Salon: Yeah, abortion takes a life. So what?

posted at 9:31 pm on January 23, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

I had an odd moment today reading this Salon piece because within it is a paragraph or two I could have written and probably have said a dozen times:

I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?

This was the exact thought process that led me to the exact opposite position. I, too, noticed a distinction between how women approached an in-utero child when they wanted the child and how they felt about it when the pregnancy was unexpected and unwanted. Logically, it made no sense to me that the mother’s disposition should change the biological disposition of the baby. Therefore, it made no sense that it should change the ethics of the situation.

But Mary Elizabeth Williams goes a whole different direction, encouraging the pro-choice side to embrace the possibility that life begins at conception, which she imagines will allow them to gain some kind of lost rhetorical ground:

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

On one hand, I truly appreciate her honesty— both for its boldness in its literal brutality and in the same way I wish gun-control advocates would just say they want to ban all guns if they want to ban guns. Then at least we’re having an honest conversation. There’s a reason the pro-choice movement must euphemize itself to within an inch of its life— because many people don’t want to be on the side of not-life. In any other article, I’d assume “not-life” is a term meant to mock what pro-lifers believe of pro-choicers, but Williams offers such a clear argument on behalf of an actual not-life position, I’m not sure. At any rate, Williams dispenses with the euphemism, and gives us a look at a very different kind of pro-choice message— like an Honest Movie Trailer for left-leaning politicians. “So, abortion ends a life. So what? There are a lot of lives that aren’t very important.”

Speaking of drawing “stupid semantic lines” and “trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person,” doesn’t this position just require Williams to draw even more untenable lines where a life becomes important enough to save? That’s the argument Katrina Trinko makes:

By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics? They’re not going to be able to take care of themselves. Is it okay if we just off the lot of them? Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?

Yes, if the fetus is a life — and a human being — and not a clump of cells, that makes a huge difference. No one would ask a woman to respect the rights of a clump of cells. But it is valid to ask her, difficult as it is to have an unwanted pregnancy, to realize that the death of the child — the child who was totally innocent and has done nothing except be conceived — is not an appropriate way to handle this.

So. What? I’ll hand it over to you guys.

Salon‘s on a roll today.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I don’t disagree. Abortion isn’t something that should be encouraged or subsidized. It should be discouraged to a large extent.

Socratease on January 23, 2013 at 11:40 PM

You know who else said that? Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM

That’s so cute. Let’s pretend the people who disagree with you are dangerous psychopaths.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Who’s pretending? Do you listen to the things you say?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Abortion is injustice.

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Agreed. There seems to moral relativism at play when it comes to “Social Justice”.

can_con on January 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Socrates would be disappointed that you chose to besmirch his name with your nick. That was some exceptionally feeble logic there, champ. Not only did she willingly choose to participate in the action that resulted in the pregnancy (certainly far more times than not), but outside of the pregnancy arena, people have to live with the consequences of their actions, whether they like the consequences or not – why would you hope that pregnancy can be different?

Perhaps if murder solved other instances of ‘inconvenient and undesirable consequences’, we’d allow that murder? Or is that just more ridiculous excuse-making? /rhetorical question

Midas on January 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM

Socrates would be baffled at our smartset post modern world.

How does a society thrive when it does not seek to cultivate virtue?

The examined life was the virtue he sought.

Diogenes sought an honest man.

Machiavelli came along and convinced people that virtue was an unobtainable fiction…not practical really…

And so here we are…

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:46 PM

That’s so cute. Let’s pretend the people who disagree with you are dangerous psychopaths.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Who’s pretending? Do you listen to the things you say?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM

I dunno about “psychopath,” but “sociopath” definitely fits.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Machiavelli came along and convinced people that virtue was an unobtainable fiction…not practical really…

And so here we are…

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Maybe Machiavelli was right.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Machiavelli came along and convinced people that virtue was an unobtainable fiction…not practical really…

And so here we are…

The mistake is thinking that unobtainable fictions are without value.

Socratease on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM

That’s so cute. Let’s pretend the people who disagree with you are dangerous psychopaths.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Who’s pretending? Do you listen to the things you say?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Ok, if I’m a psychopath, let’s remember that the “war on women” nonsense, which is the discrete way to say what I’m saying, helped Obama win re-election. This would mean you are surrounded by psychopaths. In my world, I think most people want to be decent.

