The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Well, What Is the Rate?

Posted on | June 12, 2013 | 39 Comments

The usual suspects are doing their abortion-rape war dance:

Another Republican congressman ventured into the realm of rape and pregnancy Wednesday, saying at a committee hearing that incidences of pregnancy from rape are “very low.”
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare.
“Before, when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject — because, you know, the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” Franks said.
Franks continued: “But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours. And in this case that’s impossible because this is in the sixth month of gestation. And that’s what completely negates and vitiates the purpose for such an amendment.”

Attack!

“I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low,” [California Democrat Rep. Zoe] Lofgren said. “There’s no scientific basis for that. And the idea that the Republican men on this committee can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”

This is not what Franks said, but what he did say indicates — as I pointed out at the time of the Todd Akin fiasco — that there really needs to be a seminar where pro-life Republican politicians are taught to talk sense about this. The point to be debated is not about how many pregnancies result from rape, rather the point is, what percentage of abortions are a consequence of rape?

If you outlawed abortion and made a loophole for rape victims, you would have banned more than 95% of abortions, which are performed simply as after-the-fact contraception. And you would also have created a powerful incentive for women who accidentally got pregnant to claim they had been raped.

There is a reason why, after all, hard-core pro-lifers are opposed to abortion without exception, simply because the history — during that period of the 1960s and early ’70s when a few states created loopholes in heir abortion laws (for what were called “therapeutic” reasons) — demonstrated that women seeking abortions would say whatever they had to say in order to get what they wanted.

After all, once you decide, “I want to kill my baby,” what’s a few lies in the grand scheme of wickedness? And there were plenty of doctors who would sign off on claims that, for example, the stress of pregnancy would impair the patient’s mental health, and therefore   a “therapeutic” abortion was medically required.

People who are in favor of killing babies are not scrupulous about such things as honesty. Zoe Lofgren is such a fanatic for abortion, I’m sure she would have gladly volunteered at Kermit Gosnell’s clinic to “snip” babies’ spines as a weekend hobby.

Suppose you passed a ban on abortion that included every exception usually demanded: Rape, incest, life or health of the mother. If effectively enforced, this would reduce the number of abortions from more than 1 million a year to less than 100,000.

It would also devastate the abortion industry, which currently has revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and which also reliably supports the Democrat Party. Baby-killers are a core constituency of Zoe Lofgren’s party, and she is committed to doing whatever is necessary to defend this grisly practice.

Zoe Lofgren would deny this, of course, because she is a Democrat and therefore a liar. And it is the lying baby-killers whom we should criticize, rather than criticizing Republicans like Trent Franks.

 

Category: Abortion

Comments

39 Responses to “Well, What Is the Rate?”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

    You might as well ask whats’ the frequency Kenneth?

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 5:46 pm

    You know another reason why the rate of pregnancy from rape is so low? Because women who have been raped (and are treated afterwards at the hospital) generally take a morning after birth control drug.

    But these arguments are like calculating angels dancing on the head of a pin. And this is just about changing the topic from Craprehensive Immigration Reform, alleged minor moslesting Democrat bundler-ambassador-friendofobama, IRS shennangins against Republicans, Holder and Obama administration perjury, and NSA domestic surveillance.

  3. RS
    June 12th, 2013 @ 5:50 pm

    I once fell for the superficial “compassionate” arguments regarding rape and incest exceptions. Unfortunately, those arguments avoid the key question: “What is it we’re destroying?” I could not get around the answer, “innocent human life.” For me, that became the end of the inquiry.

  4. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

    I am not going to support the power of the state to compel a women who is raped and becomes pregnant not to have an abortion. That is her and her family’s decision. But the reality of that being an issue is very remote.

    These are false red herring arguments, put forward by the covens of NARAL and Planned Parenthood so they can keep their baby killing mills operating. Let’s not be sucked into their BS.

  5. WJJ Hoge
    June 12th, 2013 @ 6:40 pm

    If rape is no longer a capital crime, what sense does it make to impose the death penalty on one of the victims?

