The 5% figure comes from multiple sources, including:
1)
Conception rate - the takeaway here being that the odd of conception are equal whether or not rape occurred
2)
Reported rapes vs. estimated rapes - (multiple surveys for this figure, and I'd be spamming sources; all I've done is watch a couple debates and sifted through sources from those and the wikipedia articles)
3)
Multiple surveys on reported abortions, including the Guttmacher Institute surveys you mentioned. There are more surveys mentioned and collected in the this wikipedia article for rape pregnancies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape#:~:text=A 1996 study of 44,college students in the US.
I believe the initial 5% figure you'll see from googling "rape pregnancy rate" is drawn from this study. A big benefit here was that we had phone interviews, which added a lot of context. Guttmacher had interviews as well, although not nearly as many:
https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevie...d-descriptive-characteristics-from-32QW43qNqR
But from what I've read and listened to, the consensus of ~5% comes from putting all these pieces together, and it's a very loose estimate, from what I can gather. There are people who try to argue closer to 10%, but the data supports ~5%, from what I can tell. The reported pregnancy rapes range from 2%-7% depending on control factors from the surveys. I can share more sources, but this post is already getting pretty bloated. I'll admit I've only looked at the two surveys mentioned above in themselves, the rest I garnered from others collecting these and citing in a few articles.
4)
I wouldn't call 25,000 - 30,000 people small. You could fill 8+ stadiums with these victims every year. This is
approaching vehicle accident deaths (~38,000 in 2020). Therefore I feel strongly that it should be addressed as part of the discussion. Representing these people with a percentage makes it far more easy to disassociate with the real size and scope of the problem everyone has been tasked with answering.
5)
I'd argue that what you are proposing is not a different discussion, but a different take depending on the context - allowing for nuance to the discussion of abortion. That would simply be moving the discussion in one direction to address that scenario. Your viewpoint should be able to withstand any real scenarios I throw at you. The goal isn't to have the "correct" viewpoint - it's for it to be as sound and convincing as possible & let us see where you're coming from so we can get to a compromise or agreement, since we will have different core philosophical views (you and I went over that in another Politemp thread previously). Bringing up these cases is effective in arguing for abortion, because it
challenges the viewpoint that this is "murdering a baby". It's brought up to make you truly consider what you feel is human by bringing up a scenario that puts your view to the test. I'm arguing that pushing this "insignificance" issue absolutely belongs in the discussion of abortion.
6)
The brain activity/consciousness angle, right?
7)
The motivations of the parents who abort has no bearing on a moral argument. If it is immoral to abort, due to it being murder, then why is
@JonhathonBaxster (sorry to pick on you, no offense meant) bringing up parents being "trash", and the minority being insignificant? He's already established that this is murder, so who cares why the parents are murdering their children? Why are we calling the parents murderers, and then in the same writeup saying it's "irresponsible"? Two very different weights for the same "crime".
Murder is sometimes legal. There's nuance. So to say "abortion = murder" and then ignore scenarios which challenge that view is to fundamentally have a weak argument, imo. That person would lose points in an official debate. Doesn't mean any of you are "wrong" per se, but it does make the points being drawn far less convincing.
Consistent:
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
Appleburger: Yes, I still feel that is morally unacceptable. It's still consistent with my viewpoint.
Inconsistent:
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
Appleburger: That is incredibly rare. I don't know why people bring that up. That's another discussion entirely.
Consistent:
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible and should be met with consequences
Opposition: How about in the case of self defense?
Appleburger: Murder is not morally permissible, because it infringes on one's right to live. If that is threatened, we may uphold our right by taking the others' away. There is an implicit contract, and they have broken it. In this case, murder is permissible.
Inconsistent:
Appleburger: When do you think personhood begins?
Opposition: Immediately upon conception. From there abortion is murder.
Appleburger: What about rape pregnancies?
Opposition: That is incredibly rare. I don't know why people bring that up. That's another discussion entirely.