And by the way you are obviously a pedophile.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

The mistake is thinking that unobtainable fictions are without value.

Socratease on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I’ll remember that the next time I crusade against abortion or back a candidate who “can’t win.” ;)

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Ed Sheeran – Small Bump

RedRobin145 on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 PM

can_con on January 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM

I’ve decided that anytime you see an adjective in front of the word justice, the purpose is to use it like camouflage to hid the real intention.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Agreed. There seems to moral relativism at play when it comes to “Social Justice”.

can_con on January 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Augustine

“social justice” was hijacked and distorted…y’know like the word Gay…

Orwellian…and later the medium is the message kind of thingy

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Maybe Machiavelli was right.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 PM

What makes you think Machiavelli was interested in being right?

The Prince. Read it.

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM

I’ve decided that anytime you see an adjective in front of the word justice, the purpose is to use it like camouflage to hid the real intention.

INC on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 PM

100% agreed!

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:53 PM

What makes you think Machiavelli was interested in being right?

The Prince. Read it.

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM

Either you believe that Machiavelli’s admonitions were and are true, were but no longer are true, or were not and and never will be true. I’ve read The Prince multiple times and always thought it read like satire even though I knew that was not Machiavelli’s intentions. I’m simply starting to re-evaluate. These are strange times I find myself living in now.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Yeah, so rape violates a woman. So what?

29Victor on January 23, 2013 at 11:56 PM

In my world, I think most people want to be decent.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

That is why everything you build on that false foundation will collapse. People are bastards…the Christians are right about Original Sin.

sharrukin on January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM

And by the way you are obviously a pedophile.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

You’re a strange one. You write that you’re okay with killing and want to help and encourage it, and then bristle when you’re called a sociopath?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:58 PM

That is why everything you build on that false foundation will collapse. People are bastards…the Christians are right about Original Sin.

sharrukin on January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM

Everybody thinks they are decent. Even most Christians that confess to sin publicly do so strictly for self-aggrandizement. Whether people generally want to be decent? That makes it sound like such an easy choice, when I don’t think it’s easy or simple most of the time.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Either you believe that Machiavelli’s admonitions were and are true, were but no longer are true, or were not and and never will be true. I’ve read The Prince multiple times and always thought it read like satire even though I knew that was not Machiavelli’s intentions. I’m simply starting to re-evaluate. These are strange times I find myself living in now.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Machiavelli was a propagandist…a good one…

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

You’re a strange one. You write that you’re okay with killing and want to help and encourage it, and then bristle when you’re called a sociopath?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Come on, John. Encouraging death isn’t sociopathic in the least!/

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Machiavelli was a propagandist…a good one…

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

There are things conservatives could learn from him, just like there are things we could learn from Saul Alinsky as well.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:02 AM

In my world, I think most people want to be decent.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

That is why everything you build on that false foundation will collapse. People are bastards…the Christians are right about Original Sin.

sharrukin on January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM

Right. But most people want to think of themselves as decent. That’s how people wind up tying themselves into logical and moral knots and why they hate it so much when you do anything at all to untie, or even bring attention to, those knots.

29Victor on January 24, 2013 at 12:03 AM

Ok, if I’m a psychopath, let’s remember that the “war on women” nonsense, which is the discrete way to say what I’m saying, helped Obama win re-election. This would mean you are surrounded by psychopaths. In my world, I think most people want to be decent.
thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

Well, you did express disgust over the fact that Rick Santorum’s disabled daughter was allowed to live. I believe you suggested she was a burden, whose existence just wasn’t worth it. I was not a huge fan of Santorum, but I admire him for everything he did for his family.

So, I would certainly call you a psychopath, and one with inhuman, Nazi-like, eugenic tendencies.

bluegill on January 24, 2013 at 12:09 AM

We screwed up long ago. If we wanted to save babies’ lives, we should have been hanging around hospitals offering every woman who walks in money to get an abortion…we should be telling them how much money they can save by not having a kid, how they’ll be inconvenienced by having one and so on.

These Radicals mainly do this because they want to pi$$ us off and show who’s really in charge. They also despise Mankind because they feel they should be in charge, but are incapable of even managing their own lives.

