RightWinged on January 23, 2007 at 11:23 AM

As I said before….. Here’s your sign

Now you’ve gone in to your next stage of dishonesty, by claiming I quoted you out of context. Notice when I first quoted it, I quoted the whole thing (so as not to leave you that out) and then upon your request, which made no difference, I did read the entire comment… NO CHANGE. Why can’t you just admit what you did?

I don’t care if you claim to not care for extremists on either side. I’m not talking about that… why can’t you stop dodging and diverting, and just admit that you took the classic liberal angle (whether you’re liberal or not, maybe it’s just MSM brainwashing) and accused me of opposing abortion strictly on religious grounds. You can call it an example all you want, but you know that’s crap:

That is your opinion. For the same reason one shouldn’t try to use science to argue that there is not a god, one should not use it as the sole basis for the abortion argument. I could use the “well, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible” and evoke a blistering reply from you but won’t use that as my point.

Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Either you’d completely missing the point, or you’re just so weak you can’t admit that you were wrong. Your “context”, has nothing to do with what I’m talking about here, what don’t you get? All of your comments. You could say you hate abortion no matter what and you make an effort to punch abortionists in the face… that has nothing to do with this. I’m not even talking about agreeing or disagreeing on abortion in general… which again, is why the rest of your comment is completely irrelevant, and no “tie in” to the first paragraph changes my point.

YOU ACCUSED ME (like liberals do on abortion, gays, evolution/creation, etc. etc.) of basing my position strictly on religion, when it couldn’t be further from the truth. I make sure to never use that when talking about these kind of issues, because all someone has to say is “I’m not a Christian” and the discussion is over. So for you to give me the “don’t push your Christianity on me” attitude, is bull, because I never did. It’s almost always the lefties that have to do that, when the right never even considered using the Bible as their argument.

B…b…. but.. .read my other paragraphs… read the context. Enough… there’s nothing in your other paragraphs that gets you out of it. This isn’t about you equally opposing extremists on both sides, etc. etc. It’s about your dishonest tactic you opened with.

Take your Master Blaster logic and stuff it.

You must be a real gem outside of the internet.
Esthier on January 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Why yes I am and thank you for the compliment.

Sentence two said using science as the sole basis in the abortion debate was just as disingenuous as using science to say there is not a god. Science not religion — following so far?

Which you can’t say, because you haven’t yet proven that abortion is nothing more than a moral discussion. That’s the point that’s been completely lost on you here. You keep trying to go to your third or sixth point without even proven your first one.

Do you understand?

Sentence three used an example of how the discussion can be distorted by using religious comparisons or arguments pro or con. I could use…. but won’t use that as my point…

That means that I have presented you with an example — following so far?

Yes, I understand that you believe you are being brilliant. But you’re still getting nowhere without proving your initial point.

As to your comparisons to murder the definition I found is from http://www.answers.com/topic/murder
and reads “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice”

I guess you’re the one who isn’t reading now. Please, when did I use the word murder? By defining the word “murder” you’re only proving that you didn’t get my point.

Murder is a legal term. It’s a legal term we’ve defined. We did so by looking at actions that were previously just considered immoral.

In fact, we’re still defining what is and what is not murder. We do so on a case by case basis. In some cases, terminating a pregnancy is murder. In others, it isn’t.

As you said, the only thing that defines murder is the word “unlawful” and law is decided by people, the same people who decided what murder is in the first place.

The only difference between the two is that the unelected elite decide to reverse this one. Abortion has only been legal a few decades.

See that word “unlawful”?

You must be a real gem outside of the internet.

- in order for it to be made murder then the immorality of abortion would need to be codified into law saying it is indeed murder before you could really make the comparison.

Really????? Do you always state the obvious, or only when the points others make go entirely over your head. You’re making my point here. Again, the only reason you can’t call abortion murder is because legally it isn’t.

But I didn’t call it murder. I only spoke of other “immoral” actions that people decided to rule illegal. The only difference here is that people decided that didn’t want abortion to be illegal anymore. So at one point, “the immorality of abortion” was “codified into law”. So what then, do I now need to wait until what Gacy did becomes legal to make the comparisions?

