Dealing with the Ugly subject of Rape-Pregnancy from a Pro-life viewpoint

I really want to write about the Federal courts, and their usurpation of power. However, given the flack caused by Rep. Todd Akin and his comment concerning “legitimate rape” I am compelled against my will to deal with rape and pregnancy and how to apply a pro-life viewpoint to such tragic situations.   

First off, I have no desire to be critical of a Republican who takes a principled stand. As a matter of fact if anyone wants to accuse me of not standing on principle I’ll choose dueling pistols. However if we are to take principled stands on ugly complex issues should we not get our facts right? False arguments in support of the truth are damning to that truth.

Is rape-pregnancy rare? Yes, but not because a woman involved in “legitimate rape” has some biological safeguard that her “illegitimately” raped sister does not. I do not think a rapist should be able to plead a lesser charge if his victim gets pregnant. Rape is defined as the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. The possibility of pregnancy is related to the amount of control the aggressor has over the victim, I.E duress, as opposed to force.

Pointing out a legitimate number of such pregnancies is important only because the left uses this argument as key reason that unrestricted abortion must remain available and must even be tax payer funded. A number of factors restrict rape-pregnancy;  there is only a 1 in 5 probability that the women will be ovulating at the time of a random assault,  many woman are on birth control medication, some are already pregnant, physical resistance may lessen the possibility of fertilization, loving committed couples average 5-10 months of regular intercourse before conceiving, so the likelihood of a single event resulting in pregnancy is limited, further stress limits a woman’s ability to conceive and carry so all these  factors considered how many such pregnancies occur annually. According to my research (horrible disquieting research that I hope never to do again) a legitimate estimate is 200-300 per year. Only half of which are terminated ( http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461)  There are @ 1.21 million abortions per year (http://www.lifematterstv.org/abortioncounters.html) so do the math as few as a 12.5 percent of abortions involve rape pregnancy. Even if you use the grossly inflated numbers of 25,000 rape pregnancies some radical feminists claim (that a quarter of rape victims get pregnant) it would still mean ¾ of murdered babies are not rape-babies.

Still for the woman in this situation, these stats are small comfort, so let me attempt to do what Rep. Akin failed so miserably to do, explain why “it’s not the babies fault”.

I offer an analogy; some lousy SOB is caught and charged with a 2 decade long string of rapes and murders. Fortunately he’s is arrested in a “death penalty state”. He is tried and convicted and there is no doubt that he will receive the death penalty. However the night before his sentencing he dies of a cerebral hemorrhage, or else takes the cowards way out and hangs himself. Either way he will never answer for his crimes. The DA in our death penalty state realizes that this is an injustice to his victims but upon researching the case learns that not only had one of his early victims survived but she had borne a child and placed a baby girl up for adoption. Doggedly this agent of justice finds this now twenty year old woman. She of course knows nothing of her biological father’s crimes and her own criminality is limited to a speeding ticket or two, but by God she looks like that rapist SOB!  So our devoted DA does the only just thing. He has this twenty year old woman arrested, extradited and executed in her father’s place.

Preposterous? Of course! But follow the logic of the left; the same liberals who would vehemently oppose the death sentence for the rapist SOB are entirely in support of it for the child so long as that same twenty year old woman is killed when she is a twenty week old fetus. Same DNA, same hair and eye color, same unique spirit breathed with life by God Almighty, same potential to contribute to society, the one thing of beauty that may come from the mother's suffering and sacrifice, snuffed out because rather then residing in her adoptive parent's home or a college dorm some where she still resides in the womb, and that is not even her choice. The only difference from our woman in example one and example two is that our twenty week old fetus is not even guilty of  speeding.

How distressing that we live in a world where the murder of an innocent bystander due to his or her genetic relation to a criminal is not only allowed, but those who oppose it are called mean-spirited and heartless.

Todd Akin may have done far more harm then good to the pro-life argument, but his basic stand is the right one. Life is an inalienable right, or nothing is. However uncomfortable the subject we as pro-life Christians and Pro-life Americans cannot afford to allow the left to dictate the debate on this subject.  

Maybe next time we can address the federal courts, until then keep on the Firing Line!

 

 

 

 

 

Huzzah for Ryan!

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves; an exciting conservative VP does not automatically elevate a lackluster moderate candidate. Ask John McCain if you doubt me. Having said that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as a running mate does not strike me as an attempt to pull the wool over conservative’s eyes. Remember how McCain instantly began downplaying Sarah Palin as soon as it became apparent she was more popular than he was,  more so when she “went rogue” and continued to campaign as a conservative instead of a populist.

