“Posted on 08/21/2012 2:53:18 PM PDT by NYer
Rebecca Kiessling, a pro-life attorney from Michigan, fully understands the national debate going on concerning the controversial comments Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin made about abortion and rape. Kiessling was conceived when her mother was victimized by a rapist.
“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, if it’s a legitimate rape, that’s really rare. The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said. “The punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not in attacking the child.”
Kiessling responded to the comments saying that the use of the term “legitimate rape” was unnecessary and improper and she gave her advice for how pro-life candidates can thoughtfully and articulately address the sensitive subject of rape and abortion.
“
First of all — never say ‘legitimate rape,’” Kiessling said. “Ron Paul used the same terminology last January and he got lambasted for it too. This kind of remark only serves to perpetuate the suspicion of rape victims’ accounts. It’s estimated that only 1% of rape victims ever see their rapist convicted as charged. Rape is rape. “Legitimate rape” almost sounds as if it was somehow justifiable.”
“If you are 100% pro-life with no rape exceptions, there is no need to question the veracity of a rape victims’ account, because you are against all abortions. It would not matter if a woman was not or not raped,” she continued.
While abortion advocates often talk about supporting a woman’s right to privacy, Kiessling says rape exceptions in abortion laws turn that notion on its head.
“Rape exceptions in the law actually put the government in the position of having to ascertain when the child was conceived, who the father is, whether the child was conceived during the alleged rape or during intercourse with her husband or boyfriend, and if the child was conceived during the time frame of the alleged rape, then the government would need to determine whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or not,” she explained. “So rape exceptions serve to perpetuate the injustice against rape victims that their accounts are to be viewed with skepticism, and it further leaves the majority of impregnated rape victims wholly unprotected under the law. Rape exceptions suggest that a “real rape victim” couldn’t possibly love “the rapist’s baby” and that rape victim mothers don’t exist.”
The pro-life attorney says pro-life candidates need to be coached on how to answer the media’s inevitable question.
“Senator Rick Santorum, during his presidential campaign, said that he thinks that a child conceived in rape is “a gift from God,” and he was made fun of for that. Just Google images for “Santorum rape” and you’ll see all of the posters where he is mocked for this statement. While I believe it’s true that every child is a gift from God, including children conceived in rape, I don’t believe this was the best response for the interview,” she explained. “If it had been my birthmother sharing that she believes that I’m a blessing and a gift from God, she would not be mocked and ridiculed in the same way he was. And then Sharron Angle, during her Senate race in Nevada, said it’s a “lemonade situation,” which did not come across well at all. The problem is not with these candidates’ values. The problem is how they express them.”
Kiessling gives a three-step process in terms of how candidates should answer the question:
1. The Supreme Court has said that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for rapists and that rapists don’t deserve the death penalty. I don’t think the innocent child conceived in rape deserves the death penalty for the crimes of her father. It seems to me that is cruel and unusual punishment.
2. Rape victims are four times more likely to die within the next year after the abortion, with a higher rate of suicide, murder, drug overdose, etc.. As someone who really cares about rape victims, I want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, and not the baby. A baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim — an abortion is. We need to educate the American public on the truth in this matter and not make public policy based on myth and misinformation.
3. Rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of the average unplanned pregnancy, which is over 50%. Only 15-25% of rape victims choose abortion, depending on the study. The majority of rape victims choose to raise her child — not “the rapist’s baby” — HER child.
Of course, I also think it helps to share a personal story and there are lots available, of women who became pregnant by rape and either regret aborting, are raising their children or are birth-moms, as well as stories of those of us conceived in rape and/or incest. You can find those stories on my website: www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html and www.rebeccakiessling.com/PregnantByRape.html
Of course it is! Except for identical twins, every one of those embryos has its own unique DNA identity.
THAT is what makes them individuals. It is human DNA, that's what makes them people.
Your arrogance in asserting what does, or does not, constitute human life and personhood is disconcerting, if not downright mendacious. The facts are 1.) you do not know for sure, and 2.) you are unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt. You might be better served iterating your point of view amidst that other choir so enamoured of death and taxes.
What a lovely woman.
Now, to all you holier-than-thou pubby Neo-Puritans who (unlike me) have apparently never uttered a foolish remark, in what way did Akin disparage or belittle or discount the value of children born of rape. Indeed, he defends their right to life ON PRINCIPLE!. So we attack him for saying something stupid. His point was not that children are never conceived via rape, but that such occurrences are relatively infrequent.
