Akin rape theory rooted in Nazi death camp experiments
The theory behind Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) assertion earlier this week that women who are victims of “legitimate” rape would not get pregnant appears to be based on 1972 research that cites experiments done in Nazi concentration camps, a Missouri newspaper reported on Monday.
During an interview with KTVI over the weekend, Akin had claimed that women were not likely to get pregnant because “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
This reasoning, based on 1972 article by a University of Minnesota Medical School assistant professor, has been used for decades by anti-abortion activists to argue that no exceptions to abortion bans are necessary, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
In the article titled “The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician’s Perspective,” Dr. Fred Mecklenburg concluded that it “is extremely rare” for a rape to result in pregnancy.
Mecklenburg cited a number of factors for his theory, including that not all rapes resulted in “completed act of intercourse” and that it was “improbable” that a rape would occur within “the 1-2 days of the month in which the woman would be fertile.”
But it was Mecklenburg’s presumption that a traumatized rape victim “will not ovulate even if she is ‘scheduled’ to” that appeared to be the basis of Akin’s recent remarks.
To support his conclusion, Mecklenburg cited studies that were allegedly done at extermination camps in Nazi Germany.
Nazis reportedly tested the theory “by selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the gas chambers, only to bring them back after their realistic mock-killing, to see what the effect this had on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high percentage of these women did not ovulate,” the article said.
Mecklenburg also speculated that “frequent masturbation” was likely to make rapists infertile.
More recent research, however, has debunked the ideas Mecklenburg’s article.
“From a scientific standpoint, what’s legitimate and fair to say is that a woman who is raped has the same chances of getting pregnant as a woman who engaged in consensual intercourse during the same time in her menstrual cycle,” American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Dr. Barbara Levy told the Post-Dispatch.
A 1992 study by the Medical University of South Carolina determined that the “national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.” Many experts believe that number could be significantly higher because an estimated 54 percent of rapes are not reported.
--
A friend of mine on FB put it best: "If you find yourself asserting a theory based on research done by the Nazis, you really need to stop and reevaluate your life."
The theory behind Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) assertion earlier this week that women who are victims of “legitimate” rape would not get pregnant appears to be based on 1972 research that cites experiments done in Nazi concentration camps, a Missouri newspaper reported on Monday.
During an interview with KTVI over the weekend, Akin had claimed that women were not likely to get pregnant because “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
This reasoning, based on 1972 article by a University of Minnesota Medical School assistant professor, has been used for decades by anti-abortion activists to argue that no exceptions to abortion bans are necessary, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
In the article titled “The Indications for Induced Abortion: A Physician’s Perspective,” Dr. Fred Mecklenburg concluded that it “is extremely rare” for a rape to result in pregnancy.
Mecklenburg cited a number of factors for his theory, including that not all rapes resulted in “completed act of intercourse” and that it was “improbable” that a rape would occur within “the 1-2 days of the month in which the woman would be fertile.”
But it was Mecklenburg’s presumption that a traumatized rape victim “will not ovulate even if she is ‘scheduled’ to” that appeared to be the basis of Akin’s recent remarks.
To support his conclusion, Mecklenburg cited studies that were allegedly done at extermination camps in Nazi Germany.
Nazis reportedly tested the theory “by selecting women who were about to ovulate and sending them to the gas chambers, only to bring them back after their realistic mock-killing, to see what the effect this had on their ovulatory patterns. An extremely high percentage of these women did not ovulate,” the article said.
Mecklenburg also speculated that “frequent masturbation” was likely to make rapists infertile.
More recent research, however, has debunked the ideas Mecklenburg’s article.
“From a scientific standpoint, what’s legitimate and fair to say is that a woman who is raped has the same chances of getting pregnant as a woman who engaged in consensual intercourse during the same time in her menstrual cycle,” American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Dr. Barbara Levy told the Post-Dispatch.
A 1992 study by the Medical University of South Carolina determined that the “national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year.” Many experts believe that number could be significantly higher because an estimated 54 percent of rapes are not reported.
--
A friend of mine on FB put it best: "If you find yourself asserting a theory based on research done by the Nazis, you really need to stop and reevaluate your life."
So far, you've been able to demonstrate that this research was
a) of significant scope
b) valid
c) OR valuable
From a quick read of the article cited
I would suggest you read the article carefully before accusing anyone of bias. You want to make sure you don't get the wrong idea.
it looks as though the author inherently *wants* to discredit the research because he believes that any information gained in an unethical way should not be used ever
Would you please point me to the section you got that impression from?
Which is a clear bias, and does make me question his conclusions and even methods.
Do you also dispute the data he cites, e.g. "Such basic variables as the age and level of nutrition of the experimental subjects are not provided, and the various study subgroups are not segregated. The numbers of subjects who underwent immersion while naked, clothed, conscious, or anesthetized are not specified. The bath temperatures are given as ranging between 2 and 12°C, but there is no breakdown into subgroups, making it impossible to determine the effect of the different temperatures. The end points of the experiment —time spent in the bath, specific body temperature, subject's clinical condition, death, and the like — are not stated."
If so, do you have proof to the contrary?
If not, do you not believe this to be significant flaws that would seriously limit the usefulness (or to paraphrase you, validity and value) of the research?
Yes, it is anecdotal, but so is all more other research regarding hypothermia, including the modern studies he cites.
So you agree that this research (and I use the term loosely) provides us with no information that we wouldn't get from spontaneous case studies of hypothermia.
We may have to agree to disagree in this case as to whether there is any value to the data or not.
I think I'll go with the scientific opinion over yours, thanks.
Certainly the knowledge gained in horrible ways by various Japanese scientists during WWII was considered valuable enough for various US officials to grant them amnesty.
Again, let's not lose focus here. This has little to do with the subject at hand.
Edited at 2012-08-22 08:08 pm (UTC)