Talk:Pregnancy from rape/Archive 1

Archive 1

Evolutionary Biology

This article is improperly categorized -- should be under evolutionary biology. A mechanism that would prevent conception in cases of forcible rape would seem to serve a useful purpose by preventing conception when the woman is violated by an undesirable mate. Interesting question. And none of the research cited is useful in evaluating that hypothesis. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoGunChuck (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, some of the research cited is directly concerned with the question of evolutionary adaptations for rape. However, most of the research cited thus far, and the scientific consensus as reported by secondary sources, does not seem to support your hypothesis. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Evolutions "opinion" could also be: "Ok, you managed to rape her, you´re fit enough." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The human penis is shaped, as in other animals, to expel previous partners' sperm in order to raise the odds a new partner's sperm will cause pregnancy. This is usually interpreted via religious/sociopolitical dogma as being so a husband's/primary partner's sperm will have the best chance to cause pregnancy, but the same argument rules out such consideration, as it raises the odds of the last pre-conception partner's sperm's chance of causing pregnancy.

Sources

Here are some sources that could be used in this article. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 10:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Good Article nomination

I thought this article has come up to the quality of a WP: Good Article. I submitted it for that. Was at a loss as to what category to put it in. I went with Cultural and social studies. Just because the article covers a wide range of topics that relate to culture, history, and science. Casprings (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to Miscellaneous.Casprings (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What? Seriously? It clearly does not come up to GA quality. Granted, it may get lots of edits before someone actually reviews it, but clearly not GA level at this point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, This article has a LONG way to go still. Jokestress (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Not even close. Rather than starting from a reasonable premise, this article began its life as a party to a political attack. Reading over the article, even with all this new stuff added, it can clearly be seen as an attempt to persuade more than an attempt at a Wikipedia article. It is a patchwork of things tacked on to try to defeat an AfD nomination, not a true presentation of a subject that could potentially be noteworthy. Had it been developed at the Rape article as a subsection, as first suggested, and allowed to develop over time with decent sourcing, it could have been forked when it was ready. As it is presently, it would require a lot of work to even begin to get it in shape. You don't seem to want to take the time to develop a proper article. Instead it is simply about forcible assault of Wikipedia itself with your viewpoint. -- Avanu (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Critically important" sentence should be removed

The question of rape-pregnancy statistics has also been called "critically important" in the understanding of the relationship between rape and human evolution, specifically for sociobiological theories of rape.[8]

I think this sentence should probably come out. 1) The assertion's only worth including if the person/entity saying it is in some way credible, which the reader can't gauge because they're not identified, and 2) the citation doesn't appear to support the sentence. (It's behind a paywall, but the citation doesn't have anything obviously to do with sociobiology, and the Politico article it's sourced from also has nothing to do with sociobiology.) Sue Gardner (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The sentence is written by an English prof and his economist wife (who are big adherents of sociobiological ideologies) to describe critics of their views. For context, the statement by Jonathan Gottschall reads: "Critics of evolutionary theories of human rape, especially those theories that invoke the possibility of rape-specific adaptation, often deem rape-pregnancy statistics critically important.". I am removing the "critically important" part, but this is certainly of great interest to people who believe in rape as an evolutionary adaptation. They have written extensively about it. Jokestress (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Children from rape" section?

I propose we also include a "children from rape" section. There have been a number of recent stories in the press about the difficulties of dealing with the aftermath of a baby carried to term and kept following a rape. First-hand reports from women, legal issues (31 US states allow rapists to seek custody), and international issues. Children born to Bosnian Muslim women as a product of rape during the Bosnian War face stigma, isolation, and abandonment. Babies born from Rwandan genocide rapes are called “children of bad memories” and “devil’s children." Children of rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo from the First Congo War, Second Congo War, and Kivu Conflict have been described as a lost generation, often despised and victimized themselves. I'm not sure there's enough at this time for a standalone, but if it gets too big we can fork it. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be an interesting section. I would think there would be some evidence that there is an effect on both mother and child, especially with mental illness. Casprings (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pregnancy from rape/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Fast fail, the article is currently at AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this article is getting closer to GA quality. The only things that I'm seeing right now that immediately catch my attention are that the lead feels disjointed and weak at the moment. I also don't care for the fact that the Aikin's controversy redirect is in the 'see also' section... can we get a little more politically divisive if we try? (The answer to that question of course is yes. This article started off as the worst form of political trash, but it has since turned into an extremely good article.) As the entire political hoopla is dying down, I don't see any more incentive to overly politicize this, so we just need to be vigilant for attempts to use it as a coat rack. Trusilver 17:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The wording of the lead is disjointed. The first sentence should simply state the science and go from there. I also agree about the Akin part. He is only one person that mentioned a comment like his. Casprings (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who has reviewed a number of articles for GA, I would wait. The article is not stable, having just (2 days ago) gone through an AfD. It would fast fail under the "recent or on-going" criteria. There is no hurry on this, the article is not going anywhere. Finish the edits, let it get stable, then have another try at it. Repeated fast fails would be looked at in future nominations for good or featured article, and it puts the entire article in a bad light. I would wait at least two weeks, and preferably a month - longer if the article continues to have stability problems. GregJackP Boomer! 20:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. That was properly dumb on my part to put it up. I just thought it was a good article. Waiting and seeing if there are any large edits or debates on the article is important. That said, if the article is stable after a month, is the current version close to a GA article? Casprings (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know and I make a practice of not offerring predictions. I would have to go through the review process and check the criteria. All I was indicating was that it was better to wait in this case. GregJackP Boomer! 21:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Medical section first?

User:CMBJ reversed the order of this article with this edit. I feel this should start with the medical information at the top. I'd like to see if there's consensus which supports putting medical info back at the top. Jokestress (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. It is logical for the medical section to come first. Casprings (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I can understand the instinct to present information in historical order, but I think that in this case the current mainstream scientific findings should come first. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Balkan rape camps

I remember reading in the media during the Balkan civil wars when the Serbians were operating rape camps, that there was an issue with the Bosnian, Croatian, etc victims deciding what to do with all the children that this had produced. Perhaps something about this could go in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

War Rape Section

Some of the information in the war rape section seems an odd fit to me. It seems to me that it is great information, that belongs in the War Rape article. However, for this one, wouldn't we want to only included enforced pregnancy? Casprings (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Its normal to provide a medium amount of context, and it's carefully focused on the pregnancy aspects rather than rape in a war context generally. For example other than the hat link there is no discussion of Nazi or Japanese comfort girls, or other conflicts where rape, but not notable pregnancy aspects, arose.