Anyone here personally know hordes and hordes of people who were conceived via rape? No. One or two or a few, perhaps, but not hordes. Point for Akin.
You can make that type of mistake this close to an election. He should know better. If this wasn’t an election year, there would be time to clarify and make statements. There is so little time till election day, that this makes it impossible. People will only be hearing one thing. That will be his statement.
You say yourself that evidence doesn’t point either way. I agree. But for him to come out that way was the wrong move. One that will be used against him in the worst way. It was stupid.
I agree that this does not define how he would do as a senator. It does create an identity to the public do. To answer in this way is one that can be used easily in the publics eye. Horrible move. He should have left. Too close to election day.
I hope he wins, and if he does, great. But if He doesn’t, then we all know where to look as to the reason.
-or- these two factoids are devastating to the argument that rape victims should abort their babies.
... a bit of de-PC-izational license. I think reawakening the social conscience is prelude to repairing our societal structure. If we repair our norms, the rest will follow naturally. Of course, we may have to follow Shakespeare's lawyer admonition (and include the media as well) to get there...
Yes indeed what a lovely well spoken intelligent woman.
Now, to all you holier-than-thou pubby Neo-Puritans who (unlike me) have apparently never uttered a foolish remark, in what way did Akin disparage or belittle or discount the value of children born of rape. Indeed, he defends their right to life ON PRINCIPLE!. So we attack him for saying something stupid. His point was not that children are never conceived via rape, but that such occurrences are relatively infrequent.
Akin with his 'foolish remark' gave 'life' to the Claire 'I am this year a moderate independent' who got a boat load of campaign advertising calling Akin 'ignorant' over 'legitimate rape'.
Anyone here personally know hordes and hordes of people who were conceived via rape? No. One or two or a few, perhaps, but not hordes. Point for Akin.
Who can with absolute honesty answer that question? Given it is a known fact that not all women report 'legitimate rape'. I have come to the opinion because of Akin only women should be allowed to speak about rape pregnancies. Only they can know if the rape was 'legitimate' or not.
1) It is not about a woman's body. From the moment of conception when a never-before-seen DNA is created it is about a second body--heart, blood, brain, limbs all separate from hers.
2) It is indeed about life and not about your definition of "personhood." The law of our land from the outset, as our Declaration of Independence from the British crown states most succinctly, is "that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life...."
The 5th Amendment to our Constitution states that "no person shall be deprived of life...without due process of law." Abortion is the depriving of life, no matter when it is performed.
3) Methinks thou dost protest too much. Are you suffering from a past abortion decision yourself, a choice that you need to come to grips with?
Do you seriously not see the huge hole you're falling into here?
If an embryo is not a person until her parents say so, then she got her status as a human person from other humans. Once some humans get to decide when and if other humans are really humans, powerful humans will want to take that mantle on themselves ... if parents get to play God, then politicians will want to play God, too.
And they'll want it in regard to people who already born, not just people who are in the womb. People who are inconvenient ... the wrong race, the wrong religion, the wrong set of political views.
That's called "tyranny" and "genocide," and it flows inevitably from the logic of abortion.
We already have a prescribed penalty for murder.
Taking a helpless life is the most abominable of crimes under any circumstances, but especially for personal convenience.
Thanks for the response. I agree with your take on it.
One thing that astounds me, is that there is such a void out there when it comes to professional grade news services.
There should be one national professional level newspaper that presents news from a purely Conservative vantage point.
There should be one national professional level television news service.
FoxNews misses the mark so bad. It’s people don’t quite grasp the nuances of Conservatism, and they muddy the waters as often as they clarify.
I’d actually like to be able to turn on the news for half an hour in the evening, and get a truly Conservative version of the news. We’re not getting it.
This is why I’m not sure how you include the media short of the outline I made above.
It’s obvious that Aikin meant “Genuine rape,” not “Legitimate rape.” He is just not a particularly articulate man; neither is our Resident.
.
The factoids are wrong. Here's where the factoids come from. Which leads to this.
First, rape is not considered, only abortion. In the case of death due to natural causes, having an abortion results in a 20% less likelihood of dying than someone who has no pregnancy and only 1.6 times higher than someone who carries the pregnancy to completion. The original paper is not made available and considering the results, the very low data quantity, the lack of published variance and the lack of follow up supporting publication for this 1997 study, the study is rubbish.
