Media

Piercing the darkness on the Piers Morgan show

Maybe it is only a pinhole, but new light is being shed on the subject of the “rape exception” thanks to the Akin debacle. On the Piers Morgan show Tuesday night, the issues were compounded and cloudy, but a sliver of brightness, more of moonlight than of day, shone through. And the light that was being reflected was coming off of Rebecca Kiessling.

Rebecca Kiessling

It was an epic battle, Kiessling said, of two female attorneys with similar stories but opposite views: Gloria Allred and Kiessling discussing the “rape exception” on abortion. (Morgan and Allred are pro-abortion, in any case.) Both women had survived back-alley abortions. Allred was raped and survived an abortion. Kiessling, whose mother was violently raped when she was conceived, survived two abortion attempts. She credits the law of Michigan at the time for protecting her life, and her mother is glad for that law today, too.

If you settled in to watch the debate hoping to be updated on the issues, you would have had to listen super fast. The hyperactivity of the show worked against any real hope of persuasion or education. Allred began with her opinion, and the flow of information came only when Kiessling began to talk…and then she was shamelessly interrupted.

With too much content and too little time, the stressful clock-ticking atmosphere and slow audio feed gave a natural advantage to Allred, who was in the studio and ready with her quick and hard-hitting sound bites: “Akin is a disgrace – back-alley abortions – mandatory motherhood – compulsory pregnancy.”

The frenetic-paced show contradicted the seriousness and dignity of a sensitive subject that requires some thought and time to absorb the words being used. What says false compassion better than rushed expressions of empathy, cramming too many “emotional” subjects into too few minutes, and interrupting people when they are about to make a point? The hectic atmosphere had the compassion of a boxing match, with the grace of  a wedding ceremony on fast-forward. Why can’t we slow down a second?

It is hard it get people to take a moment and look at the tiny person in the womb when surrounded by talk of rapists and abortion butchers. But that is not what it is like when a woman discovers that she is pregnant, even through rape. Having an abortion is violent. It provides no healing and no protection, and it does not change the fact that you have been raped.

Kiessling had facts: you may be surprised to know that “rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of your average unplanned pregnancy (50% in the U.S.). With rape victims, it’s only 15 -25% who abort[.]”

But just as we moved from opinion to focus on facts, both Morgan and Allred interrupted, saying the stats are mind-numbing, and while Morgan still insists that he has respect for Kiessling, we don’t get back to Kiessling’s train of thought. Allred heaps on fear, desperation, back-alley butchers, emotion, and the injustice of women being forced to raise children. Finally, they have a question for Kiessling: shouldn’t America stand for the basic right (to have an abortion) if one is desperate not to have a baby?

Kiessling responded immediately: “Modern America doesn’t allow us to kill a rapist or even a child molester. The Supreme Court has said that they did not deserve the death penalty. And I don’t believe that I or any other child similarly situated deserve the death penalty for the crimes of our fathers.”

Allred then flipped to a diversionary tactic, saying that an embryo should not have the same rights as a full-grown woman. But we are moving fast here. For a second, that made sense, didn’t it? There is a logic failure, though. What same rights are we talking about? The right to abortion, or the right to life? The woman already has the right to life. The baby is not asking to take the woman’s life. A mother can give her child up to a new home. But most of the women don’t. Another stat Kiessling tried to fire off but was stopped…over 50% of rape victims raise their own children.

“You talk about how much you care about women. Well, what good is my right to anything as a woman if I don’t have my right to life?” asked Kiessling. Finally, there was a moment of dead quiet.

After the awkward silence, for those who need a constant level of noise, or the moment of calm for others who are not afraid of the eye of the storm, there was, after a flurry (if brashness can be said to flurry) of aggressive abortion-minded assertions, no answer to her question: “What good is my life?”

“There was nothing they could say to that,” Kiessling told me later, happy to have had that moment. “I pierced the darkness! Everything else is worthless without my right to life.”