The section is brief. It covers two aspects after a brief introduction:- 1/ international law related to recognition of rape in the context of sexual slavery and forced impregnation (including as tools of genocide which is not widely intuitive); 2/ Bosnian war rape camps where enforced pregnancy by rape was a specific goal. History and effects are brief sections, the reasons for adding here is that "rape and pregnancy in conflict zones" has a quite different history from in other (civilian) contexts and after playing round a bit, I found it's much easier to cover in that part. Hope this explains. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Children of rape section

1. I replaced the non-anecdotal parts of this paragraph in this edit as some editors see the anecdote as unencylopedic and so forth. The part in question is:

One woman stated, "I was raped in [North Carolina] and the rapist won '[j]oint' custody. Torment does not come close to describe what I live. . . . [The courts] have not only tied and bound me to a rapist, but also the innocent child that was conceived by VIOLENCE! [The rapist’s] violence has earned him even more control over my life." Another woman stated, “I was raped . . . and the rapist has been taking me to court for 5 years for the right to see his son. . . . I am being tormented to death. I just want to die . . . ."

2. I removed the cn tag because the sentence in question, which is Both the traumatic effect of the rape and the connection to the rapist by the child can create significant psychological problems for both the mother and child. is sourced to the reference that the editor who placed the tag removed when they removed the anecdote. One relevant part from the source is:

Lack of effective treatment also “can often lead to . . . diagnoses such as anxiety attacks, social phobias, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorders, suicidal ideation, self-mutilation, . . . manic activity bouts, chronic fatigue syndrome and personality disorders.” Raped women who choose to raise their rape-conceived children, then, may be put in a Catch-22 if their rapists assert custody and visitation privileges. To effectively parent their children, these raped women must adequately overcome their victimization; however, in order to do that, these women must be able to escape from the “triggers” that make healing from their victimization impossible.

another is:

Thus, raped women and their children face substantial and terrible consequences as a result of these women’s decisions to give birth to and raise their children.

Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, what's not reasonable is expecting other editors to look for sourcing 2-3 sentences down the line, or in the next paragraph.

Next, you put back too much because you simply don't have any facts. What you are inserting in the article is basically garbage. Please, help me out here: "There have been no studies analyzing the number of rapists who seek custody." With that in mind, why in the world do you think it's proper to introduce content into an encyclopedia right after you tell us there is no solid information to be had? Come up with sources that can tell us some actual facts, and we'll have something to discuss. Belchfire-TALK 01:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The source has plenty of facts. It has facts that support the material that's cited to it in the article. Neither the article nor the paper say anything about the number of such rapists, but there are evidently enough for there to be a paper in a law review discussing the issue and for legislators in a number of states to pass laws to protect such women. The fact that the number is unknown is evidently relevant enough for the source to mention, so it's relevant enough to go into this article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably fine for a law review, but try to remember: this is Wikipedia. It means precisely nothing that this sort of thing is suitable or acceptable somewhere else. We have standards - our own standards - and your content will need to meet those standards or it will have to be removed.

Now let's look at your junk content sentence-by-sentence, and I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

1. Both the traumatic effect of the rape and the connection to the rapist by the child can create significant psychological problems for both the mother and child.[citation needed] This needs a citation. I understand that there is a citation supporting it later in the paragraph, but it's not my job, nor is it the reader's job, to go hunting for it. Once you pointed out the citation, I moved it to the end of this sentence. Then you reverted back to a bogus version, and that change was lost.
2. One example, is that in many jurisdictions, the rapist has parental rights.[dubious – discuss] You need to support this if you expect it to stand. Best of luck to you. Based on my own knowledge of family law, I'm pretty sure it's bullshit. If it's not bullshit, you need to prove that via some means besides naked assertion and appeal to authority.
3. There have been no studies analyzing the number of rapists who seek custody.[clarification needed] This just takes the cake. Here you are telling us that there is no data to be had in support of your premise, yet you are still trying to build a paragraph in an encyclopedia based on this premise. How on Earth that's supposed to work, I can only guess.
4. However, first-hand reports indicate the effects are significant for some women.[weasel words][68] And here, we are back to anecdotal evidence. First-hand reports are only valid for specific instances, so you need to name names, establish notability, and/or give hard numbers. Failing those things, this is just garbage that needs to go.

As I said, you'll have to do a lot better than simply saying, "This was good enough for _________'s law review." Belchfire-TALK 02:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, how do you like my new version?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fine. However, when did a peer reviewed journal article stop being a RS? Casprings (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it's only Georgetown and not Berkeley? I *meant* to say Harvard there but my fingers wouldn't let me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Belchfire: One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is "appeal to authority," although it's usually called WP:V.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point, would anyone object to removing the refimprove-section tag from the section?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Casprings (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done in another victory for BRD!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What's not to like? You've added sources where they were needed, and got rid of the content that wasn't sourceable. Well done. Belchfire-TALK 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Section on Rape during American Slavery and European DNA in today's African American population

That could be an interesting section. I have found sources that state rape was common during American slavery. Also, sources indicate that many American Blacks carry European DNA. That could make for an interesting result of rape section. Casprings (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to have a "see also" that leads to articles on that topic. It's a really huge topic and could easily drag this article off its related, but distinct, focus. Another option is the way that many articles have a short section about a really big topic, combined with a "See main" link (can't remember what it's called) that indicates there's a much fuller discussion of the topic in the article "__________" (insert name of more-comprehensive article here). Lawikitejana (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"neutrality" between male rape of women and female rape of men

Avanu has recently introduced several edits to make the language ambiguous as to whether the rape victim is male or female. Although of course it is biologically possible for a woman who rapes a man to become pregnant as a result, there is an obvious problem with maintaining an artificial even-handedness regarding the gender of the victim in the article:

• As far as I can tell, all of the cited sources are exclusively concerned with female rape victims.

No sources have been given for the notability of the topic of pregnancies of female rapists. Hence, it would not be "neutral" for us to apply the statements in the article to male-female and female-male rape situations equally, quite the contrary—such "neutrality" would be WP:OR. Per WP:V, the only thing we can do is to stick with the sources and state clearly that the article is concerned with pregnancies of rape victims.

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The underlying stupidity of the article is that some people somehow think that certain types of intercourse can't cause pregnancy. Consensual or not, sex causes pregnancy. It doesn't matter whether the rapist is male or female. Male rapes are MUCH more common, and obviously most research would be in that area. But the title of this article is "Pregnancy from rape", not just "Pregnancy as a result of women being raped by men". -- Avanu (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The few instances of pregnancy from rape instigated by a female are generally statutory rape (e.g. Mary Kay Letourneau). There are also occasional folktales etc., like the story of Lot's daughters getting him drunk, having nonconsensual sex with him, and bearing two sons. Any general statements about the phenomenon should be gender-neutral, but we should be very clear that these cases are extremely rare, and that their rarity accounts for disproportional media coverage. A brief mention in a sentence or two is plenty, as the vast majority of cases are men who rape women. Jokestress (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I also understand where Avanu is coming from, although there are types of intercourse that don't cause pregnancy by themselves, such as anal or oral sex, which would require sperm somehow making its way to the vaginal tract (by either leaking from one spot to the vagina or by way of fingers), and there are non-penetrative sex acts such as mammary intercourse. But how one could possibly think that pregnancy can't result from penile-vaginal sex simply because a woman is raped is mind-boggling, unless that person simply was never educated on such things. At least it's a bit understandable for a person to believe that in ancient times, but to believe that in modern times is insane. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, this is not "stupidity of the article." An article is not stupid for documenting a belief, regardless of the validity of said belief. We should be reflecting the sources in this article, not trying to be excessively PC. If there is evidence that anyone has published information regarding the incidence of pregnancy by female rapists we can discuss if it is significant enough to merit inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I was not saying the article was the thing that would be called stupid. As the IP says above, it is mind-boggling for a person to truly hold a belief using today's science that intercourse isn't going to have the potential to cause pregnancy. But some people can be quite stupid. -- Avanu (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no clear consensus for Avanu's wording and no sources in the article regarding pregancy rates or perceptions therof for female rapists, I reverted to the previous phrasing. Are there any additional thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that User:CRRaysHead90 recently changed the lead to remove gender references altogether, with the comment, "Turkey baster, anyone?". And yes, it is theoretically possible for a female rapist to artificially inseminate another female. But again, this strays into speculation by editors, rather than what the sources discuss or what is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted that particular change - the lede is supposed to summarize the article, which is supposed to be based on sources. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-existent Underage pregnancy link