  6. RS
    June 12th, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

    I’ll stipulate that the reality is remote. Nonetheless, the arguments are brought forth and even if the incidence is one, the philosophical question remains: Innocent human life or no? If we answer, “no,” then the question becomes, “why?” Difficult questions, I freely concede, the answers to which may lead to absolutes which are also difficult.

  7. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 6:44 pm

    I understand the arguments, but we want to save lives. Let’s get 95% of current abortions stopped first. Democrat FDR failed to stop the Nazi death camps from operating when he could have, we should not repeat that with our efforts.

  8. RS
    June 12th, 2013 @ 6:54 pm

    Certainly, any reduction is welcome. The above post, generally dealt with the abysmal way some pro-life legislators deal with the “rape/incest” question. Answers invariably are reported as salvos in the “war on women.” A better rhetorical strategy would be to ask the interlocutor, “if we are to legislatively allow the destruction of something, what is this thing we’re destroying. It shifts the focus from “campassion,” an appeal to emotion which will never be won, back to reason. I would note, that question, i.e. “what is it,” is one choice people do not wish to answer. Even during the Gosnell abomination, his child victims, were never mentioned.

  9. RS
    June 12th, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

    Please excuse punctuation errors above.

  10. WJJ Hoge
    June 12th, 2013 @ 7:08 pm

    I have no objection to any proposed law that leads to a better situation. A “perfect” solution that costs lives is not as good as a “flawed” solution that saves many. So, yes, I would support an “imperfect” compromise as a move in the right direction.

  11. Steve in TN ™
    June 12th, 2013 @ 7:29 pm

    So you are saying it is OK to end an innocent and helpless human life in the interest of the mental/emotional well being of a crime victim?

  12. Bob Belvedere
    June 12th, 2013 @ 7:30 pm

    That appears to be what she’s advocating.

  13. Bob Belvedere
    June 12th, 2013 @ 7:31 pm

    Murder is murder, Evi. You can call it something else, but it always remains murder. A is always A.

  14. rustypaladin
    June 12th, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

    It looks like this is already being pointed out but I’m going to go a bit more in depth.

    By going for everything at once we lose. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. For once we need to play the long game. How many babies are killed by abortion every year? How many of these are paid for by our tax dollars? I think 7% of abortions are listed as rape and 2% are medical. That means 91% are a voluntary outpatient procedure, similar to breast augmentation. Do you see what I did there? I’m pointing out that 91% of all abortions are simply a choice just like cosmetic surgery. Put the two in the same category, let the Dems argue that the government should sponsor boob jobs and see how that goes. this should cut funding for most abortions which will reduce the abortion industry’s power over time. Because you haven’t made abortion illegal it will not stop all abortions but stopping any is saving kids. Later down the road, when the power of the industry is reduced you can make the controls more stringent over time, further reducing its power and the number of abortions performed. We won’t reduce it 91% but even dropping it 50% hurts the enemy severely. This is one case where compromise might just give us victory over the long term. We can save some kids now by conceding this and bringing it back later. I agree with you on what the end result should be. But falling on our swords just does not seem to be working.

  15. RS
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:08 pm

    I would certainly agree that if the law limited abortion to only those cases involving rape or incest, our society would be better. The problem is the arguments in favor of those exceptions are based on emotion. One can always posit a set of facts which would support a different, “compassionate” exception. Ultimately, the debate must be brought back to the question, “what are we destroying?” That question and its answer can do much to temper our response to purely emotional appeals.

  16. Homer J
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:14 pm

    Abortions from rape and incest (which is just a different kind of rape, and possibly more heinous) are less than 1% of total abortions.

    “And the idea that the Republican men on this committee can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”

    No, here’s what is outrageous: That the innocent unborn children of the rapist get crushed and dismembered because someone falsely thinks that will undo the rape.

    When they play the rape and incest card, don’t give in. First, note that they appear be advocating capital punishment for the rape situation. Play dumb and say, “So, you want capital punishment for the rapist? I’d entertain that.” Of course, they are probably anti-CP and are talking about killing the baby. But it puts the life-and-death issue in perspective.