Currently it is lawful. When you make that comparison you have engaged in a moral debate (moral is defined as “based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence; “a moral certainty” according to http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moral)

And again, you haven’t proven your first point. Giving the definition of the word isn’t proving it either. Do you not grasp the concept of proof (which means: “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth” by the way)?

Unless you can prove (see above if you still need the definition) that all of the laws that have been passed were passed through a moral debate, then you haven’t proven your first point just by saying abortion isn’t illegal.

So really, do you think we defined “murder” as being illegal simply because it’s immoral to take another person’s life without a legal justification to do so? Is that the only reason to outlaw it?

Or is it possible that a civilized society actually has an interest in keeping its people alive and protected?

And no, I don’t mean morally. I just mean logically. Is a civilization better served when life is valued or when life is not valued? Do you need me to prove this to you?

The remainder of what I had to say raised the difficulties of making it an all or nothing proposition. Risk to women’s health being the primary concern. To make it a law you must take those issues into account. Who is better suited to do that – a handful of judges or the citizens of the country through the voting and legislative process?

Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 9:14 AM

And again, none of the rest of what you wrote matters because you build your argument out of straw. Straw simply cannot support the bs you put on top of it.

A dead human is a dead human. I’ll take the poor, traumatized, uneducated, held back, oppressed LIVE human to a dead one anyday.

People want to stop Genocide in Darfur but protect it as a legal right in the states … wow. Just … wow.

Someone said that it’s not a matter of whether we legislate Morality, but rather whose morality we legislate.

First off, quit stealing my lines. Secondly, someone replied with “that’s your opinion”.

Like it or not laws are based upon a moral standard. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact.

If you care to debate that then I’d like to see you argue the morality of murder. Is murder imoral? Is that why we have out lawed it, or do you have some other pseudo intellectual argument to offer based on conjecture and theory that doesn’t float in reality?

Liberals love that stuff. Ya know, the stuff that doesn’t function anywhere but in the minds of so-called “intellectual greats”. I think it’s akin to socialis. It works great on paper, but in reality? Not so much.

So please, tell me how what you’ve written has done anything to advance the discussion? Are you going to call the men and women who condemn the actions of those above as religious zealots?…..It was not out of context. You’re making the claim that abortion is nothing but a moral issue, leaving any discussion outside the relm of morality out. You’re shutting down more than half of the dialogue.
Esthier on January 23, 2007 at 8:40 AM

But to break it down for even the most dense of people

“That is your opinion. For the same reason one shouldn’t try to use science to argue that there is not a god, one should not use it as the sole basis for the abortion argument. I could use the “well, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible” and evoke a blistering reply from you but won’t use that as my point.

But be that as it may it is a moral issue”

Sentence two said using science as the sole basis in the abortion debate was just as disingenuous as using science to say there is not a god. Science not religion — following so far?
Sentence three used an example of how the discussion can be distorted by using religious comparisons or arguments pro or con. I could use…. but won’t use that as my point…

That means that I have presented you with an example — following so far?

As to your comparisons to murder the definition I found is from http://www.answers.com/topic/murder
and reads “The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice”

See that word “unlawful”? – in order for it to be made murder then the immorality of abortion would need to be codified into law saying it is indeed murder before you could really make the comparison. Currently it is lawful. When you make that comparison you have engaged in a moral debate (moral is defined as “based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence; “a moral certainty” according to http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moral)

The remainder of what I had to say raised the difficulties of making it an all or nothing proposition. Risk to women’s health being the primary concern. To make it a law you must take those issues into account. Who is better suited to do that – a handful of judges or the citizens of the country through the voting and legislative process?

I didn’t misspkeak – you took it out of context, felt you had a reason to “be offended” when you couldn’t even read everything written. Had you been rational you would have made the connection between the first paragraph and subsequent paragraphs. You were looking for a reason to be offended and this seemed like the easy button for you. – Congrats you are a victim – here’s your sign…. geez

Bradky on January 23, 2007 at 12:58 AM

It was not out of context. You’re making the claim that abortion is nothing but a moral issue, leaving any discussion outside the relm of morality out. You’re shutting down more than half of the dialogue.