They are automatically against whatever we’re for. Unfortunately, every prosperous, free society with too much time on its hands will breed Liberals such as these…not to mention de facto elected and appointed dictators, and all manner of government criminals.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM

I’m simply starting to re-evaluate. These are strange times I find myself living in now.

gryphon202 on January 23, 2013 at 11:54 PM

In that we agree…I have returned to many of them for careful re-evaluation….helps as a quasi coping mechanism I guess.

Theologians…Economists…Moralists…Philosophers…Saints & the Wise Fools

I’d say the times as well as experience since the last perusal seemed to be required.

Reading a lot of History and classic literature as well.

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM

That is why everything you build on that false foundation will collapse. People are bastards…the Christians are right about Original Sin.

sharrukin on January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM

Your perspective of the world is an accurate vision among other visions. I just find myself happier if I embrace less bleak visions of the world. And I do find myself encountering people who are sincerely generous towards the world.

I would be interested in discussing this further at some other time. I do value your ideas, but I am sleepy. Good night.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Everybody thinks they are decent. Even most Christians that confess to sin publicly do so strictly for self-aggrandizement. Whether people generally want to be decent? That makes it sound like such an easy choice, when I don’t think it’s easy or simple most of the time.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

They want to be seen to be decent, however that is defined.

I read a book on a group of Germans on one of the Einsatzgruppen Kommando in which they described the men who couldn’t bring themselves to shoot the Jews as being ashamed that they left their comrades to do the work for them. They helped to kill millions.

Those men were law abiding folks before the war and they returned to civilian life spending the rest of their days as good law abiding citizens.

Something about that just seems wrong to me. They should be bug-eyed twitchy monsters, rather than some old guy working in the garden.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Right. But most people want to think of themselves as decent. That’s how people wind up tying themselves into logical and moral knots and why they hate it so much when you do anything at all to untie, or even bring attention to, those knots.

29Victor on January 24, 2013 at 12:03 AM

The one thing a hypocrite will never forgive you is telling them the truth.

sharrukin on January 24, 2013 at 12:13 AM

Abortion on Demand: The Liberals’ Version of the Final Solution.

BuckeyeSam on January 24, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Machiavelli was a propagandist…a good one…

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

There are things conservatives could learn from him, just like there are things we could learn from Saul Alinsky as well.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Machiavelli should be approached with care…imho…He is seductive but then good propagandists always are.

He is clever…clever has it’s limits.

I prefer to stumble after wise men seeking truth…but that’s just me.

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Thuja, I’m sorry to say that the following is what I’m reminded of when I read your eugenics-themed comments of the last year.

http://germanpropaganda.blogspot.com/2009/06/nazi-eugenics-posters.html?m=1

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-4_Euthanasia_Program

bluegill on January 24, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Thuja, I believe you had mentioned that you are gay. If and when a gay gene has been identified, let’s see theb how you and people like you still feel about eugenics and snuffing out unwanted or inconvenient innocent lives.

bluegill on January 24, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Thoughts on the subject written for the arguments yesterday on NRO. I haven’t read this thread, but I’m sure the arguments are similar. So feel free not to read this if you feel it is out of the blue or ectopic off-topic.

Slippery slope arguments are ignorantly mislabeled or deliberately and deceptively issued most of the time. So don’t say pro-lifers are arguing a “slippery-slope” argument by asking what’s next? Infanticide? Post-term abortions? Etc.
Muddy and slippery slopes do exist, and are the reason for Vibram lugged-soled boots. Conspiracies do exist; and that is the reason for laws enacted to prevent and punish them. Intentional agendas negate the entire slippery-slope-therefore-fallacious trope.
It is not a slippery slope if it is a step in a long descending staircase to an unannounced but preintended destination.

The question of what to do with the children born of unintended or irresponsible sex have a place; and that place is roomy and good. There would be no need for immigrant labor without abortion. Europe and China are both reaping the adverse consequences of low birth rates.
And in Europe they have imported cheap muslim labor to fill the jobs their children would have. And China faces the same shortage of labor and also the lack of women in society, due to their sex-selective abortion choices. And this has opened them up to losing their precious society And to enduring the protests and lawlessness of unassimilated foreign immigrants.
Food production and living space, contrary to Malthusian theorizing, has increased, meeting demands of increased growth.