    Second, ask them if they really care about rape victims. If so, they should try to shut down Planned Parenthood, who has been caught countless times systematically hiding statutory rape and incest. They are the rapist’s best friends, hiding the evidence for a fee. They just got caught again (though they’ve been caught on audio and video countless times). http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-probably-wont-have-to-report-14-year-old-pregnant-by-21

  17. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:20 pm

    I do like that argument. It goes to the point W made that the only way to end abortion is to change people’s hearts.

  18. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:23 pm

    I think that abortion would be wrong. I would encourage any women in that position to keep the child. I would support her if she made the right choice.

    I would not charge her with a crime if she disagreed and sought an abortion shortly after being raped. That would be her issue to bear, as much as I disagree. .

  19. Adjoran
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:36 pm

    I don’t see any other way to take it.

  20. Adjoran
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:37 pm

    Excuse me, I missed the part where someone said the woman should be charged with a crime.

  21. Adjoran
    June 12th, 2013 @ 8:40 pm

    First of all, I am unclear what bill “outlawing” abortions they are discussing. Perhaps it is cutting off funding?

    Rape and incest are terrible crimes. The baby did not commit them.

  22. Kyle_Kiernan
    June 12th, 2013 @ 9:25 pm

    Lets propose a law that says if abortion is so important and vital and necessary for the health of the mother then we can’t afford to have women worrying about how to pay for it and all abortion services must be rendered free of charge, maybe have it be free after some third trimester date, but definitely free. Let the oh so concerned clinics step up and get swamped by the rush. We all know they’ll pitch in and do their part right and not pack up shop right?
    Should also serve as a dynamite example of whats wrong with O-Care.

  23. Finrod Felagund
    June 12th, 2013 @ 10:21 pm

    Threatening the life of the mother is another common exception, but from what I understand, that exception would be part of common law anyways.

  24. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 11:02 pm

    So it will be just a stern warning not to have an abortion?

  25. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

    You are absolutely right rusty paladin, and that is what I am arguing. If I could get consensus to pass a law to prevent 50% of abortions today, I would do it. And I would still support stopping 100% over time. But I know we are not even close to that sort of consensus. So get what you can, work on changing the culture (for the better).

    Those witches of NARAL do not back down one inch because they know they lose with incremental change in favor of life.

  26. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    June 12th, 2013 @ 11:08 pm

    Abortion is wrong. We have to fight this fight, knowing it might take decades and even centuries to change opinions. You fight for each life and do not let that you are missing some stop you from saving some today.

  27. Lisa Graas
    June 12th, 2013 @ 11:21 pm

    The pro-abort lawyers in the Roe case made their argument based on the Texas rape exception. If you allow one abortion, you have to allow all abortions. Every time a Republican screws up on this, Planned Parenthood is the winner. We need to defend life under all circumstances, and we need to do it eloquently.

  28. oilguy
    June 12th, 2013 @ 11:50 pm

    The sob story put up by the pro-choice side is that a crime, rape or incest, has been committed and a pregnancy forced on the victim. Why not propose an amendment allowing an exception in the case of rape or incest, provided that the matter is referred to the police and that a DNA sample is collected from the aborted baby. I know that’s a gruesome proposal, and that it will fail, but it pushes the ball forward. The ball being the attempt to communicate to the preoccupied, low information voter that there is no middle ground for the pro-choice side. It is all or nothing. And the all is Kermit Gosnell.

    Also, as some noted earlier, why can’t the pro-life side go for incremental wins?

  29. Coulter76
    June 13th, 2013 @ 12:16 am

    The abortion debate serves one purpose: electing Democrats.

    It’s settled law. You’re never going to ban it. And if you could ban it in a state or two, you’re NEVER going to outlaw the “rape and incest” exception. Which means any woman in America can get an abortion by saying she was raped but doesn’t remember any of the details.

    And too many in the pro-life movement take the ridiculous Akin position that suddenly makes average Americans run into the arms of baby-killing Democrats.

    The pro-life movement needs to become an advocacy group to change hearts and minds instead of one that tries to change laws.

