Kind of a silly article.
Assumes all rapes are reported, and then uses not particularly logical reasoning to whittle down the numbers more.
OTOH, the 30,000 number for annual rape pregnancies commonly reported is also likely to be seriously flawed.
For it to be accurate, a women must be twice as likely to get pregnant from rape as from an act of consensual intercourse. This seems unlikely. It also requires that 8x as many rapes occur as are reported, which also seems high. Which means these numbers are probably cooked to some extent.
It is almost certain the real number is somewhere between 225 (or 370) and 30,000. We’ll probably never have solid numbers on such a politically charged issue.
The author does not assume that all rapes are reported - he specifically mentions the under-reporting of rape.
Where does his “whittling down” become illogical? I thought his math was sound - and logic is math.
It is quite flawed, and is based on a single very flawed study which is referenced often. I discussed that study in my post #58, this thread.
The bulk of rapes occur against minors.
And the bulk of those, in turn, are perpetrated by an authority figure.
Where do you come up with an idea that a high percentage of those would be reported? Often the result (which we see time in again in reported cases) is the dissolution of the kid's family.