“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
Chapter and verse please. While your at it, maybe you can find where He distinguishes between man and his ancestors. You know the ones that lived in the forest where cain got his wife from.
This is the huge underreported story - that the victims of rape who become pregnant - are more likely to see an abortion as being victimized a 2nd time.
The MSM and the left frame the argument in such a way that abortion in the case of rape or incest is considered a given - when in fact it is when compared to "regular" unplanned pregnancies.
Another little factoid: ~64% of all abortions are coerced in one form or another (e.g. parter threatens to leave, parents threaten abandonment, etc). So much for "choice".
" 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.
Regarding point #1: I have reasons for believing what I do and have indicated what they are. I do indeed know for sure that is what I believe and the reasons for having made those decisions. Human life is simply any human cell, or collection thereof. With regarding to being absolute with regard to personhood, all one can do is to formulate a construction that is consistent and does not contradict any other objective principle, or construction. It must also be independent of any particular being, otherwise it will necessarily be subjective and non-absolute. Once that is done, it will be as close to unique and objective that it can be and whatever the measure of that is, will be the measure of how absolute it is.
With regard to point #2. I have no doubt. What is it you suppose that I doubt and who should I give what I don't doubt and my power and right of decision to?
Oh, of course not. Embryos grow inside of eggs in the storks nest.
"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...."
Who's we? Why those are persons! Persons wrote the Declaration, for the people(who are persons) and are justified in identifying who persons are, as they are justified in determining at what age those persons attain the age of reason.
"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. "
I'll have to be more careful about where my loose hairs fall. I didn't know they was people. Who's going to take care of them? All my kids! ...and the toe nail clippings too! Oh, the hugh manitee!
And Akin is to be admired for that stance. Full force in the face of political vs principle......Akin chooses Principle. He will win handily.
I agree that the judge should be gone.
Disagree. Akin believes that he is bigger than the conservative movement, and uses principle as an excuse to keep his political career. His actions could in fact cause the GOP to fall short of taking the Senate, and thus be unable to reverse Obamacare. Then there will be abortions as far as the eye can see, thanks to Akin.
Not to worry... you shouldn’t care a fig if a troll has a hissy and wants to lecture you.... Seems to be a lot of these on FR these days.
Nice quote from the past there. I’m sure Mencken was on to something there. He was right of course.
What I find worse about today’s situation, is that today the press is backing a man that hates our nation, blames it for the world’s evil, and wants to diminish and alter it for all time.
In Roosevelt’s time, they were far too accepting of his actions, but as that related to the war effort, they probably were trying to be supportive of the war effort. At least that was pro-American, even if a betrayal of the idea of a free and open and challenging press.
Today these folks are colluding with the president to destroy our founding ideals, and the viable continuation of our world leadership.
This is out and out sedition.
Perhaps someone can correct me here, but I don’t see the Roosevelt treatment as being the same thing.
I do see a similarity in the betrayal of the press mandate, so I’m not being critical here at all, but it ends there for me.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion too. Take care.
Thank you for expanding on your thoughts.
I appreciate your take on this. I think you make some good points.
I have shared your thoughts on this, but Spunkets does make some reasoned criticisms of the study presented.
I will say that if these figures are anywhere near reality, it is very damning of the propaganda efforts of those who support the industry of death.
Thanks for your comments.
Absolutely, and the key to it is the requirement for the mother's body and the mother's absolute sovereignty over that body. There's nothing viable about the embryo whatsoever w/o the mother's body being involved, until some later stage of the pregnancy — later stage being the keyword. For the purposes of this discussion, contraception is essentially what's involved here.
A human being comes into existence when the information from an egg and sperm combine to create a new unique individual or set of individuals in the case of maternal twins (unlike cloning which comes from a single existing individual's DNA).
To purposefully abort a human being or to use contraception that does not prevent conception, by definition, ends the existence of a human being and is wrong. There are forms of contraception that prevent conception, and by definition, do not end the existence of a human beings. Unfortunately the most popular form of contraception does not prevent conception, only prevents a uterus from being viable for pregnancy. This is how the standard birth control pill and the morning after pill are similar as pointed out by Dr. Ron Paul in one of the debates.
Ending the existence of a human being at any stage of their development is wrong, whether a non-productive senior that requires someones dedication and complete care for many years, or a baby in the womb for 9 months (and that is what most proud pregnant people call a human being inside them).
Simple logic.
You think that is bad. I was born in the 40's.
Thank you CynWoody. I appreciate the response.
“So far, all I can tell is Akin will not back down from principle when politics threaten them.”
Yes. Also, his principles are barbaric and idiotic.
>> One of my coworkers told me today that she is here because her mother was raped
And they also FReep among us.
My primary views on this matter are not that virtuous, but I damn proud of those that have the wherewithal, will, courage to protect Life in the darkest moment of one’s existence.
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.