It is tragically ironic. Kiessling reports, “Rape victims are four times more likely to die within the next year after (they have had an) abortion, from suicide, murder, drug overdose, etc.[.]” Kiessling wants rape victims to know she cares about them. “I want to protect them from the rapist,” she says, “and from the abortion, 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.”

Live Action on Facebook
  • http://www.facebook.com/jennifer.middleton.92 Jennifer Middleton

    What a breath of fresh air!!! Thank you Rebecca, for bringing truth to the lies and light to the darkness! May God bless you for your honesty and heart for hurting women and our precious babies!

  • Rene

    Excellent article! The right to LIFE is the fundamental right!

    • P.D.

      as is the right to liberty (you know, the one you’re trying to take away…)

  • Julie Tuskey

    Thank you Karen for sharing this “light”. Having seen Rebecca speak when I was a law student at Regent University, I must say that I am surprised she got to speak at all with Alred on the stage. Too bad the pro-aborts will not shut up and listen. I’m sure it is because if they did, they would have to agree. Rebecca is a God send and has a powerful message. Her life is quite inspiring. Hopefully, more libs will have the opportunity to listen to Rebecca without the talking over and the sound bites. If so, I am sure at least a few minds will be changed.

  • mikeb330

    I am stridently pro-life. I am also struck by the fact that every argument I have ever heard in favor of abortion mimics an argument defending slavery in the antebellum South. Rule #1 is always that the victim (the slave in the times before the Civil War and the fetus today) must be de-humanized, and the focus shifted to the beneficiary of the act, to solcit approval, acceptance and support.
    A woman chooses to conceive through engaging in consensual sex, but the unintended productof such an act (biologically human, the pro-science party cannot deny) is entitled to certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a belief in diametric opposion to the mantra “if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” (Didn’t plantation owners use the same logic with regards to owning slaves?).
    But I am also pro-choice. No woman should be a victim of forcible rape, and if a woman does not make the critical choice of choosing to engage in consensual sexual relations, one is placed in the moral dilemma of balancing the respective rights of an existing victim and a potential one. In such a case, I do not feel right compelling a woman to proceed to term, and resolving from a distance a dilemma that she alone must live with.
    It would be hard to imagine any greater sacrifice than to carry and give birth to a child who was the innocent result of such an awful act. But that is not a choice I would compel.
    It is amusing to hear pro-abortion advocates (who immediately gravitate to the morally complex situation to justify their all-encompassing dogma) try to explain why incest, even if presumably consensual, falls into the same category as rape, but that would be a subject for another day.

  • Josh

    Great article! Thanks for posting this.
    @mikeb330:disqus Being Pro-life except for rape is like being vegan except for steak… it doesn’t make sense. It’s either ok to kill babies or it is not. You missed Kiessling’s whole point: ‘sins of the father’. Please re-assess your ‘stridency’.

    • mikeb330

      No, it would be like being vegan except when a steak is force-fed without your consent.
      As Americans, we believe in individual rights. If a woman does not fit into the “tacit consent” or “responsibility” objections, her choice of whether to bring the child to term has moral significance, even if to you, the choice is obvious at all stages of the pregnancy. Consequently, her decision to bring the child to term is heroic in ways that a child conceived in a consensual relationship is not.
      Nonetheless, I have edited my comment to account for your objection to my stridency.

      • Karen Dudek

        Mike, an act of rape is a terrible, violent thing and a pregnancy resulting from it is a complication of the rape and the woman’s life no doubt. No woman desires this, but an abortion does not undo the rape trauma. It only adds to the violence she experiences and complicates the situation, emotional toil and burden even more. Women who are pregnant by rape are in a predicament that needs time to recognize that the child in their womb is their own flesh and blood. Yes a terrible thing happened but a good thing can come of it. No woman has to raise a child that they are not ready to care for because adoption is a beautiful option. I think it is only respectful to take a look at the women who were raped, have borne their children, raised them and loved them and bear witness to the fact that killing the child is not right. We should be supporting women who have been violated by rape and trying to reduce rape and violence toward women like ridding the world of pornography rather than killing the innocent child.