Since "Underage pregnancy" is currently a red link present in the lead and in the Statutory rape, incest and underage pregnancy section, I take it that an editor will be creating this article soon? My other questions are: How will this differ much from the Teenage pregnancy article, seeing as most of the material will no doubt be about teenage pregnancy, given that most underage pregnancies concern teenage pregnancy? And as such, wouldn't the Teenage pregnancy article be a more relevant link for the lead and the aforementioned section? 217.147.94.149 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I linked it. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Currently the opening sentence, apparently according to the source, says that pregnancy is a possible result of "heterosexual rape". I propose getting rid of the "heterosexual" qualifier. I have, twice, per WP:BOLD. And been reverted both times. I think it's kinda redundant. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 03:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Only the first time was bold. Actually, "It's kinda redundant" is a far better argument than either edit summary you used in the article edits since it does not imply a synthesis on the part of the editor. Until recently, the wikilink pipe was [[Rape by gender|male-female]], replaced with [[Rape by gender|heterosexual]] in a set of edits discussed two sections above. There certainly is room for improvement in the first sentence, so let's discuss a rewrite. As of now, the first sentence reads:

Pregnancy is a potential result of [[Rape by gender|heterosexual]] [[rape]]. It has been studied in the context of war, including mass forced impregnation, [[war crime]]s, as a tool for [[genocide]], and in the context of [[statutory rape]], [[incest]], and [[teenage pregnancy|underage pregnancy]], as well as the more common concept of rape in non-conflict areas.

The piped word heterosexual mainly serves to link to the article rape by gender, and the rest of the sentence similarly functions much like a disambiguation section to link to other related articles early on. The following paragraph is more of an article summary. What changes will bring this first sentence more in line with the manual of style? VQuakr (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the word "heterosexual" (leaving aside the issue of the pipe/wikilink) is entirely redundant. If we limit ourselves for purposes of this discussion to male and female — this time leaving aside the fluidity of sex and gender concepts, transgendering, etc. — it is possible for rape to occur between two men and also, depending for some people on the definition, between two women. In either of those cases, excluding hermaphroditism and transgender combinations, pregnancy is not possible. Now, if the proposal is to replace the word "heterosexual," which has connotations of sexual orientation, with combinations of words like "male" and "female" to communicate that we are not talking about their orientation, that's a different matter, but then we're no longer talking about redundancy, but rather about semantic connotations. Lawikitejana (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarity in the section titled "Statistics and pregnancy rates"

Preface: I am trying to keep this article as informative as possible and also to keep it as much as possible within the "neutral point of view" standard of Wikipedia; this subject is very politically charged, and I don't want to be misread as being argumentative or as minimizing in any way the experience of rape.

I may have missed it in the statistics-heavy section, but when I saw the figures indicating a 5% or 6% rate of pregnancy from rape, I looked in the subsequent sentences and paragraphs for comparable statistics for the rate of pregnancy either from all sexual intercourse or (preferably for comparison purposes) for non-rape/consensual intercourse -- perhaps the figures used for likelihood of pregnancy without contraceptive measures? It's a tricky arena, I know, as is the whole topic, but for the many users who will read this article after learning of the political debates over how "common" or "rare" it is for pregnancy to result from rape, it would be helpful to know whether 5-6% suggests this kind of pregnancy is significantly more common or less common than pregnancy in general or pregnancy from consensual intercourse. For my part, I have little knowledge of whether 5% of rapes resulting in pregnancy is a lot or a little, compared to pregnancy in general and/or from consensual sex.

Also, and I really may have missed this point since I wasn't thinking about it when I looked at the article a minute ago: Does the section on the statistics indicate the definition of "rape" in each study? That is, selected by self-identifying as raped, vs. from a rape-victims support group, vs. from women (e.g., in the U.S., statutory rape law varies by state and also is affected by the age difference of the two parties; in some states, consensual heterosexual intercourse between two minors may still be classified as rape if the male partner is more than a couple of years older than the female). This is another area that can be touchy given political ramifications of the definitions, people's strong feelings about statutory rape either being different from "forcible" rape OR not being different due to the issues with the concept of "consent," plus the disagreements over whether sex with a woman who is under the influence of an intoxicating substance is rape. I repeat that I'm not asking in order to be political; I only want the fullest context possible for the article. As an example of the problem, I refer you to the issues I raised in the previous paragraph; any comparison figures on the rate of pregnancy from consensual sex (rather than pregnancy irrespective of consent issues) will be affected by the fact that definitions of consent vary so widely around the world. It may be that my questions are unanswerable, but I wanted to raise them in the interest of making the article maximally informative. Lawikitejana (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: OK, after six years editing WP, I really should know not to come to the Talk page a few paragraphs into the article. :) There's a section on statutory rape below, which I had not read before commenting, and the lede does mention at least one ref indicating that the stats for pregnancy from rape are comparable to those of pregnancy overall. Nonetheless, I still think tiny additions to the section I named would be advisable, both to keep both topics in mind while discussing statistics and also because I believe a number of people will jump into that paragraph on stats right away and need to be oriented. YMMV, of course.Lawikitejana (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I included info on comparable rates (I think) - though perhaps only in the article dealing with the US politician that sparked all of this - but yes, a context section covering the definitions and controversies over definitions, and examples of statistics by different measures, would be very sensible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Second sentence is awkward

This article is getting really good! But I find the second sentence awkward/odd: "[Pregnancy from rape] has been studied in the context of war, including mass forced impregnation, war crimes, as a tool for genocide, and in the context of statutory rape, incest, and underage pregnancy, as well as the more common concept of rape in non-conflict areas."

A couple of problems, I think:

1. The sentence seems to divide pregnancy-from-rape into three categories: war-related rape, non-war-related rape & non-rape and non-war-related rape -- which doesn't feel like a very logical division.
2. The three examples of war-related rape aren't parallel -- "tool for genocide" is a subset of "mass forced impregnation" which is a subset of "war crimes."
3. The sentence could be understood to imply that incest and sex resulting in teen pregnancy are necessarily rape, which isn't true.
4. The phrase "the more common concept of rape" is awkward. If it refers to stranger rape (which I think it does), it might be thought to imply that stranger rape is a "more common" form of rape than acquaintance rape, which it isn't.