  30. rustypaladin
    June 13th, 2013 @ 2:07 am

    I’m also arguing in favor of changing tactics. I’m temporarily conceding the incest/rape/health argument while pointing out the other 91% are voluntary choice. I’m choosing the language very carefully to get the low infomation voters to realize they are paying, not for someone’s medical need, but for someone else’s life choices (“You want your tax dollars to go to the equivalent of a boob job?”) And when some liberal points out “An abortion is not a boob job” You can concede that too saying “Yep, boob jobs are safer”
    I’m tired of playing by their “rules”. I want to play Calvin Ball with them and make them guess what we’re going to hit them with next. Change the rules and make them guess what they are. I don’t want to play fair and I want to watch my liberal friends scream with frustration on Facebook. As Andrew Brietbart would say, take the Narative away from them

  31. K-Bob
    June 13th, 2013 @ 3:39 am

    No. If she had “said” that, you could quote it here.

  32. K-Bob
    June 13th, 2013 @ 3:55 am

    This is one reason I’m not a Conservative. A peek at the Jeffersonian Liberal in me: Murder is not the applicable term. It just seems like it when people are arguing passionately. And this one particular issue demands dispassionate argument more than any other one in our nation’s history.

    For example, I accept that a conceptus is fully human in all respects, and I tend to think of a fully grown man–with a suit on–being inside the mother’s womb, to make sure I don’t forget that fact, when considering the topic.

    Even so, I would never support the state forcing a woman to bear the child/grown-man, any more than I would support the state forcing someone to donate bone marrow to me if I needed it.

    I’ll stop there, and will definitely not engage it further, because I caucus with conservatives and have decided to forgo debating this issue until the ship of state is righted, and the Constitution restored.

    Besides, I think all reasonable people should abhor abortion in general, and definitely after the fetus can survive outside the womb.

    There are a couple of other issues where I differ from conservatives. This just shows I mean what I say when I tell folks I’m not a conservative.

  33. Bob Belvedere
    June 13th, 2013 @ 8:57 am

    THIS.

  34. Bob Belvedere
    June 13th, 2013 @ 9:00 am

    Exactly. Stacy’s right: these knuckleheads need to be, pardon the expression, ‘carefully taught’ how to respond and, most importantly, the Right Reason behind the response.

  35. Bob Belvedere
    June 13th, 2013 @ 9:03 am

    K-Bob wrote: Even so, I would never support the state forcing a woman to bear the child/grown-man, any more than I would support the state forcing someone to donate bone marrow to me if I needed it.

    So, logically, you don’t support the state forcing someone not to murder someone else [remember, you wrote: ‘I accept that a conceptus is fully human in all respects’].

  36. Representative Nancy Pelosi
    June 13th, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

    I support abortion because I am Catholic…

  37. Cube
    June 13th, 2013 @ 11:58 pm

    It’s not about settled law. As always it’s about money. Take away the money supporting the pro-abort faction and hearts and minds will follow.

  38. K-Bob
    June 14th, 2013 @ 12:15 am

    Unlike the typical “pro choice” crowd, I accept Reagan’s Razor, which, when rephrased as a philosophical principle, is that we cannot–and likely never will be able to–determine a “scientifically” valid point in fetal gestation where life can be said to “begin.” We therefore have two non-repugnant choices: assume it begins at conception, or assume it begins when the child can live outside of the womb.

    The problem with the latter is that the date has shifted further backward in gestational duration to the point where it’s obvious that science will one day make it possible for a conceptus to survive outside the genetic mother’s womb. So for practical purposes the two points in time are equal. Thus the conceptus ought to be treated as fully human in all respects.

    But murder is a very specific concept. It obviously does not apply to all intentionally-caused human death.

    That’s where I stop on this discussion, and return to my silence on it.

  39. K-Bob
    June 14th, 2013 @ 12:20 am

    This issue is not about money. People are willing to die (but the more cowardly will kill) to defend their position on either side of it. I go so far as to say that this particular issue is the genesis of the drastic polarity we have had in politics in this nation since Roe v. Wade became law.

    Little else can explain why all Democrat conservatives ceased to exist in a span of less than one generation. Money can explain many things, but not that.