        • mikeb330

          Those women are absolutely heroic. But should that be a reason to COMPEL heroism by others faced with the same situation? While I would counsel the same choice, I think the fact of the event changes the moral dynamic in a way similar (though not identical) to that of a woman whose own physical well being is severly compromised by a pregnancy. But as I wrote earlier, it is instructive that in order to make a moral argument in defense of abortion-on-demand, pro-abortion advocates immediately gravitate to the most morally complex cases (the “life of the mother”), rather than defend the procedure itself, and its inevitable offspring, Gender-cide in China, and Eugenics.

          • Karen Dudek

            Mike, a lot of women become heroes through pregnancy. What about the young unmarried girl who ‘makes a mistake’ and is pregnant while still in school? Or the woman who is abandoned by her husband or lover while pregnant? Unfortunate but why should the baby have to die? A women who has been treated badly may be reminded of the pain of that when she sees her baby or she decides to recognize her baby for the unique human being that it is, separate from the person who wronged her. We are not talking about forced heroism here but saying that abortion should not be viewed as some righteous act because a woman was raped. We are often pushed into being reluctant heroes. I am sure many men have also been put on the spot maybe leaving college to support a family when Dad has a heart attack. And that situation can take way more than nine months.

          • John Q. Public

            Is the child conceived in rape any less deserving of life than any other child? The manner in which the situation comes to be is different, but the choice and implications thereof are still the exact same. It doesn’t matter where pro-abortionists try to move the goal posts to via uncommon and morally complex cases. It still comes down to allowing life or ending life. There is no excuse to punish a child for the actions of someone else. It makes no sense to say “Hmm. Well, since she didn’t consent to the sex then it is okay for her to kill her child in the womb, but if she had made a bad decision to have sex willingly THEN the life of the child would matter.”. It really is silly if you put it in plain terms.

        • mikeb330

          Karen: In consensual situations, the “tacit consent” and “responsibility” objections provide a moral obligation on the Mother to bear the child and provide for his/her well-being, by adoption or otherwise. The other side focuses on the harshness of that assessment to promote abortion-on-demand by appealing to the material interests of the reluctant Mother.
          But in the case of forcible rape, I believe the obligation is discharged. (That doesn’t mean termination is the morally preferable choice; only that the Mother’s moral obligation is discharged). Heroism is not fulfilling a moral responsibility, even if the responsibilty is difficult, or involves other sacrifice, Heroism is doing something above and beyond moral requirements. I applaud the people in your examples, and the sacrifices they entail, but in each case, the actor has, by their actions, consented to or accepted responsibility for the care of another human being. The act of rape is by definition non-consensual.
          (Boy, did the Jesuits do a number on me in philosophy, or what? But I still appreciate a meaningful discussion with someone who challenges me from the right – I’m almost always arguing from the other side with people impressed with their own stylish sense of self-righteousness)

          • Karen Dudek

            These examples are given to get you to think about the situation from the heart with a perspective that there is a human life that is innocent separate from the adults. Sex can be abused but pregnancy can still result. How much more should we all work to see that sex is sacred and cultivate respect for it. People think it is a good thing for a woman to have an abortion in cases of rape because she hates the rapist but she is going to have to heal from that feeling regardless of whether she gives birth or not. The hate will hurt her. Rape victims who give birth say that there is healing in the process. People think of abortion as therapeutic whereas the abortion is also traumatic and dangerous. We need to look at the fruits to judge and that is why the stats can be startling. Women who have suffered rape tend to be more able to give birth than those who do not suffer rape. The numbers are saying that they do not want any more violence.

      • John Q. Public

        Your response would be clever if you weren’t changing the terms of the analogy. Meat being analogous to abortion. Steak being specifically abortions after rape. You referred to force-feeding steak. Do you mean to suggest forced abortions like in China? If not then you have fired off a half baked thought which turns out to be fallacious. What makes a child conceived from rape less worthy of life than any other child? Two wrongs will NEVER make a right, and that is the concession being made here.