Which means you are not interested in dialogue – just forcing your opinion on others? Too bad you didn’t take the time to read the rest.

Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Well, I did and personally believe RW made the correct decision, especially after reading this:

That is your opinion. For the same reason one shouldn’t try to use science to argue that there is not a god, one should not use it as the sole basis for the abortion argument. I could use the “well, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible” and evoke a blistering reply from you but won’t use that as my point.

But be that as it may it is a moral issue.

Sure, it’s a moral issue, just like it’s a moral issue anytime a life is taken.

Yes, Wayne Gacy’s acts were immoral.
Andrea Yate’s actions were immoral.
Jake the Ripper was an immoral man.

So please, tell me how what you’ve written has done anything to advance the discussion? Are you going to call the men and women who condemn the actions of those above as religious zealots?

And seriously, I’m sick of hearing about all the poor women who find themselves in these horrible situations. Millions are aborted each year. Is anyone sincerely naive enough to believe that one million poor women each year are so scared and vulnerable that they’re too incompetent to be able to take care of themselves and a child?

We’re making abortion common place.

We’re putting it into our sitcoms.

We’re making it an acceptable form of birth control.

Is that what pro-choicers what? Abortion instead of taking the pill?

Well said.

Which brings me to my logical problem – if the abortion really is the same as murder, why can we not say the punishment should also be the same

jman on January 22, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Because legally the crime of “murder” is based not only on the fact that somebody was killed, but on the killer’s intention. If I accidentally run somebody over in my car, I have killed somebody, but I’m not a murderer.

Almost no woman getting an abortion is in it for the baby murdering. She just wants to avoid a pregnancy. We all know she doesn’t think of it as murdering a baby.

This is why I find pro-lifers’ use of the word “murder” so distasteful, despite the fact that I agree that people should not have abortions. It’s demonizing people, rather than convincing them.

sandberg on January 22, 2007 at 8:38 PM

“Almost no woman getting an abortion is in it for the baby murdering. She just wants to avoid a pregnancy. We all know she doesn’t think of it as murdering a baby.” — sandberg

The woman who presents her body so that her baby can be ripped apart, dismembered, and sucked out via a hose by an abortionist is already pregnant, otherwise she would not be in an abortionist’s lair, submitting herself to medical rape and abuse of her body, and submitting her baby for slaughter.

The women is not avoiding pregnancy, she is already pregnant. What she is doing is terminating her pregnancy, or, rather, hiring someone else to terminate her pregnancy.

In terminating her pregnancy her living baby is killed, the baby’s life is snuffed out, forever.

For what reason?

Here are a few of the major reasons that women and their babies are subjected to the abuse of abortion-child dismemberment:

1) Coercion – a large number of women and teenaged girls, are coerced into the abortuary because their husbands, boy friends, employers, uncle or other statutory rapist, or even their own parents, forced, threatened, and cajoled them into the abortuary. Many thousands of women are abused, beaten, threatened, and many are murdered, because they will not willingly submit to abortion. Others are threatened with loss of a job, and many, including daughters, are forced into the abortuary by their parents.

Actress Ellen Barkin is alleged to have claimed that she would take her own daughter, kicking and screaming against her daughter’s will, to the abortuary were her daughter ever to become pregnant.

2) Convenience – a form of post conception birth control. Many women are errantly told that their baby is not a baby, is not alive, is not human, is only potential life, only a potential human being, a clump of cells, a glob or blob of protoplasm, or a blob of cells. All of those are scientifically inaccurate statements. The woman who believes this is either in denial, is uneducated, wants to believe it for convenience’s sake, is stupid, or just does not care and has no morals and scruples. Nevertheless, those who feed the woman this line of lies is every bit as culpable in a lie and distortion of the truth, and that includes “doctors” and “nurses” and abortion clinic personnel who distort and twist the truth and play with the mind and consciousness of the woman before and during her “abortion” experience.

3) Is frightened and trying to hide something. Planned parenthood was found deceiving the authorities, breaking the law, as their counselors told young women not to reveal the father, a violation of the law. This allows underaged females being abused by of age males to continue to be abused and taken advantage of via statutory rape by 25, 37, 45, and even 60 year old males, and uncles, fathers, big brothers, cousins, etc.

4) If raped, many women are told that they should abort. They are treated like scum unless they abort. If you don’t abort then you might be treated as if you were never raped. In other words, women who are raped seldom become pregnant, but, if and when they do, they could use more support, not more scorn. If they don’t wish to abort they should be supported in their decision, yet many women find that they are treated like they are doing something detestable by keeping a baby who is the result of rape.

The baby and the mother had nothing to do with the rape. The baby is innocent and should not be killed because her father raped her mother. The mother must not take part in the dismemberment and destruction of an innocent third party. It never helps the mother. She is still a rape victims, but by killing the baby, she then has taken part in extending the crime of the rapist by killing an innocent third party.

It might surprise many to know that a large portion of rape victims who do become pregnant actually choose not to abort the baby. Many do raise the baby, and find that their baby did not grow up to be a monster like their rapist, but they turn out to be good, bright, happy children and contribute to society.

5) Career. These reasons overlap. Another reason that women might abort is that they think they must in order to pursue their career, believing that having a baby is a detriment to a career.

This excuse does not wash. Many women have had babies and raised them and outperformed their barren female peers, as well as their male peers – peers who will never raise a child, in their career field.

Nevertheless, many women who chose not to abort their baby for their career, are quite happy that they did not abort, for they found the love, joy, and happiness they and their child experience, more than compensated for a career without their baby.

6) Lack of knowledge of what they are doing. Many women are not aware, and are kept from learning, that they are killing their living baby. They are sold a bill of goods about how this is not a living thing, not alive, not human, only potential life, only potentially human, all false, scientifically inaccurate claims.

Those are a few of the main reasons women go for an abortion. Medical necessity is among the least necessary reasons to abort. An ectopic pregnancy is one in which the conceived child does not move into the womb and implant itself, but implants in the fallopian tube instead. This form of “pregnancy” is dangerous and cannot survive, and puts the mother in great danger. This is not the same procedure as what people refer to when they talk about abortion, the willing destruction of healthy babies already in the womb for the “convenience” of those involved, and for the termination of a pregnancy.

In summation, abortion is not for a woman who wants to avoid pregnancy. The woman is already pregnant, so she is not avoiding pregnancy, but she is avoiding responsibility for her actions, and her freedom of choice that she exercised in becoming pregnant.

So, contrary to what was stated in the quote above, women, and those who push them into it, are into abortion for the baby murdering, for that is why they get the abortion in the first place.

“This is why I find pro-lifers’ use of the word “murder” so distasteful, despite the fact that I agree that people should not have abortions. It’s demonizing people, rather than convincing them.” — sandberg

I disagree with your explanation, but, technically, abortion cannot be called murder.

Why can’t abortion technically be called murder?

Because it is legal to abort, or kill, innocent babies. That is the only reason that it cannot, technically, be called “murder.”

It is similar to the Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that a slave is property of their owner, and not a full human being. The law gives permission to comit “legal murder” on babies via abortion, and, since it is legal, it is not murder, even though it does kill an innocent, living human being.

I do not know why you would be so sympathetic to people, and so careful not to hurt their feelings in the context of using the term murder as “demonizing” people. There is nothing wrong with shunning people and shaming people who engage in destructive, irresponsible behavior such as killing an innocent, living human baby.

The woman involved could be treated with more compassion and sympathy than one might wish to treat the abortionist and his or her co-murderers (okay, co-dismemberers, since, technically abortion is legal, hence it is not murder – a stupid technicality. When the law says that it is legal to kill blacks, Chinese, Jews, or women, then people will be up in arms, but some people try to justify killing babies who live in the womb, as well as those who are already out of the womb, as in late term, partial birth, D & X abortions.)

Men and women should take responsibilities for their children that they conceive, not kill them. It would be good to make certain that, instead of killing babies via abortion, that those responsble for their existance take responsibility to care for them. There are millions of couples all willing and able to give children a good home which means that it is not necessary to kill babies because they are a “burden” or “unwanted” for the babies are wanted, wanted by the millions of people willing to raise them, as well as uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc., who would love to see that their grandchildren, or nieces or nephews do not fall under the same fate as approximately 45 million other children conceived in the US since Roe v Wade, that fate of a date with the abortionists knife and suction hose.