It takes two to conceive a child. Sex is rarely forced. And there are laws against this. And even in hormonally-unstable adolescents there is always abortion. And even then in the past girls have foregone sex until marriage. And even if a girl got pregnant, marriage was the common societal response. And responsibility for the pregnancy was shared.

Which brings us to two final points:
Sexual promiscuity, not women’s health or reproductive rights, is at the heart of the desire for contraception and abortion.
The child begun in the woman’s womb is the offspring of both the man and the woman. And the fathers’ rights are fully ignored by Liberal advocates, moralists and lawmakers. What is the father wants the child? What is the father’s longing is for a child? What if the father objects to killing the child for moral or spiritual reasons? Are the father’s reproductive rights non-existent? Are his reproductive rights of lesser importance than the woman’s rights? Why is that?
One would think that the biological right to reproduce is fully shared.

No, the Liberal insistence on abortion-on-demand is a deception created for the purpose of evading and denying moral responsibility for sexual activity. Period. And to say otherwise is a lie or willing self-deception.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Correction: My earlier post should read: “What if the father wants the child? What if the father’s longing is for a child? What if the father objects to killing the child for moral or spiritual reasons?”

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Everybody thinks they are decent. Even most Christians that confess to sin publicly do so strictly for self-aggrandizement. Whether people generally want to be decent? That makes it sound like such an easy choice, when I don’t think it’s easy or simple most of the time.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Human nature is…well human.

But Christ understood that…of course he would.

Virtue is cultivating the soul and the culture that cultivates virtue is one that thrives and prospers in freedom.

Currently we live in a culture that tries to convince people that virtue doesn’t matter cause some old cranky men made it up as they went along.

Virtue is a moral instinct given by our creator in Natural Law…It’s refinement and teachings are a natural generational responsibility.

What did our secretary of state say about Benghazi today on TV…”What does it matter”

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Well, you did express disgust over the fact that Rick Santorum’s disabled daughter was allowed to live. I believe you suggested she was a burden, whose existence just wasn’t worth it. I was not a huge fan of Santorum, but I admire him for everything he did for his family.

So, I would certainly call you a psychopath, and one with inhuman, Nazi-like, eugenic tendencies.

bluegill on January 24, 2013 at 12:09 AM

…I like you when you are like this! (no sarc)
…I must be ill…I better go to bed!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM

Shoot. Written in a hurry. “And even in hormonally-unstable adolescents there is always abortion” should read: And even in hormonally-unstable adolescents there is always adoption.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:42 AM

…I like you when you are like this!…

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM

Agreement with the gilled one, on the other hand, makes me entirely uncomfortable. The thing is, morality it seems, is religious at core, and requires that which is at odds with personal preference, in certain instances.

wolfsDad on January 24, 2013 at 12:42 AM

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:19 AM

I agree.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:45 AM

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:19 AM

I’d add that the for the Left abortion is part of their political solution. They don’t think of it as right or wrong and so they say the most callous, cold and evil things.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:48 AM

“The Personal Is Political,” is the title of a feminist essay by Carol Hanisch from 1969. One of the things she wrote was this:

One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

That statement is key to understanding why the Left always, always, insists on being able to kill a baby in the womb. Anything that opposes the collective must be eradicated. And a baby literally embodies the reality that shatters its worldview.

David Horowitz has this commentary on the phrase “The Personal Is Political”:

As I understood it, the phrase expressed an ideological will to reduce everything personal to a political formula, stamping out the messy particulars of an individual existence in the process.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:45 AM

Thanks. Just thinking…

What would “reproductive justice” be?

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM

What would “reproductive justice” be?

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM

Whitewash for abortion. It’s only a step away from their mantra of “reproductive rights” which became part of NARAL’s name.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:52 AM

This is how NARAL has changed it’s name over the years.

National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws

to

National Abortion Rights Action League
Put in the word rights to make it sound like it is one

to

National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
Adding reproductive rights sounds a whole lot better than abortion by itself.

to

NARAL Pro-Choice America
Pro-choice–even better. Don’t use the word abortion at all, and people will forget what NARAL stands for.

Notice their website is: prochoiceamerica.org

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:54 AM

bluegill on January 24, 2013 at 12:09 AM

.
…I like you when you are like this! (no sarc)
…I must be ill…I better go to bed!

KOOLAID2 on January 24, 2013 at 12:30 AM

.
Oh, c’mon … we don’t always disagree over everything.