  • http://twitter.com/dreadhelm Josh Craddock

    Karen, great write up! Can you include the video from the debate (found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHPo16vNNfE&feature=g-all-u) in your article?

    • Karen Dudek

      Thanks Josh – I’ll see. For now, the entire transcript is linked under Piers Morgan

  • http://www.facebook.com/jessica.herron.77 Jessica Herron

    Where does Kiessling’s statistic of rape survivors who receive abortions being “four times more likely to die within the next year after abortion” come from? I have been scouring Google and, so far, have only found her word for it. Even on her own website, the statistic does not have a source.

    • Karen Dudek

      Jessica, not everything is googleable. Try reading Dr. Reardon’s book, Victims and Victors

      • http://www.facebook.com/jessica.herron.77 Jessica Herron

        Does that mean that there is no source? Where did Dr. Reardon get the data from? Is it implicitly stated in Dr. Reardon’s book?

  • Detroiter327

    I guess Im just a bit confused about these “facts” when the study she links to
    http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF actually refutes everything she is saying.
    One glaring example : One study found that 50% of women who became pregnant by rape underwent abortions.
    I guess spreading false information isnt really “piecing the darkness” or whatever terrible pun was trying to be made there.

    • Detroiter327

      From the same study: Another study, conducted in a separate year,
      found markedly different results, concluding that 26% of women pregnant
      through rape underwent abortions.
      Where did this 15-25% come from? Is it just pulled out of thin air?

      • gigi4747

        Hi, Detroiter: I think there can be intellectual sloppiness on both sides of this debate. Not being critical of Rebecca K, just pointing out something that prolifers need to keep in mind. I’m glad you are here because I’m prolife and I want our arguments to be stronger and better presented. Please keep challenging us. And I agree that the negative feedback your posts rec’d (down arrows) is ridiculous and embarrassing for us.
        That said, whatever statistics show, ultimately Rebecca is of course going to reject the idea that it’s okay to abort a child conceived in rape, for obvious and understandable reasons. What struck me about the Piers Morgan interview was that he seemed to keep trying to get her to justify his belief that aborting such a child is okay. Of course Rebecca is never going to affirm the idea that aborting her would have been okay.
        Peace ~

  • Pingback: Democrats Playing with Fire in “War on Women” Smear Campaign

  • Detroiter327

    So Kiessling thinks they need to “educate the American public on the truth of the matter” with statistics that cannot be validated anywhere, and that her own resources disagree with? Im just confused how everyone can praise this woman and overlook that these facts you praised her for using were “based on myth” and make no sense whatsoever.

    • Karen Dudek

      Rebecca gets her stats from Dr. David Reardon, Elliot Institute, author of Victims and Victors

      • Detroiter327

        Really! So does that mean that the other links she provides are not credible? Apparently her own resources disagree with her. I would also like to add that the study she is citing involving the murder-suicide-abortion link has been discredited, multiple times. The author of it even admitted that it is faulty.

        • Detroiter327

          PS If you disagree with me you might want to change the study that YOU linked to. The study that you link to for support says something completely different :)

        • P.D.

          are you really surprised they cite less than credible sources? those are pretty much all they have to fall back on… and people who already agree with them just eat that garbage up like its the gospel…

          • Detroiter327

            No Im not! Im just surprised that no one bothered to open that link and actually read one of the first pages of the study. It wasnt really that hard to click on one link, do about 30 seconds of reading, and find that her own resources are in disagreement with what she said. I guess I am also really enjoying the fact that everyone is “disliking” that it was so easy for me to debunk this intellectual laziness. You should really be disliking the fact that someone assumed you were so lazy that you were incapable of clicking on one link (which they provided you) and doing 30 seconds of reading and critical thinking.

  • Pingback: Is Incrementalism Evil?