Maybe this would be better: "It has been studied in the context of war, particularly its use as a tool for genocide, as well as in non-war-related contexts involving rape, including stranger rape, statutory rape, incest, and underage pregnancy."

The "involving rape" is awkward, but I think the sentence is still, overall, simpler and more logical. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. That part of the article always seem a hard fit for me. Casprings (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit, November 2012

• Opening sentence: Because of the discussion above, I haven't altered the sentence, but I feel it is poor. The problem is trying to force links to Rape by gender and Rape in one sentence. Linking "heterosexual" to anything other than heterosexuality violates WP:LINKCLARITY, and it isn't good to open an article with a statement of the obvious (that the rape needs to be heterosexual). One shouldn't distort the writing just to force in a desired link -- a See also section can provide that. I suggest just: "Pregnancy is a potential result of [[rape]]". --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In the light of the discussion below (for which, thanks), I've now done that. --Stfg (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Second sentence: I've moved to a slightly modified version of Sue's sentence. It seems better to me. --Stfg (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Statistics and pregnancy rates: I've removed a long essay about rape of slaves in the US from the picture caption. Picture captions aren't the place for uncited essays. It's dubious whether this picture is even relevant to the topic of the article, never mind to the US. --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I kind of agree that including the picture is dubious. I put it in to try to include some media. However, it isn't a great fit. Casprings (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rape and enforced pregnancy in conflict → History: "Peace and Truce of God, which discouraged soldiers from attacking ...". It would be good to be more precise about the method of discouragement, if possible. Were soldiers just generally told to be nice Christian men, or was anything pronounced a sin? Were any sanctions threatened? Excommunication? --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have always thought that the section should only included information about enforced pregnancy. I think that has alot of information that shouldn't be included. That said, I will leave a message on the editors homepage who has done the most work on the section to answer these questions. Casprings (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I got the request to look at this section. Quick answers - 1/ confusing links aren't needed. However it's important to be clear that just because pregnancy from rape is inherently a "male perpetrator/female victim" topic (can't be anything else), nonetheless readers should learn that rape includes male and female perpetrators, and male and female victims, even though only briefly. How that's done and what are the best links for it, are not so much of an issue, but the fact should be noted. 2/ Will read, from a brief skim looks good. 3/ Didn't see this, will look. 4/ Didn't look up that level of background, this was an article that needed to be made presentable and encyclopedic in a hurry.

@ Casprings - I disagree with suggestions that only a very narrow interpretation of rape or situation might be valid here - from my perspective if consensual adult-minor sex or incestual sex is considered "rape", then it's appropriate to list its pregnancy related issues here. For example, the argument about abortion and retrospective contraceptive treatment is applicable to statutory, consensual or aggressive rape. Politically the topic may have started in the context only of forcible aggressive rape, and some may think "it's only rape if its violent sexual assault", but the law in the US and elsewhere does not see it that way. Also I hope nobody plans to suggest that knowledge and consequences of pregnancy in children of 5 - 9 years old from adults who sexually assault them (as reported in various studies) are not to be covered just because statutory rape is not "really rape" in some people's eyes or "force" may not have been needed for the deed. Wikipedia isn't politics and the definition of "rape" and pregnancy from it, and reasonable article coverage, is wider than that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with everything you wrote. I was reacting to sentences like this:

Rape of men by other men is also common in war. A 2009 study found it documented in conflicts worldwide; for example, 76% of male political prisoners in 1980s El Salvador and 80% of concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo reported having been raped or sexually tortured.

However, these text that involve rape and the pregnancy that results from it absolutely belongs.Casprings (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia articles aren't blinkered, and they don't exclude everything not dead center of the topic. For example a science article may have "associated discoveries", or an article on a medical condition may clarify similar or associated matters. This article by its nature primarily covers male rape of females. It's crucial to at least acknowledge that other rape exists as background as background and very relevant knowledge. It's important that a reader learning that women get raped in conflict, is not left ignorant that men are also raped (because they can't get pregnant) and therefore assumes rape is one sided or Wikipedia is somehow gender biased against male sufferers. It should not be given huge space as it's off topic, but it is crucial to ensure it's stated as core background to the reader's knowledge of "rape in conflict contexts" that males get raped too, so an interested reader looking up rape in warefare has that information too, and is not left ignorant purely because physically they can't get pregnant from it. It's well worth one sentence to deal with that. I'd expect it not to be ignored in this topic, even if given little space. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy can also arise from female-on-male rape, even if it is much rarer. I don't think the article implies anything else, nor should it. Has anyone ever suggested that? But we shouldn't gratuitously stray off topic just to make a point, and homosexual rape is completely irrelevant here. I agree with Casprings about the blockquoted paragraph. --Stfg (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Historical legal views: This section is rather a quote farm, so I'm trying to paraphrase modern sources where possible. In the penultimate paragraph, I can see page 276 where the quote comes from, but not the previous pages, which are needed for context, and there's a problem: the article says "countries ... use Sura An-Nur, verse 2" (present), but Talbot actually writes in the past, saying that medical examination and rape-induced pregnancy were taken as evidence of a sexual crime by the woman. This paragraph is emotive, so we need to get it factually correct. When was it so, and is it still so today? --Stfg (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

References

"Some who are raped carry the pregnancies to term, while others choose to end them."

This sentence seems a little awkward to me, because "others choose to end them" could be read to imply that the "some" who carry pregnancies to term also were making a choice. I'm not saying the sentence is actually wrong, just that it could be misinterpreted. What about "Some who are raped carry the pregnancies to term, while others end them." (That is actually probably more accurate overall, because it's within the realm of possibility that some non-zero number of raped pregnant women have been or could be forced to abort the pregnancy and so were not exercising a choice.) I'm not making the edit mostly because of the copy editing template on the article right now, but I'd be happy for someone else to make it, or I will make it sometime in future if there's no objection. Sue Gardner (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why we should have any reference to what happens after pregnancy at all, really, given the scope of this article; however if we do, we must certainly avoid the false impression that all who carry the pregnancies to term do so by choice. That is certainly not the case in all the pregnancies in the "rape camps" for example. Good call on your suggested edit, Sue; or I'd support trimming this out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed two instances of "choose to" in that section. The word choice is of course fraught with significance in this context. Jokestress (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We're better without both instances. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I think this article needs a lot of work to get through the GA nom, but I think it would be great to see that happen. I'm not going to review this right now but I do have some suggestions from my first read through that would need to be addressed if I were to review it.

• The article loses focus and starts discussing rape that is not in relation to pregnancy in places. Given the breadth of the topic, the article can't afford to do that, these need to be paired out. Examples:
  • "Rape of men by other men is also common in war. A 2009 study found it documented in conflicts worldwide; for example, 76% of male political prisoners in 1980s El Salvador and 80% of concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo reported having been raped or sexually tortured."
  • "In modern times, Gita Sahgal of Amnesty International commented that, rather than being primarily about "spoils of war" or sexual gratification, rape is often used in ethnic conflicts as a way for attackers to perpetuate social control and redraw ethnic boundaries"
  • "Studies also unexpectedly identified a high risk from male victims of sexual abuse..."

