staff who gave birth as a result of rape”- contradicting his own claim.

You ignore the fact that his comments were meant to show that he understood it does on occasion happens. One or two albino alligators does not mean that the y are common.

Re-read his “claim”, without prejudicing the semantics, to see that it is compatible with “the claim”.

(3) Third- again you misunderstand the term stress- in that prolonged stress can interfere with a womans cycle. This is far different from a stressful incident interfering with a normal cycle

Third, same as #1, you do misunderstand stress if you think such strong emotions have no connection to stress. Do you think the emotion of one night of rape disappears the next morning? In other contexts, feminists would call that a misognynist attitude. It is crazier than even what you thought was “his claimes” which it was not.

(4) Fourth- the evidence does not suggest that the incidence or pregnancy from rape is “very low”. Indeed, it seems to be slightly higher then any other single incidence of unprotected sex. Maybe see the studies and discussion related to the comments from Trent Franks in 213 here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Oh so now you accept a possible link, except you swallow whole that the connection is more pregnancies from rape than non-rape sex? And as to your government-issued numbers, do you believe everything your government always tells you? There are also official estimates that only half of rapes are reported, but more important, many reported rapes are not rapes. Women recant, for example, like the famous case in Chicago where the victim was a girl who cried rape to cover here consent sex with her boyfriend, but later was “born again” and decided to do the right thing to the victim of her accusation. It took her almost half a year, if memory serves.

I know of one case personally in which the boyfriend was locked away three times for abusing the girlfriend physically. The girlfriend confided to another friend that they were lies, she was just “tired of him”. He was apparently a “glutton for punishment” I guess.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: