It used to be that the anti-choice activists that advocating forcing women to carry their rapists children were the exception to the rule. But as the anti-abortion faction gets more power in the country, it’s now turning into the rule, not the exception.
To push their agenda that fertilized eggs need to be given the exact same rights as a born, grown human, Personhood Mississippi is starting a campaign sure to catch headlines, if nothing else.
A “Conceived in Rape” tour.
Via God Discussion:
Personhood amendments are constitutional amendments that declare that human life begins at conception, no matter what the circumstances. This human life — no matter what stage of development, including a zygote — has constitutional rights. Terminating the development of a fertilized human egg is akin to murder under personhood amendments. Generally, under personhood amendments, the circumstances of the pregnant women are irrelevant because the fertilized egg has a constitutional right to life.
Under personhood amendments, a woman will not be able to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape.
Proposed personhood amendments failed in Colorado two times. Mississippi will be voting on its own personhood amendment this year. In an effort to promote its cause, Personhood Mississippi has started a “Conceived in Rape” tour featuring Rebecca Kiessling, who says she was conceived by rape and was slated for abortion. Kiessling states on her website,
Have you ever considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, “I think your mother should have been able to abort you.”? It’s like saying, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” And that is the reality with which I live every time someone says they are pro-choice or pro-life “except in cases of rape” because I absolutely would have been aborted if it had been legal in Michigan when I was an unborn child, and I can tell you that it hurts. But I know that most people don’t put a face to this issue — for them abortion is just a concept — with a quick cliche, they sweep it under the rug and forget about it. I do hope that, as a child conceived in rape, I can help to put a face, a voice, and a story to this issue.
In reply, some have said to me, “So does that mean you’re pro-rape?” Though ludicrous, I’ll address it because I understand that they aren’t thinking things through. There is a huge moral difference because I did exist, and my life would have been ended because I would have been killed by a brutal abortion. You can only be killed and your life can only be devalued once you exist. Being thankful that my life was protected in no way makes me pro-rape.
But if her life can only be devalued once she exists, and she only exists because her life was protected from abortion, wouldn’t that mean that if it was ended through abortion, she never would have existed? Isn’t she essentially arguing against herself?
This is why personhood laws confuse so many, I guess.