• I honesty think that section needs to only discuss pregnancy issues. There is a ton there that is not germane to the article.Casprings (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• In other cases, it's not clear what the topic has to do with pregnancy if anything. These should either make a stronger case for what they have to do with pregnancy, or be removed. Examples:
  • "The ancient Greeks considered the rape of women in war to be "socially acceptable..."
  • " medieval Europe, women were considered as the inferior gender by law"
  • "Psychological impact includes feelings of fear, helplessness and desperation, and in the longer term may include depression"

• I made some changes to the section and tried to keep the focus only on pregnancy from rape in conflict. Other thoughts would be welcome.Casprings (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Greeks and Medieval women I think we should keep and rewrite; psychological impact surely is relevant? I'm not seeing why the focus should be on "in conflict" unless you are using that term differently than I think you are. The article is about pregnancy from rape, not pregnancy from rape during wars. Am I not understanding you? KillerChihuahua 04:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the info is good, but we should stay focused on the subject of the article. It is on pregnancy from rape, not rape in general. That is the problem with much of the info in the article.Casprings (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• The statistics section presents the controversy about conception rates in a confusing and muddled way. Better would be to have a paragraph with a topic sentence that makes it clear what you're about to read: "such-and-such scientists have argued that conception rates from rape are lower than from consensual sex." Then present that side. Then another paragraph, "an opposing camp argues that the rates are actually higher". Discussion of that side. And so on.

• Agreed. Will work on section
• Will come back tomorrow to continue working on this section. Casprings (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, modified the section into basically three paragraphs. The last two were the ones with study after study. In these, I tried to create one paragraph that talks about the numbers of pregnancies from rapes. The other one talks about rather the rate of conception is higher or lower. I think this helps the section. Casprings (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I will see how these are responded to before I decide whether to actually put the work into reviewing the article. That's not to say anyone else couldn't review it any time. They can take these comments into consideration or not as they see fit.

It's a fascinating topic and very worth having a good article on, thanks to those who have put the work into making it the quality piece it is now. delldot ∇. 17:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding cultural content without bias: Israeli law on abortion

The law states a woman may have an abortion if she is raped and or according to the following circumstances 1)Under the age of 17, which is the age allowed to marry 2)The pregnancy is the consequence of forbidden relationships according to criminal law such as rape or incest 3)The pregnancy is out of wedlock 4)The fetus is identified as having an illness either physical or mental 5)The pregnancy can endanger the life of the woman or cause physical harm to her 6)The pregnancy can cause mental harm to the woman. Along with this author can include the process by which one goes through in order to be approved of abortion: A woman must apply to a special committee, to whom handles the approval or denial of the abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahSims (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Copyright problems

I've been reading some of the sources and I'm troubled to see how close the wording in the WP article is to that of the source. I think the whole article should be checked for this close paraphrasing and copying. Examples:

• Source: "One study estimated that 6 percent of children conceived in rape are given up for adoption, while another puts the number at 26 percent. (One percent of children in the general population are given up for adoption.)"[1]
• WP: "One study estimated that 6% of children conceived in rape are given up for adoption, while another puts the number at 26%, compared with 1% of other children."

• WP: "Among women of reproductive age (defined in the study as 12–45), that study revealed a pregnancy rate of 5% per rape or 6% per victim.[14] Of these pregnancies, 38% led to birth and were kept by the mother or put up for adoption, 12% resulted in miscarriage, and 50% were terminated through clinical abortion."
• Source: [2] (p.100)

I've reworded these, although they may still be too close. Can anyone double check to make sure we're in the clear for copyright issues? I have only checked a couple sources so far, this is what I found. delldot ∇. 05:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at it over the next few days. Casprings (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pregnancy from rape/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Neelix (talk · contribs) 03:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article has considerable style problems. For example, the lead does not adequately summarize the body of the article. The hatnotes do not indicate subarticles and should therefore be removed; related articles can be linked in the "See also" section. The section headings should be reworded. "Statistics and pregnancy rates" is redundant and could simply be "Statistics". Unless "treatment protocols" is a very common term used in the literature, that section heading should be replaced with "Abortion" or "Abortion and emergency contraception". The word "views" should be removed from most if not all of the section headings; "Law", "Literature", and "Sociobiology" are adequate section headings. I would also recommend against these sections being clumped into an overarching section; these sections are no more related to each other than they are to the other sections of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are no major accuracy or verifiability problems, although the copyright violation accusation needs to be addressed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All of the major aspects are covered, but some (such as aftermath) are covered very briefly while others (such as anti-abortion groups' claims that rape cannot result in pregnancy) are covered in inordinate detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article does not present the subject from a neutral point of view. The "Opposition to legal abortion" section is the clearest example of this; the section is inordinately long and consists almost entirely of examples of anti-abortion groups making laughably inaccurate claims about the inability of rape to result in pregnancy. Furthermore, this section should be merged with the "Law" section (sections 3.1 and 3.4 should be merged). Information from this section should not dominate the lead as it currently does. Several other sections are also dominated by US-based information or else information from Western society.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There doesn't seem to be an edit war, but the article has been undergoing so much alteration over the past few days that I can't call the article stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images currently used in the article are used correctly, but more images would benefit the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

More thoughts on the GA review

What an odd coincidence. I had just written this GA review and found when I went to post it that the review had just been done by someone else. Fortunately, we agree on the outcome! I'm going to post my comments below since I hope they can be used to improve the article further.

Well, I've read the article multiple times now and I've done some work to fix some of the problems I've found, but I think some of them are just too big to be dealt with within the scope of this GA review. I think it should be failed for now, worked on extensively, then resubmitted after however long that takes.

I feel like a jerk reviewing this just to fail it, since at least one editor has committed to put in a lot of work and has already put in a lot. But I think the article needs a major rewrite. It needs more depth of coverage in several areas including the ones I mention here, copyright issues need to be vetted, and organization needs to be improved. I will go into detail below:

• Here are some more comments about areas I think the article needs more depth of coverage in.
  • What are the effects on a child who is born from a rape-induced pregnancy?
  • I think there should be a info on forced pregnancy that summarizes that article. What info can we provide about forced pregnancy in slavery? Should the conflict section be turned into a forced pregnancy section with info about conflict as a subsection?
  • Are there any data relating to pregnancy and human trafficking and forced prostitution?
  • The treatment section (perhaps we could come up with a better name? Aftercare or something?) should have more on emergency contraception and pregnancy-related care for someone who is raped. What happens with respect to pregnancy when a person receives medical care after having been raped?
  • The conflict section does not cover all the topics in the see also section. What can we say about Nazi Germany? What about ‪war children‬ and other conflicts? e.g. what role if any did rape play in the phenomenon of half-American babies in the Viet Nam War?
  • I think there should be a more globalized view in some sections. (If it's difficult to find info about cases outside the US and Europe, I can definitely relate, I've had that trouble in my writing too). For example the Historical legal section has one short para about Sharia, the rest is Antiquity, Europe and the US.