A few days ago I found myself agreeing with Dantetwo days in a row !
… THAT’S RIGHT … DANTE !

If I can agree with Dante, anything’s possible. But I still gotta get my digs in…

HEY bluegill ! … Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin …..

listens2glenn on January 24, 2013 at 12:57 AM

This article is a shout, a curse flung at the injustice of truth. This is the end of the slope, the journey from the justice of abortion to its profanity.

I laugh at people who can hold the thoughts contained in this article and scream at the gun culture for Sandy Hook. Do you want to know the roots to the killing of children? Look no further from this article. Once you’ve bought into the selective caring for life, you give wings to the killers of children.

Fifty years from now someone will read this article and wonder what form of madness infected the minds of such people.

itsspideyman on January 24, 2013 at 1:10 AM

Planned Parenthood recently decided not to use the word choice anymore. Now it’s nuancing abortion. They want to shut down discussion completely.

They know it’s a baby, but they’re working to give women reasons to rationalize.

Rather than selecting a new term to replace “pro-choice,” Planned Parenthood hopes to move beyond such terms entirely and present abortion as something too complicated to be divided into two sides.

They’re setting up a new site: Not In Her Shoes. It has photos women supposedly sent in of their shoes with a brief little essay.

Meanwhile pro-lifers are going to double down on them.

To clarify terms and also keep abortion in the spotlight, “we are moving away from using ‘pro-life’ to ‘anti-abortion’ or ‘abortion abolitionist,’” wrote Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, to me in an email.

“They don’t want the word abortion to be used, and we want to keep putting it in their face,” added Hawkins.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 1:14 AM

The thing is, morality it seems, is religious at core, and requires that which is at odds with personal preference, in certain instances.

wolfsDad on January 24, 2013 at 12:42 AM

I would say morality in the general sense basic sense is a cultural reflection. It was a moral principle in many pagan cultures to be willing to sacrifice your child for the benefit of the state…whether this be for the defense of the state as in Sparta or on the altar of the pagan idol to satisfy the welfare or destiny of the state.

The Spartan state raised the children away from the family after the age of 7. The state replaced the family in the heart of the child.

If a parent denied the role of state sacrifice they were enemies of the state.

This is where those troublesome Jewish Prophets enter history and expose the pagan delusion.

Later…Christ made the way for any and all to follow the Natural Law of God. His apostles carried the message.

The Natural Law of God is granted by God through his grace to all of us and carries blessings and responsibilities.

Secular morality inevitably fails because it is subject to secular approval.

Natural Law isn’t…But Free Will means we can choose to follow Natural Law because trying to do that cultivates virtues that satisfy our moral instinct and contribute to those things that bring forth benefits that transcend circumstances and enrich the human spirit.

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:15 AM

INC on January 24, 2013 at 12:52 AM

Actually, I kind of like the sound of “reproductive justice”. I imagine that it would involve including the father in all reproductive decisions. All fetuses would be assigned a court-appointed attorney as an advocate. And all abortions would require the signed medical consent of the fetus.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:20 AM

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:20 AM

You’re too late. It’s already hijacked.

Do a search for the two words and you’ll see what I mean.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 1:25 AM

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:15 AM

I’m not sure we’re reading the same Bible.

29Victor on January 24, 2013 at 1:26 AM

Conservatives and in particular Conservative Christians can use the powerful virtue of charity of spirit to reach women who are deluded by the lie. We should speak the plain truth. Abortion is eugenics.

The Eugenicists lie to women and damage their natures. The Eugenicists seek to disrupt what binds communities and replace those binds like families with loyalty to the state. The Eugenicists seek to confuse by clinging to materialism using the mechanism of replacing the priest/pastor/rabbi with the scientist..replacing the parents with the sociologist…replacing charity with welfare…replacing churches with community centers..replacing human unity with competitive grievance factions…replacing God with the State and calling that freedom…the list is endless as most conservatives know..

It’s paganism wearing different clothes.

So in that spirit of charity…I’ll post a passage from Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae from 1995 for consideration. Swiped from a catholic blog, ” Paragraph 99 speaks directly to post-abortive women. Pope John Paul II speaks as one who knows that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Divine Mercy of the Eternal Father and that the depths of His forgiveness is infinite. The words of His Holiness resound with the message of mercy and the Gospel of Life proclaimed by Christ. Below is the pertinent passage:

I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life.

– Pope Blessed John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, 99 (1995)

One must admire how the Holy Father speaks of mercy, but also the need for penance and sacramental absolution. Also, he commissions these women to crusade against legalized abortion. His Holiness calls them to forgiveness, but also calls them to action.”

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2013/01/pope-blessed-john-paul-iis-1995-message.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taylormarshall+(Canterbury+Tales+by+Taylor+Marshall)&utm_content=Google+Reader

We must win through the truth of facts & with charity of spirit as many of the lost as we can.

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:41 AM

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:15 AM

I’m not sure we’re reading the same Bible.

29Victor on January 24, 2013 at 1:26 AM

*shrug*

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:45 AM

Okay, let’s just talk about God for a moment, since Natural Law is a matter of disagreement and debate.

Most people believe in a supernatural world of some sort, where beings or a supreme consciousness exists exerting influence over earthly mortals. Except perhaps in communist countries, where the concept of God was deliberately eradicated. I’ve read that even Russian troops during WWII, stuck huddling in freezing trenches, hungry and with death staring them in the face, struggled to pray to God, while knowing that they had no knowledge of how to pray.

When you go to the SE Asia you see carefully-tended idols in every shop being offered gifts of incense and food. Go to the Pacific islands and they will tell you of their various gods. Go to Africa and they, too, will tell you of their gods. It is natural and human to believe in a god, gods, or the supernatural, including the spirits of dead family members.

If one does choose to believe in a god, then the question is which god. I believe that the God of the Bible is the one true God, who names Himself YHWH. Dennis Prager recently wrote that Liberals know that the liberal perspective is that fiscal liberalism and liberal social issues are inseparable. He writes that it is the Conservatives that feel that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are severable.

So it isn’t surprising when some Conservatives inject morality into what Liberals view as a political discussion. All politics and law is, after all, moral in nature. Who decides what is permissible and what is not? Who decides what is right and what is wrong; what is fair and unfair? Who is to decide that murder is wrong, or – more pertinently to this article – when it is wrong and to whom it is wrong? These are all political questions. And they are moral ones.

As Dostoevsky once wrote: Without God, all is permissible. Is this the country we want to live in? Because that’s where we’re quickly heading: where the Leader makes all laws and dispenses all justice.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:45 AM

INC on January 24, 2013 at 1:14 AM

I’ll bet abortion abolitionists made the eugenicists heads explode

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:49 AM

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:45 AM

.
Very well said, sir (or madam).

listens2glenn on January 24, 2013 at 1:52 AM

As Dostoevsky once wrote: Without God, all is permissible. Is this the country we want to live in? Because that’s where we’re quickly heading: where the Leader makes all laws and dispenses all justice.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:45 AM

and “rights” are no longer inalienable.

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:53 AM

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:41 AM

I agree. The Apostle Paul was a murderer of Christians but he repented and God forgave him and used him for a great deal of good.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM

I’ll bet abortion abolitionists made the eugenicists heads explode

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:49 AM

I think it’s great!

INC on January 24, 2013 at 1:57 AM

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:41 AM

.
I agree. The Apostle Paul was a murderer of Christians but he repented and God forgave him and used him for a great deal of good.

flicker
on January 24, 2013 at 1:54 AM

.
If a high-ranking Japanese Officer (WWII), who was responsible for major atrocities in a POW camp, could be convinced to accept Jesus as Lord, any one can.

listens2glenn on January 24, 2013 at 2:01 AM

I’m off to bed . . . . . . . . nighty nite.

listens2glenn on January 24, 2013 at 2:02 AM

For anyone remaining out there who’s not a Christian, let me say that in my view one of the greatest paradoxes of following Jesus is that we know we are utterly vile and rightfully deserving of eternal punishment, yet God values us enough send His Son to die in our place.

Why? At least in good part because we are created in His image. That is why murder is wrong. And that is why every baby is of divine value. And that is why abortion is such a sin.

Now, of course, if you don’t believe this, or if you don’t care to believe it, then I would ask you specifically who your god is.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 2:13 AM

For anyone remaining out there who’s not a Christian, let me say that in my view one of the greatest paradoxes of following Jesus is that we know we are utterly vile and rightfully deserving of eternal punishment, yet God values us enough send His Son to die in our place.