To jman, I agree. The law should provide the same penalty for killing innocent babies via abortion. The first to receive the penalty should be the abortionists and their assistants.

William

The gang of 9 also thought that slavery & segregation were just fine too.
Mojave Mark on January 23, 2007 at 1:06 AM

And those were changed through due process and using the system we have in place. The same could happen for abortion – asking the politicians at the federal level is not the right approach — no one really feels any stake in it unless they actually have to cast their vote of conscience. My opinion.

It all comes down to whether or not human life has value. If it does, then it must be protected. The value of human life trumps any other arguement that could possibly be made. The fact that the 9 little emperors think differently is irrelevant to the (ala Schaeffer) true truthfulness of human worth. The gang of 9 also thought that slavery & segregation were just fine too.

In my own life I went round and round with this until I just gave in to the simple truth that human life has value and every other consideration must be subjugated to that fact.

Are you f-ing kidding me?!

Not that it was necessary to read the rest of the original comment, because the point was your liberal mind on this issue forced you to create me as some religious nut in your mind, despite the fact I made no comments about religion… but I did go back and read your comment now just to further make an ass out of you. No where in your comment do you rectify your statement about the Bible and my position, which was tantamount to a flat out lie… so why should I have (as I now have) read your entire comment? It doesn’t change ANYTHING.

Let me make it even more clear… not that I agree with what you’re saying at all, but even if you ended the debate with those few extra paragraphs, it would still not clear you for having basically lied about my position.

Thanks for playing. So don’t be condescending to me, telling me that I oppose abortion for religious reasons without an basis for that comment, then when I bust you for it, tell ME that I’m the one not interested in dialogue, just trying to force my opinions on people. Why have a dialogue with someone who does this?

(By the way, I’ll drop it as soon as you admit that you jumped the gun, because for whatever reason you can’t recognize that people oppose abortion for reasons other than Christianity, and by jumping that gun you move in to the emotional/liberal type realm instead of just dealing with facts and why would I waste my time on you after you did that?)
And to clarify one more time Bradky, I don’t know if you’re a lib or anything about you… for all I know, you’re a reasonably person most of the time… But I’m just sick of people bringing religion in to a debate to accuse others of using it as their basis for their position. It’s a weak tactic played out by liberals too many times, and it’s just beyond obnoxious. If you “misspoke”, I’d be willing to accept that, but you’ve so far been defiant in admitting that your comment was baseless.

Rightwinged,

Rest of the post in FULL context

But be that as it may it is a moral issue. The question is “Do you think that voters should have the final say on whatever variation of abortion is acceptable, if at all?”
It comes down to a matter of faith of both sides – if the pro-choice advocates really believe a majority of voters will vote for unfettered abortion rights or the pro-life advocates believe a majority of voters feel life begins at conception and must be protected, then neither group should be afraid of a vote.

The reality falls somewhere between the two sides. What if a mother’s life is in danger, as in the example of the tubal ligation? That is where the moral aspect comes in and needs to be defined by the voters. What are they comfortable with?

But in my opinion the extreme elements of both sides have done much harm in keeping it from being debated as a real issue. I’m not knocking their sincerity, but the tactics turn off that 60% moderate I always mention. Showing a picture of dead fetuses is just as tacky as someone deadpanning that until the moment of birth the baby is not “really” human.

Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM

The visceral reaction you frothed at the mouth with in your 12:04 a.m. post just proves my point. I said that I could use a comment such as that to elicit a blistering remark — you blistered away even though I said it was an example. If you read the entire explanation you will see that I don’t care for extremes on either side. Nowhere did I say you were an extremist, religious fanatic, etc.

I didn’t misspkeak – you took it out of context, felt you had a reason to “be offended” when you couldn’t even read everything written. Had you been rational you would have made the connection between the first paragraph and subsequent paragraphs. You were looking for a reason to be offended and this seemed like the easy button for you. – Congrats you are a victim – here’s your sign…. geez

Change is a process, particularly in this country. Like it or not it is the system we have and seems to work pretty well.

Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Accept in the many instances of court innovation.

For example, separation of church and state, abortion, disarming citizens, … These are all recent innovations of the courts.

Let’s review… despite me saying NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION you said:

That is your opinion. For the same reason one shouldn’t try to use science to argue that there is not a god, one should not use it as the sole basis for the abortion argument. I could use the “well, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible” and evoke a blistering reply from you but won’t use that as my point.

Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 6:22 PM

In shock (well not really, because I’m beginning to assume you’re a liberal, because as I said, it’s liberals who respond like that when they have no argument). Here it is again:

I stopped ready your post after the part I put in bold because you used the liberal “don’t push your religion on me” tactic, despite me not saying anything about religion. And I’m not accusing you of being a liberal (I’m not sure who you are), but you used an annoying liberal tactic. It comes up any time I argue against gay marriage.

RightWinged on January 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM

And you have the nuts to come back and say:

Which means you are not interested in dialogue – just forcing your opinion on others? Too bad you didn’t take the time to read the rest.

Bradky on January 22, 2007 at 10:15 PM

?

Are you f-ing kidding me?!

Not that it was necessary to read the rest of the original comment, because the point was your liberal mind on this issue forced you to create me as some religious nut in your mind, despite the fact I made no comments about religion… but I did go back and read your comment now just to further make an ass out of you. No where in your comment do you rectify your statement about the Bible and my position, which was tantamount to a flat out lie… so why should I have (as I now have) read your entire comment? It doesn’t change ANYTHING.

Let me make it even more clear… not that I agree with what you’re saying at all, but even if you ended the debate with those few extra paragraphs, it would still not clear you for having basically lied about my position.

Thanks for playing. So don’t be condescending to me, telling me that I oppose abortion for religious reasons without an basis for that comment, then when I bust you for it, tell ME that I’m the one not interested in dialogue, just trying to force my opinions on people. Why have a dialogue with someone who does this?

(By the way, I’ll drop it as soon as you admit that you jumped the gun, because for whatever reason you can’t recognize that people oppose abortion for reasons other than Christianity, and by jumping that gun you move in to the emotional/liberal type realm instead of just dealing with facts and why would I waste my time on you after you did that?)

The pro-life view is the minority opinion in this country.

So was the idea of rebelling against King George III and forming a new nation. Funny how that worked out.

.

Understand your sentiments and I think your position on the issue. But at some point you will need to decide whether attaching the passion and emotion to it are really obtaining the results you are looking for. Change is a process, particularly in this country. Like it or not it is the system we have and seems to work pretty well.

The fact is that the electorate has not been given the opportunity to choose. I understand the comparison to murder but 10000 years of human history have borne out murder is wrong in any society – abortion in the present state is a new thing.

The pro-life view is the minority opinion in this country. Apparently, you prefer to keep it that way.

sandberg on January 22, 2007 at 9:12 PM

I don’t think you have any facts to back up this assertion.

I stopped ready your post after the part I put in bold because you used the liberal “don’t push your religion on me” tactic, despite me not saying anything about religion. And I’m not accusing you of being a liberal (I’m not sure who you are), but you used an annoying liberal tactic. It comes up any time I argue against gay marriage.

Which means you are not interested in dialogue – just forcing your opinion on others? Too bad you didn’t take the time to read the rest.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes that the Creator, not the government, endows us with the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . .

The government is supposed to protect life and warns that when it becomes destructive of these ends, the people have the right to overthrow the government. Jefferson wrote this in the 18th century because the colonies were being deprived of the Rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

However, relying on Locke, Jefferson recognized that the right to pursue happiness is contingent upon the right to liberty. Ultimately, liberty and all other rights are based on the Right to Life. Without a Right to Life, everything else is meaningless and their ordering in the Declaration was not coincidental.

If you don’t think abortion is your problem, you’re obviously lucky enough not to have your life snuffed out without due process. However, if they can take away your neighbors’ Right to Life, you have no rights. You’re living off the good graces of the oligarchy.