Here’s what he said:

Incest is so rare, I mean it’s so rare. But the rape thing, you know, I know a woman who was raped and kept the child, gave it up for adoption and doesn’t regret it. In fact, she’s a big pro-life proponent. But, on the rape thing it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s a consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?

This is pretty wrong, but I’d argue, quite a bit less offensive than Richard Mourdock, and vastly less so than Todd Akin. The last part, funny enough, is easily the most defensible. I don’t agree with it, but it’s a fairly logical conclusion for a pro-lifer to draw. If you believe that a fertilized egg instantly becomes a person, then it follows that children conceived by rape are people and shouldn’t be aborted. Most pro-lifers do not advocate this stance because it is politically unpopular, but it’s the only reasonable conclusion that follows from the premise. After all, if you manage to get abortion banned for everything but rape and incest, quashing those last vestiges ought to be easy enough.

The rest of it though…like, wow. Incest is rare? I think Koster is making the mistake of separating out child abuse from this definition, though it very much counts, and is highly prevalent. The real problem with “rape and incest” exceptions is that the connotations are tricky: people know basically what rape is, but incest typically carries a more voluntary connotation, specifically since it’s included in this particular cliche as something separate from rape, even though the voluntary variety is, indeed, quite rare, and outside of the Phillips family, more known for fictional portrayals in A Game Of Thrones and other series. Assuming he actually means the voluntary kind of incest (to the extent that can even exist, given how complicated consent can get with an older, stronger, male family member), it’s unclear why a child created by this process ought to be an exception for pro-lifers at all. One suspects that these exceptions are generally made because of how heinous the specific offenses are considered, rather than through any sort of logic. Of course, my basic belief is that the entire mainstream pro-life position is arbitrary and a made-up, phony position. I have no idea when life begins and neither does anyone else, but as with many issues, it comes down to one group’s desire to remove any ambiguity and to wax self-righteous and maximalistic versus another group’s acceptance of difficulty, nuance, and different viewpoints in coming to a decision. There’s more to it than that, but not all that much.

What one gets from this answer, and from much of the rhetoric and action on the part of pro-life men these past two years, is how much they don’t want to engage with these questions. Koster’s friend who had the baby is a red herring, as she’d still be able to do so under a pro-choice regime. Because of, you know, choice. It’s just a daydream of a world where women just bear whatever children they’re supposed to without any complaint. But does anyone read this quote and come away with a sense that the guy has engaged deeply with these deep, weighty questions?