Very rare. Notwithstanding the apparent genetic pre-disposition for it amongst your relatives, it remains very rare amongst the general population.
And you are still using those very rare cases to excuse your opposition to the rights of fathers to protect the lives of their children in all of the other cases that do not involve any of the circumstances you so graphically depict.
The real bottom line is that liberals want it to be legal to kill innocent people.
Liberals want it to be legal for women to kill innocent people while not accepting any moral culpability (and thus not having any legal liability) for doing so.
For the moment, that is exactly the situation that they have via Roe vs. Wade.
During the campaign Obama attempted to reassure Christians who were concerned about supporting a pro-choice candidate by talking about his commitment to seek abortion reduction once in office. Surely, he said, pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree on this goal, set aside their differences, and work together. We all want to reduce abortion, right?
"Reduce the number of abortions" has become the primary euphemism used to mean "keep abortion 100% legal under all circumstances while spouting lots of platitudes".
Why does the question puzzle you? Why would you expect otherwise? Why is it hard for you to accept that different religions have different sets of values?
On his blog Arroyo wrote, "The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one."