What is notable in the study is that death by homicide is a bit over 4 times higher. The study applies that to risk taking behavior, but I can not believe that this level of homicide over the general population is the fault of risk taking. It probably more like poverty, or a general quality of life issue —like the neighborhood they live in.
TPTB are only too cognizant that the alternate media is the new purveyor of truth. They will do everything they can to shut it down. Each and every bit of information that travels by email, cell, or web is being recorded in some well funded electronic cavern in Virginia, Cupertino, and soon in Lehi, Utah. How can anyone but the elite think that this can bode well for freedom of information?
We indeed live in interesting times.
Spunkets, thanks for the points of clarification.
I would like to see a study done that comes closer to your desired methodology. That still doesn’t mean that there is an inherent misrepresentation here.
If I understand you, it simply means you’re not inclined to buy off on the claims, because they don’t provide enough detail.
God calls them people, and this remains true whether idiots such as yourself like it or not.
"Do you seriously not see the huge hole you're falling into here? If an embryo is not a person until her parents say so, then she got her status as a human person from other humans. Once some humans get to decide when and if other humans are really humans, powerful humans will want to take that mantle on themselves ... if parents get to play God, then politicians will want to play God, too.
Parents do get to play God as a gift per Gen 1:26-27. They were created in God's Image, male and female. That Image included the capacity and right, under their own sovereignty of will granted as free will to procreate as they see fit. That is but one of the unlimited number of things granted per the image. Note that God didn't create politicians, nor did He grant to those He did not create a single right, or power, especially a power over anyone else.
"And they'll want it in regard to people who already born, not just people who are in the womb. People who are inconvenient ... the wrong race, the wrong religion, the wrong set of political views. That's called "tyranny" and "genocide," and it flows inevitably from the logic of abortion.
The people grant them this power. Even in the case of tyrants, some clymers have to back them up with their murderous thuggery. The founders recognized this and so did others, that's why they penned the second Amend.
Note also there is a limit to how long it takes the parents to make a decision. When the matter no longer resembles contraception and the near embryo begins to resemble baby, the state that also determines the age of reason as justified by their fundamental justification to protect rights; also has the right to determine when they will recognize at what stage of physical development they'll recognize personhood.
Also note that the parents have the sole right to determine tyranny, that is not, nor was it ever a power of the state.
Yes, we do.
Look, I like the internet and the access to information. It still seems to me that ‘some’ of the information we get, fails to pan out. And when that happens, it strains the credibility of sources across the board. It is true the DNCp lives and dies by that same standard too.
I would like to see a program provided that does a good job of fact checking, which makes reports much more credible.
No, the elites are the only ones that think this bodes well for freedom period. And as we know, freedom is not their goal, unless it’s their freedom to destroy this nation.
March 17, 1944...I have given my whole life to newspapers. I am convinced that they have abandoned their functions, and in an abject and ignominious manner, in the present war. Nine-tenths of them, and even more than nine-tenths, print the official blather without any attempt to scrutinize it... It is a disgraceful spectacle, but I do not believe that anything can be done about it. Roosevelt has taken the press into camp as certainly has he has taken the Supreme Court. It has ceased altogether to be independent and has become docilely official.
I'm having a 'nothing new under the sun' moment. And with that, I'm off to sandland, as 0'dark thirty and another shift awaits.
Good talking with you, D1. Take care.
Theirs minimal requiremnts inherent in the hypothesis being tested regarding the structure, methodology and statistical treatment of the data and conclusions in order to determine the truth of any claims attributed to a study. There's not enough data and no variance given that would distinguish this work from no study at all. IOWs this study attempted to make definitive claims in marginal areas with some meaningful degree of certainty, with not nearly enough data.
All this study might be good for is as part of a proposal for a larger and more complete study that might differentiate from no study at all. The lack to date of a follow up study is telling in that regard, given the intense political motivations. Also, the lack of structural and methodological details indicates misrepresentation, as they accused prior authors that published quite different results of doing.
This study covered suicide, which is concievable for an otherwise would be mother after an abortion, but not for a rape victim. Suicide in that case would be more likely due to the mental and physical effects of the rape itself, which would depend on the particulars of the rape and the woman's prior and post mental status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.