Why? At least in good part because we are created in His image. That is why murder is wrong. And that is why every baby is of divine value. And that is why abortion is such a sin.

Now, of course, if you don’t believe this, or if you don’t care to believe it, then I would ask you specifically who your god is.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 2:13 AM

Well said

Goodnight everybody…thanks for an interesting and thoughtful thread

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 2:20 AM

Goodnight, workingclass.

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 2:26 AM

Gotta say… at least Hitler had the decency to consider the people he slaughtered as sub-human. this scrunt is in the top 10 of history’s all time evil list.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 24, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Shocking, isn’t it? Spend all that time trying to get people to see that the pro-abortion crowd, for all their spin, really just don’t care that abortion takes a life — and they refuse to accept it. And then this woman comes right out and admits it.

You think she would be more concerned about whether abortion takes a life if it was her life at risk?

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 2:42 AM

Come on, John. Encouraging death isn’t sociopathic in the least!/

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Cognitive dissonance sends tidal waves that drown logic. I really am amazed these folks know how to tie their shoelaces.

John the Libertarian on January 24, 2013 at 2:49 AM

What’s a scrunt?

(I killed a mockingbird once.)

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 2:49 AM

For the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 1983, President Ronald Reagan wrote Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, an unsolicited article for The Human Life Review.

If you’ve never read it, you really should. This is the final paragraph:

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

Prophetic words.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM

Simplest of solutions:

The “pro-choice,” party in the article claims frankly that she knows the fetus is a live human being, and simply doesn’t care. Therefore, murder is acceptable. Along this vein of reason, there is no life that is viable or acceptable so long as the party that examines that life-forms existence disagrees with such existence.

Therefore, since life has little, if any meaning, to this breed of liberal filth, ask them what is the difference between the baby’s life that they personally don’t care about and their own, since you (as the conservative, hopefully) dismiss their existence as well; and since there is no mitigation that there fetus is a living child, why should there be a mitigating circumstance for them (or their friends, or family, or significant other, etc.). If they have any functioning bran cells (stretch though that may be), perhaps they’ll begin to understand the concept that a single arbiter of what constitutes a valid life, especially when that arbiter has little concept of the value of life at all, there is no value to their life as well, and they are equally obliged to put their own head on the executioner’s block without argument; after all, their “life,” is trite and unwarranted in many adults’ eyes….

When they have no substantive answer….well….perhaps they can find solace in their own final solution.

DrScottMD on January 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM

I have a question. Billy Graham once said something to the effect that if God does not judge the US for the — at that time, I think, only 30 million — abortions it has committed, He owes Sodom and Gommorah an apology.

Now we’re at maybe 54 million babies killed, on par with Stalin or Mao, and beyond Pol Pot and his killing fields. And this has not been done by one man and his cadre, but by some 35 million American women, along with their male partners, and along with many more who advocated the procedures, and who counselled for the procedures, and actively funded the procedures, and the many more who voted in favor of keeping abortion legal, and those who actually performed and assisted with the deadly procedures. And my question is: Does anyone here think God would be wrong to let, oh, say, Iran wipe out the US with a well-placed EMP explosion or two? (Just one scenario out of several.)

Does anyone think He wouldn’t be just in judging our country? I’m not advocating this. I’m just asking: Wouldn’t God be unjust I He didn’t?

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 3:34 AM

I mean, I’m not trying to be provocative here, we have experienced something like a decade of flooding on the scale of which the unholy but catch-phrase-oriented media calls “of Biblical proportions”, wild fires of increasing size and destruction, and recently a seemingly increasing number of devastating tornadoes.

And we’ve got a President who is consolidating what appears to be an increasingly despotic dictatorship (either for himself or for others) and who is giving some 20 state-of-the-art fighter jets to the muslim Brotherhood’s President Morsi, a self-proclaimed enemy of Israel.

And we have an astoundingly high infant body count of about 54M innocents, supported by at least 125 million voters (35M who voted for him and 90M who didn’t vote at all, apparently happy with the status quo).

And we think God is looking the other way? Or so long-suffering that we need never expect an earthly accounting?

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 4:05 AM

So what?

