The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed the first personhood amendment in the United States, 57-35. Read more
Ann Coulter Revises History (part 2)
In her opinion piece, Ms. Coulter writes:
No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it's every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.
Outlawing abortion would not “require a woman to bear the child of her rapist.” A law against murdering your two year old isn’t forcing you to be a parent. A law against murdering your husband isn’t forcing you to be a wife. If a woman is pregnant, the child already exists and the woman is already bearing the child. The law cannot change this fact. It’s the rapist who has forced the woman to carry a child. A pro-life law would simply ban the use of lethal force against the unborn child.
Ms. Coulter should recognize that abortion in the rape case is outlawed in Ireland and other countries. The same was true for many states before Roe vs Wade. It’s clearly false to suggest that it’s impossible to protect every innocent human being under law.
Rape is a highly emotionally charged issue which makes it difficult to deal in clear moral reasoning. It’s exactly the emotionally charged nature of rape that encourages our opponents to hide behind rape victims. Regardless of the difficulty, it seems that we should fight for the right to life of every innocent human, instead of surrendering as Ms. Coulter suggests.
It’s true that “sentient human beings” may draw distinctions but rational human beings defend their position with moral reasoning and evidence. Ms. Coulter does neither.