Romney will always be the guy who thought Romney care was a good idea and like so many candidates he has had a number of evolving stands on issues. Some of us have questioned rather Romney is a true conservative at heart, or more importantly does he plan to govern as a conservative.  Paul Ryan is not the guy you pick as window dressing in a campaign, he is articulate and intelligent but he represents the wing of the Republican Party that actually wants to do something to fix this mess. The pluses of Ryan the candidate are not insignificant but this is a choice made with an eye on governing not just winning.

The choice of Ryan says to me that Romney is committed to dealing with issues of debt and spending and is willing to cross the minefield of entitlement reform, all of which are essential steps if we are to save our nation from default.

More importantly, if the expert analysis is correct, and Romney is prepared to take the campaign to the level of ideas we’ve won already. Thus far the campaign has went: “Romney hates women and dogs” “Obama has had the most consecutive months of +8% unemployment since the depression” Romney doesn’t pay taxes”  “Obama’s welfare reform policy is misguided” “Romney killed my wife” “Obama’s spending is irresponsible”  I don’t think this is getting us where we need to be. In a sense every election is a referendum on the incumbent, but I think we need a clear and distinct vision for Romney’s America, to contrast Obama’s America. The ideology of conservatism is the winning argument; properly presented it translates into landslide victories. Romney- Ryan is likely to do a far better job of making the case than Romney’s campaign against Obama’s failed stewardship has done so far.

Finally this is a solid indication that President Romney may well be willing to pursue the kind of change we have been discussing over the last few weeks. In the coming weeks we’ll look at Ryan’s budget proposal in depth, but next week we’ll look at reigning in the out of control powers of the Federal courts.

Until next time, Keep on the firing line!

Restoring the Sovereignty of the “Several States”

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This, my friends is the 17^th amendment to the US constitution. Prior to its enactment senators were selected not by direct election but by duly elected state legislatures. There was a huge push to enact this amendment over the resistance of the elected officials, so much so that 27 states had called for a constitutional convention to deal with the matter if the house and Senate would not. As we look to make the necessary changes we can draw inspiration from the dogged insistence of the people beginning in the late 1800’s until 1913 when this amendment was ratified. The people refused to be put off and finally the dissenting voices in congress chose to be silent and abstain from voting rather than fight the will of the people. After all it is government of the people by the people and for the people is it not. We can affect change of equal proportion if we stay the course.

Today you can still get up a healthy debate over rather or not the 17^th amendment was a good thing. Some have the opinion that in removing the roll of state legislatures from the appointment of Senators, we also weakened the states themselves. Those who lived in the time prior to the 17^th were pretty unified that the interests of their individual states were not being appropriately represented by appointed senators. History shows that one of the best protections against supermajorities has been in the 17^th amendment. Reagan for instance would have likely had to deal with a 70-30 Democrat majority in the senate which would have effectively nipped the Reagan Revolution in the bud. The downside, and I refer to this often, is that states like mine may well vote for a career politician whose voting record may reflect none of the people’s beliefs if he or she brings Federal money and projects to their area. Exhibit 1: the late Robert C Byrd.

Before and after the 17^th amendment the main job of the Senate was to represent the needs of the states, just as the house represents the interests of the citizenry at large. The Senate has not done its job, states like Arizona have to defend in court their right to protect its citizens from drug gangs and violence sweeping across the border, the EPA is sapping the life out of coal producing states with its regulatory power, not to mention the destruction that Obama-care is set to bring if not repealed. Personally I don’t think repealing the 17^th amendment would help; rather it would make things worse, so I am proposing nullification.

I grant you that nullification didn’t go real well in the 1800’s.  What I am proposing though is different; I propose a constitutional amendment that simply states “if insert number of states shall vote either their state legislatures or by direct referendum of its citizenry to nullify any Federal law, that law shall be null and void.” In my idea each state would put in place the procedure necessary to take a nullification vote, though they would not wish to make the process too long. In my humble opinion this is the remedy for so much of the government’s runaway power. The states never would have ratified the constitution in the first place if they knew the level of decay their sovereignty would have undergone in the past few decades; this gives them back that sovereignty.

The only debate is how many states should be necessary to nullify.  I think a number as low as 20 should be considered. Any law that 20 states oppose would be beyond any specific regional interests, and this would make the federal governments take serious pause when considering laws that place burdensome over regulation and unfunded mandates on the states. Others will suggest a higher number like 30 which will assure that only the most egregious laws are subject to such action, but would still give the states recourse.  Probably a good compromise is 25. If half the states are hurt by it then the Federal government should be prevented from doing it.

Of all the things we can do to take back our country this may be most important: restring the sovereignty of the individual states.

Until next time keep on the firing line.

Ps we lost our internet for a while, then our computer went down but we should be back in business now.