Many years ago I attended a series of lectures, one of which spoke of a young woman who had suffered a multiple rape, become pregnant as a result and had been procured an abortion. It was this case that had prompted David Steele's private members bill (which became the 1967 Abortion Act).
One of the elements discussed was the low conception rate of those who had been raped and how certain conditions having not been met often meant that whilst the rape had taken place the potential for impregnation was low. I recall the shock at this line of discussion, perhaps because I naively assumed that intercourse (consensual or otherwise) pretty much meant pregnancy, and struggled to get my head around it. I struggled with the 'conditions' bit as I just thought (I was pretty young still as the fact that the Abortion Act was still quite new will testify) that there was a coconut every time.
One of the questions that arose from the lecture was the question of whether pregnancy could be used as an indicator of whether there had been a rape. I guess this is what the American politico was heading towards in his 'legitimate rape' fiasco. To assist us with this question a physiologist contributed as to the conditions for conception and by the end of the lecture (and the ensuing discussions) we had come to the conclusion that whilst there might indeed be a lessened conception rate any conception arising from a rape situation meant that it could never be a true test - pity Todd Akin never sat in with us, he might have chosen to leave this topic alone.
Some final thoughts:
Statistics relating to conception as a result of rape range from something under one percent (0.7) to just under five percent (4.7). Regardless of the numbers, just one pregnancy arising from a rape situation is one too many.
I also struggle with Akin's use of the English language in that what he is trying (I think) to speak of is an incontrovertible incident of rape rather than a 'legitimate rape'. After all, rape can never be viewed as legitimate can it?