• I also think the article needs to make it clearer what the current scientific consensus is about pregnancy rates from rape and consensual sex. The paragraph about the controversy in the statistics section says "There is debate as to whether conception rates are higher from rape or consensual sex." but the Historical legal section refers to "the modern scientific consensus that rape-induced pregnancies are no less likely than any other." The sources being used for this are in some cases dated (e.g. studies from the 1990s, surely there's more up-to-date research) and in some cases are popular press articles like newspapers, news sites, and op eds. I think it would help a lot to find recent literature review articles from respected, peer-reviewed medical journals that sum up what the current medical consensus really is. This is what WP:MEDRS recommends.

• I also have concerns about organization.
  • Some sections seem like they consist of unrelated facts thrown together. e.g. in the Literary views section, only three books are mentioned, each with their own paragraph, with no apparent relation to each other and no explanation of why just these three were selected.
  • It's not clear to me why the conflict section is a subsection of the Medical and social research and statistics section.
  • The historical legal section seems to jump around in time, and some paragraphs do not make it clear what time frame they are covering.
  • The Opposition to legal abortion section discusses groups, then US politicians, then groups again. I'm not sure if there's a structure for this or if it might be better reorganized.

• Some of the sections and paragraphs are difficult to understand and it's not clear what they are talking about or how it relates to the topic. For example:
  • In the literature paragraph, the first two paras do not make it clear exactly what they're talking about. e.g. what are romantic rape narratives?
  • In the sociobiology section, what does the psychological distress suggest? Why is that used to support their view? ("They state that rape victims suffer less emotional distress when they are subjected to more violence, and that married women and women of childbearing age experience less psychological distress after a rape than do girls, single women or women who are past menopause."

• The lead section needs to summarize the whole article. At the moment it doesn't mention the pregnancy rates controversy, aftercare, effects on children, literature, or sociobiology.

• I think the coverage of the pro-life groups' statements that rape rarely leads to pregnancy may be giving undue weight to these fringe views. If it is actually the scientific consensus that it does so frequently, what importance do statements that are contrary to scientific consensus from groups with a clear agenda but no scientific authority have? Surely science is the best way to determine the veracity of scientific hypotheses? Also, what importance do the particular groups mentioned have? Maybe someone with a different view on the abortion question from mine should look at this and see if they agree. I could see a counter argument for this if these groups' views are super notable, given the news coverage lately.
  • On the other hand I do think the coverage of the Akin controversy and the poll of Americans' opinions on it are interesting and worthy of coverage here.

The views of these groups are not presented as serious challenges to the scientific consensus, but rather to illustrate the notable political and cultural phenomenon in which a significant (and politically influential, especially in the US) group of people reject that consensus. Several reputable secondary sources are cited which comment on the notability of this viewpoint. To limit the coverage to Akin conveys the false impression that this is mainly a viewpoint limited to a single politician or a single point in time. (And, if you look at the history of this article, you will notice that confining the discussion to Akin lad to WP:RECENT criticisms as well as criticisms that the discussion of pro-life viewpoints was too US-centric.)— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have been checking some sources and have not found any more cases of copying. I suspect that the person who added the content did not know what they were doing was against policy, so made no attempt to cover it up: that's why the ones I've found so far have been in the sources cited. So I think we should look at many or all of the sources provided and check them against this article's wording.

I am happy to join the effort to continue improving the article, and I applaud those who've been working on it so far. I'm excited to see what this article turns into. I hope I'm not stalling the progress by failing this now, I definitely want to encourage folks to keep working on it, and I don't want to suggest that getting this to GA status would be prohibitively hard.

Feel free to ask if you'd like any clarification or to discuss any of the above, I'm happy to reconsider points if they're discussed. I hope this review helps in the process of improving this article and I hope we can see it through to GA status at some point. delldot ∇. 03:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most your comments. I wish I had more time to edit, as I also agree this will be a very good article with work. I do hope you will help out in improving it. I will give some feedback on a point by point basis (and make changes to the article) over the next few days/weeks. Thanks again. Casprings (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Very cool. I also have real life that prevents me from editing as much as I'd like, but no rush, it'll get there! delldot ∇. 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

One sided?

This article only considers female rape victims and their resulting pregnancy. The only sentence I took to be potentially considering a female rapist is "A woman who becomes pregnant after a rape may face a decision about whether to have an abortion, give the child up for adoption, or raise it." Which aptly points out that the female rape may be in control of the pregnancy, but besides this point all phrasing is only considering female victims, unwittingly.

"For a mother who raises a rape-conceived child" or similar language appears to be used to mean "For a mother who keeps a child as a result of her being raped", but this isn't equivalent.

Banak (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape and Pregnancy in New Mexico

I feel like in some areas there should be information about the Law in New Mexico that says that if a women is raped and conceves a child that she has to carry that child to full term. When the child is born they will then use the baby as evidence to convict the rapist. Abortion becoming against the law seems to be a growing topic and it seems that New Mexico is starting to take action and make it illegal. It would be nice to have more facts to back up their reasoning for this action.

User:bfromong —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pregnancy from rape/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice work so far. I applaud you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of such a controversial topic. You are a brave man/woman/moose. Overall, the article looks fairly comprehensive and has excellent sourcing. Some spots with dodgy writing, some spots where the America comes through pretty strongly, and some footnotes that need to be tidied up. I'll be adding to the prose list as I comb through the rest of the article.

Prose

• Not sure that I like the section title Pregnancy from rape rates. The phrase "rape-pregnancy rates", which is used later on, might be a better choice.

• Fixed

• "Any female capable of ovulation may become pregnant after rape by a fertile male." Considering the amount of controversy surrounding this topic, I think it would be worthwhile to stick a citation (or perhaps even two) immediately after this claim.
• "In a three-year longitudinal study of 4,000 American women, physician Melisa Holmes found that forced sexual intercourse causes over 32,000 pregnancies in the United States each year." This is somewhat confusing to me. How did 4,000 women have 32,000 pregnancies from rape? Or did Holmes extrapolate? If it is the latter, I suggest cutting the 4,000 figure to avoid confusion.

• Fixed. She extrapolated. I put wording in to make that clear.Casprings (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of Pregnancy from rape rates is extra America for no reason. Why are four different statistics given for the US when most countries are not mentioned? Worldwide or continental studies would be more useful here.
  • I agree. However, this was one of the big reasons for the pause in this review. I need to do research to find some.Casprings (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Eleven cited studies suggested a link and three did not. The more severe forms of abuse, such as rape and incest, entail a greater risk ^{[clarification needed]}" I think the reason for the clarification tag is this: The first sentence suggests that there is no consensus on the link between early abuse and adolescent pregnancy, but the second sentence seems to confirm that there is such a link.
  • Changed. There is a demonstrated link and I clarified what the link is to.Casprings (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• "In Nicaragua, between 2000 and 2010, around 172,000 births were recorded for girls under 14, representing around 13% of the 1.3 million births attributed to poverty..." Seems to be missing a comma, and perhaps some clarifying words. Can also be split into two sentences: "In Nicaragua, between 2000 and 2010, around 172,000 births were recorded for girls under 14, representing around 13% of the 1.3 million births during that period. These were attributed to poverty..."
  • Done
• "psychological warfare in war" Redundant. Cut "in war".

