Rape Abortions

Here's the problem now with the abortion issue: Rape is the new, trendy, go-to argument for the liberals.

As they continue to lose ground in the abortion issue, as the laws continue to make it more restrictive, and it becomes tougher and tougher to justify, the rape aspect of it is their last bastion of hope.

Problem is, it's a trap. It's a trick-question, with its sole purpose nothing more than attempting to trap someone who's anti-abortion into saying that, somehow, they support it.

You see, most statistics show that the percentage of abortions tied to rape is about 1% of the overall number. And even if that stat is higher because so many rapes go unreported, its still a relatively small percentage. So, problem #1 is that, any way you look at it, rape is the least of the abortion problems. So, when someone claims to be anti-abortion, rape is the least determining factor that leads them to that decision.

Problem #2 is the misguided assertion that someone who is anti-abortion would somehow support a crime as heinous as rape. I am unequivocally opposed to abortion, and equally as opposed to rape. Not only do I abhor the crime, I think anyone who sexually forces themselves onto someone else against that person's will ought to have their genitals removed publically in the town square.

But the conundrum is this, by example: Murder is against the law. As a society, while we generally agree with that premise, we have no problem with someone who shoots and kills an intruder in their home, or someone who kills someone else in self-defense. We abhor the killing of someone else, but see its justification in extreme circumstances.

Breaking the speed limit is against the law, but generally, someone would get a pass for doing so if they were driving a heart attack victim to the hospital, or, ironically, a female about to give birth.

As an anti-abortionist, I'm against abortion in general practice, but cannot in good faith say that I would condemn someone from having one in the aftermath of a rape. That DOES NOT mean I support abortion. It means that I can see the law being bent in extreme cases. I think any right-minded pro-lifer would admit the same.

But that brings us to Problem #3. How many abortions can really be attributed to rape, and how many are simply sought under that banner to merely justify it? That's probably an impossible question to answer, but the reality is that most times when a liberal asks someone how they feel about abortions in cases of rape, what they are not doing is trying to protect women who are viciously raped. Rather, more often than not, they are merely trying to open a loophole through which anybody who wants one can have an abortion for any reason.

Worse -- as I believe the current situation with Richard Mourdock to be -- it is a political ploy to trap someone who they already know is against it into saying they somehow support it. The goofball who asked Mourdock his views on abortion in cases of rape;

1) wasn't trying to champion women's rights.
2) already knows Mourdock's position on abortion.
3) couldn't care less about Mourdock's view because he isn't voting for him anyway.
4) simply wants to twist Mourdock's words so they can be used against him in a campaign.

My friend Bryce said today that noone who heard what Mourdock had to say could actually believe he -- or God, for that matter -- somehow thinks rape is OK. And Bryce is right: no right-minded individual would walk away with that belief. But that wasn't the point. Wait for it... you'll see a political ad soon that somehow tries to portray Mourdock as a rape-supporter. And that was precisely the point of the question.

A trap.

Let's remember, the baby didn't choose to be created. Even in the event of something as horrifying as a rape, it's not the baby's fault he was conceived. So while I may be in no position to condemn the victim, I certainly don't believe anyone has the right to arbitrarily end that innocent life. But that's just me.

However, if liberals are so bent on protecting a woman's right to an abortion in cases of rape, then I have a solution. First, why does abortion have to be an all-inclusive law? Again, murder is against the law in this country, but there are also laws in place that justify it in cases of self-defense. Why can't this be done with abortion? Since this seems to be the liberal justification for abortion, then I propose the following:

In order to receive an abortion because of a rape, the woman must file a police report alleging a rape. And when a perpetrator is caught, the woman must file charges. If the perp is not apprehended until after the abortion, should the woman decide by then to not file charges, then she should be charged and fined for filing a false police report.

Look, I know there's bigger issues that involve women being afraid to report rape, and even further, women who fear facing their attackers. I get it, and understand its a problem. But we can't fix everything with one full stroke. One step at a time, as it were. But if liberals are going to insist on flying the abortion banner under the issue of rape, then by all means, to the best of our ability, there should be some rules put into place ensuring the woman was actually raped.

I don't think that's too much to ask.