• Done

• "Rape has been used as a as a weapon of psychological warfare in war for centuries, to terrorize, humiliate, and undermine the morale of the enemy, and sometimes as an act of ethnic cleansing to produce babies that share the perpetrators' ethnicity." Split this into two sentences to avoid confusion. Ethnic cleansing is not an example of psychological warfare.

• Done

• "Forced pregnancy, with the intention of forcing" Does the forced thing forcibly force people to do things that are forced?

• Fixed

• "Pregnancy from rape is recognized under the Geneva Convention as a crime against humanity and war crime." (Ref: Britannica.com) WP:Reliable states that "Tertiary sources... should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Here we see why. Pregnancy, a process which results in an additional human, is described here as a crime against humanity. Not the rape. The pregnancy. Also, avoid one-sentence paragraphs.

• Already Fixed

• "Rape-pregnancy rates are crucial in evaluating these theories, because a high or low pregnancy rate from rape would determine whether such adaptations are favored or disfavored by natural selection." Cliffhanger. What's the verdict?

• Fixed by article reorganization

• The first two paragraphs of Treatment and outcomes are very clearly written by someone in a developed country and about someone in a developed Western country. Any info on what happens in, say, sub-Saharan Africa? Or China?

• True. This is something I(or someone) needs to return to.

• "Immediate post-rape treatment protocols call for medical professionals to assess the likelihood that a victim will become pregnant" I think it would be worth clarifying that this is not the only thing that medical professionals do during post-rape treatment. The way it's phrased now, it sounds like a conversation in the emergency room would go like this: "Doctor, this woman was just raped." -- "Quick, check to see if she's pregnant!"

• Changed wording. I might come back and address this again.Casprings (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• "High-dose estrogen pills were tried as an experimental treatment after rape in the 1960s" Did it work?

  Fixed. It worked

  The organization of this chunk of content is a bit confusing. "These treatments reduced the rate of pregnancy after rate by 84%." It seems highly unlikely that both of the aforementioned treatments would reduce pregnancy rates by the same amount. Or perhaps the Yuzpe regimen is a continuation of the 1960s experiment, but that's not at all clear from the text.

• "Followup care is also needed, including a gynecological referral, and return visits should occur at two and six weeks after the rape, as well as any occasion when the patient feels she needs to return for emergency care." Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.

• Agreed. Deleted sentence.

• "While a woman raped within 48 hours will test negative for pregnancy" Misleading. I assume that this is what you meant to say: "While a woman who has become pregnant during the past 48 hours will test negative for pregnancy"

• Fixed

• "12% resulted in miscarriage, and 50% were aborted, and 38% were brought to term" Item, and item, and item. Cut the first "and".

• Fixed. Plus I think it makes more sense to start out with the biggest stat.

• "Peer-reviewed studies have reported from 38% of American women to 90% of Peruvian adolescents carrying the pregnancy to term." I didn't notice this before, but two problems here: First, it isn't necessary to include the phrase "peer-reviewed". If it isn't peer-reviewed, it shouldn't be used as a source in the first place. Second, I think it can be made clearer that this study attempted to compare term rates across cultures: "The percentage of rape pregnancies carried to term varies widely across different cultures, ranging from 38% of American women to 90% of Peruvian adolescents."
• "Some people turn to drugs or alcohol to cope with emotional trauma after a rape; use of these during pregnancy can harm the fetus." Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.

• Fixed.

• Regarding the Children of Rape section: Do other countries exist?

• Something I will have to return to.

• "and both mother and child face societal ostracism in some societies." Redundant phrasing. Cut "societal".

• Fixed

• "A SurveyUSA poll one day after Akin's comments reported that 13% of Missouri adults agreed with Akin's statement and 11% were unsure (±3.8%)." And the other 75%... got eaten by bears?

• Fixed

Footnotes

• Web sources need access dates.
• Date format should be consistent through all footnotes.
• Ref 17: "Logan et al., 2007" needs a publisher
• Ref 23: "Rosas 1992" This is the only instance of "Rosas" in the article. Did something get deleted from the bibliography?
• Ref 24: "Treguear & Carro, 1991" Same as the above.
• Ref 26: "Human sperm competition" Needs page numbers.
• Ref 44: "Rape: Weapon of War" Format is inconsistent with other citations. Should use citation templates for maximum win. Some of the other refs in this section have the same problem.

Meep. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Query

It has been four weeks since the most recent updates here. What is the status of this review: what is left to be done by the nominator, and what (if anything) by the reviewer? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Working now. I will knock out the remanding problems. Casprings (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A few edits were made through August 14, and the author hasn't edited since that day aside from a Village pump post on August 26. Reviewer Cryptic C62 might consider ending this review now that it's over two months old unless it's very close to meeting the criteria; at the very least, a status report would be appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed this GAN as unsuccessful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Pregnancy from rape is a war crime, or just rape itself?

Currently the section "Rape in war and conflict" says

Pregnancy from rape is recognized under the Geneva Convention as a crime against humanity and war crime.

with a citation to

http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/877066/Geneva-Conventions-as-discussed-in-rape-crime |title=Geneva Conventions as Discussed in Rape Crime |publisher=Britannica.com |date= |accessdate=2012-09-07

But when I click the reference all I get is the front page of Britannica, and I can't figure out how to find the indicated info by searching in Britannica.

The reason I tried to check the reference is that I'm skeptical that pregancy from rape, as opposed to rape itself, is a crime against humanity and a war crime.

Can someone fix this so the claim can be verified? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I was able to read the Britannica article (maybe because of my library access?). It says In a resolution adopted in 2008 the UN Security Council affirmed that “rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.” This is a reference to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820. On the other hand, it should be noted that "forced pregnancy" is specifically enumerated as a war crime and crime against humanity in the Rome Statute, which was the "first international criminal tribunal ever officially to criminalize forced pregnancy" according to a 2012 law-review paper. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

reverted anon additions on Catholic positions regarding abortion and rape

I reverted recent anon additions that were mainly about Catholic positions on (lack of) abortion exceptions for rape.

Although it is related, it seems like this is off-topic for this article, which is about the incidence of rape-induced pregnancy and views thereof, not about ethical debates on the morality of abortion in cases of rape. (Not to mention that an encyclopedic discussion of rape exceptions/nonexceptions to abortion rules would hardly be restricted to Roman Catholic doctrines.)

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but my edit was part of the subsection called opposition to legal abortion, which you did not remove. The RCC is unique among abortion opponents, because it also opposes abortion in case of rape. It has made its position clear in the past. 70.29.251.75 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The section is not a blanket discussion of opposition to legal abortion. It is specifically a discussion of how views of the incidence of pregnancy in rape have affected abortion politics (and vice versa). And the Roman Catholic Church is *not* unique among abortion opponents in opposing abortion even in cases of rape. (Prominent non-Catholics with similar views include Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee, and prominent groups include the Pro-Life Action League and many others.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying that a thorough encyclopedic discussion of views of prominent pro-life advocates on rape/incest exceptions shouldn't be in Wikipedia, just that it probably doesn't belong here. e.g. Abortion debate#Exceptions in abortion_law is marked as needing expansion. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Denialism

Some people opposed to abortion claim that some sort of mechanism prevent women from getting pregnant from rape. Does such a mechanism even exist? If it does it is far from 100% efficient. People claiming it would be or very nearly so are just denying the existence of a problem in order to not have deal with it.

2015-01-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Neutrality of the article and children conceived in rape - possibly one sided?

Hi.

I’m new but I’ve often come to Wikipedia as a starting point for research. I’ve had some questions with this article and wonder if more can be done to present a more neutral point of view.

Two statements I’ve found that are problematic are 1) “Some studies suggesting rape may result in higher rates of pregnancy than consensual intercourse.” Two of the cited sources following this statement indicate there are few conclusive differences found between pregnancy rates resulting from consensual and non-consensual sex, with any cause for differences only hypothesized at this point. The third source explores a hypothesis with limited support, the author stating results and numbers aren't conclusive, while a source in that same article states frequency of pregnancy from consensual vs. non-consensual sex are at similar rates. Based on the lack of support for the quoted statement at this point, should it be presented as a piece of information in the lead paragraph? Unless there have been further studies to support pregnancy from rape is higher than pregnancy from consensual sex as opposed to being at similar rates?

The second statement I find problematic is, “Rape can cause difficulties during and after pregnancy, with potential negative consequences for both mother and child,” mostly because this statement seems to present an exclusive outcome and isn't rounded out with alternative outcomes, which acknowledge variance in situations. Of course, while the negative impacts can be present and that statement is supported by sources later on, this statement appears to represent only one set of situations regarding the resulting mother-child relationship. This is my main issue with the article, that it seems to only acknowledge the negative impacts of mother-child relationships resulting from rape conception including neonaticide, social ostracism, and some cases of historical allowances for child-killing without also mentioning other outcomes or feelings. While the aforementioned situations have resulted, they are not the only situations. I find this article doesn’t acknowledge the variance in mother-child relationships resulting from rape conception and consequently, does not really cover other outcomes, all victims’ views, or complexity of feelings (ie. cases when the mother-child relationship can emerge as positive/with positives, such as examples found from Shauna Prewitt’s cited studies in which she argues for legal protection against rapists seeking custody or the complicated, conflicted feelings present in Andrew Solomon's "Far From the Tree," though some of the latter is currently reflected in this article) I don’t wish to offend anyone and, as this is a deeply sensitive subject, I thought I’d bring it to the talk page first. I certainly understand that the mother-child relationship can be difficult and problematic due to rape trauma. In my personal experience, I believe it can potentially be a disservice (especially to some mothers who have chosen to keep their children conceived in rape) not to acknowledge that the resulting mother-child relationship can vary widely and even be successful in some cases, depending on very individual situations. I think, ideally, I’d propose for a variety of outcomes to be acknowledged so all views from those involved in these situations can be taken into account and covered in regard to a resulting mother-child relationship if a child is born.

I apologize for such a long message and would love to hear thoughts on this. Thanks! 24.114.38.111 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. You may want to read WP:PILLARS to better understand how Wikipedia works and how to contribute. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Rape of Nanjing

I would be tempted to remove the "Rape of Nanjing' section from the article. I don't want to downplay the significance of this historical event, but since the connection to "pregnancy from rape" is "an unknown number of women became pregnant", it seems somewhat peripheral in this topic. 76.241.140.101 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course the number would be unknown. I see no reason to delete this section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mistake or something else?

I'm a noob, and a kid, and don't know how to edit, so I hope one of you here can do it for me. For us.

I'm no specialist in the matter, but I'm pretty sure that the paragraph that reads:

"They state that rape victims suffer less emotional distress when they are subjected to more violence, and that married women and women of childbearing age experience less psychological distress after a rape than do girls, single women or post-menopausal women."

Is saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says in the original paper by Thornhill & Craig:

"Analysis of the data showed that young women suffered greater distress after a rape than did children or women who were past reproductive age. That finding makes evolutionary sense, because it is young women who were at risk of being impregnated by an undesirable mate. Married women, moreover, were more traumatized than unmarried women, and they were more likely to feel that their future had been harmed by the rape. That, too, makes evolutionary sense, because the doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support."

...Unless my lack of proficiency in English made me misinterpret it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.75.66.155 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pregnancy from rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120920173849/http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Anthropology/21A-217Fall-2004/BC205381-420D-471A-8B40-2AF7FFA4B0C0/0/6_yugoslavia.pdf to http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Anthropology/21A-217Fall-2004/BC205381-420D-471A-8B40-2AF7FFA4B0C0/0/6_yugoslavia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pregnancy from rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417203619/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060220/ai_n16146172/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060220/ai_n16146172
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120827094131/http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/685?task=view to http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/685?task=view
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130410041922/http://www.prolife.org.au/articles/abortion_anti-abortion_theology/article_18.php to http://www.prolife.org.au/articles/abortion_anti-abortion_theology/article_18.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728152057/http://2011.prolife.org.ph/?page_id=231 to http://2011.prolife.org.ph/?page_id=231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730033729/http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/heggie.html to http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/heggie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Make the page neutral or change the name

I understand male-on-female rape is very common, but the article nae is "Pregnancy from rape" not "Pregnancy resulting from male-on-female rape".

People can go through her expecting to find legal cases regarding men who have been forced to inseminate a woman and whatever chaos followed somewhere, but the language is extremely biased in suggesting only women can be victim to this.

I suggest either such sections concerning pregnancies caused by female-on-male rape be found and added, or we change the title to "Pregnancy resulting from male-on-female rape"

24.161.105.220 (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state and WP:Due weight. Regarding your "legal cases regarding men who have been forced to inseminate a woman" argument, I haven't seen that the "pregnancy from rape" literature is usually about such cases or statutory rape cases involving a woman with a minor. You should should also read WP:Article titles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You're basically telling me the article is one-sided because it's easier to find cases of m:f. In that case, I suggest the article be renamed as it is clearly about pregnancies resulting from male-on-female rapes. People may come here expecting information on what you dubbed as "legal cases regarding men who have been forced to inseminate a woman" and such can only be found in Rape of males, which does not specify forced insemination. 24.161.105.220 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling you the article is the way it is per WP:Due weight. I'm telling it's titled the way it is per WP:Article titles. I suggest you read WP:Due weight and WP:Article titles. That is why I pointed to those pages. If the cases you want to add are appropriate for the article, they can be added, but they will not get false balance in this article as though the topic is usually about those cases. If, here on the talk page, you list sources for female-on-male rape that resulted in pregnancy, an editor can find a way to incorporate such material into this article. The sources need to adhere to WP:Reliable sources. But from what I know of the literature, such sources will usually be media sources specifically about whatever case rather than scholarly sources on the topic. They will also mostly be statutory rape cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)