What if the life you destroyed turned out to be the next Einstein, Tesla, Bell, Edison, or Salk? Only instead of their amazing ability in physics/science, or the cure for polio they possessed the cures for cancer.
Would those “cells” be worth saving?

kregg on January 24, 2013 at 6:11 AM

NARAL should rename itself the “Fascist Eugenics Rights Action League”. FERAL works better for them; its more substantively descriptive of their ideology.

MTF on January 24, 2013 at 6:24 AM

What makes you think Machiavelli was interested in being right?

The Prince. Read it.

workingclass artist on January 23, 2013 at 11:51 PM

Even too many people who’ve read The Prince believe Machiavelli was advocating his observations. That’s how good he was (didn’t get past those Medicis though…).

anuts on January 24, 2013 at 6:40 AM

The comments from trolls on this thread were cynical and appalling, their puerile arguments meant only to annoy. All I could do was laugh as I read them, for the palpable desperation. Before the Salon article, those same trolls argued we were wrong about the unborn being a life. Now that one of their own has confirmed we have been right all along, the trolls freaked from the shot out of left field, and sought a new tack. How lame and pedestrian…

I don’t know which is worse: Liberals failing to grasp the unborn being slaughtered are human lives, or them admitting they are and not caring a whit.

On the Cross, Jesus asked, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.”

If the truth we have told for decades is widely grasped on the pro-death crowd at last, and if they don’t care like the author of the Salon piece, all I have left so say then is woe to the Republic.

Liam on January 24, 2013 at 6:52 AM

how nice of you to volunteer to take phone calls, while the butcherer of children (abortion doctors) continue to kill innocent kids!! Why are you and the rest of the conservative guntoting brethren not stopping these murderers from killing children? Answer me that. Why are you not stopping them?!

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I’m surprised you are not locked away somewhere. You are not of a sound mind.

zoyclem on January 24, 2013 at 7:34 AM

That’s so cute. Let’s pretend the people who disagree with you are dangerous psychopaths.
thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Who’s pretending? Do you listen to the things you say?

John the Libertarian on January 23, 2013 at 11:42 PM

And by the way you are obviously a pedophile.

thuja on January 23, 2013 at 11:48 PM

So? Maybe he was born that way, and who are you to judge who he can love? “Adult” is just a made-up word based on someone’s legislated morality.

Nutstuyu on January 24, 2013 at 7:57 AM

So what?

What if the life you destroyed turned out to be the next Einstein, Tesla, Bell, Edison, or Salk? Only instead of their amazing ability in physics/science, or the cure for polio they possessed the cures for cancer.
Would those “cells” be worth saving?

kregg on January 24, 2013 at 6:11 AM

Or, *gasp* the next Barack Obama. By the Left’s standards of “convenience” he should have been aborted.

Nutstuyu on January 24, 2013 at 8:01 AM

flicker on January 24, 2013 at 1:20 AM

You’re too late. It’s already hijacked.

Do a search for the two words and you’ll see what I mean.

INC on January 24, 2013 at 1:25 AM

Well if they can completely redefine a perfectly good word like “gay”, maybe we can give them some of their own medicine and reclaim “reproductive justice”. Seems like some mainline Protestant churches who harp about social justice would gladly glom onto another justice phrase.

Nutstuyu on January 24, 2013 at 8:24 AM

Everybody thinks they are decent. Even most Christians that confess to sin publicly do so strictly for self-aggrandizement. Whether people generally want to be decent? That makes it sound like such an easy choice, when I don’t think it’s easy or simple most of the time.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

FWIW, as a member of the largest Christian denomination on the planet (Roman Catholicism), we are supposed to confess our sins in private and are specifically not to reveal them to others.

Shump on January 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

If Ms. Williams truly believes she has the moral right to end her child’s life and is unpenitent, then she is no better than the ante-bellum slave-holder who has just had a recalcitrant slave whipped to death.

It is the identical philosophy — that someone one controls utterly, who has become inconvenient, can be murdered if it advances one’s perceived interests.

We understand that the pro-choice side (there’s co-opted words if there ever were some) side has some basic paradoxes with their position.

Here’s the Planned Parenthood Thanksgiving “talking turkey” message from a few years back:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/talking-turkey-38298.htm

There’s just something about pregnancy—everybody has feelings about it. Each circumstance is different, so we should respect and support women and families who must make life-altering decisions about whether or not to have a child.

and

We can try to imagine the heartbreak of a family when they get the news that a test has shown there is something wrong with their baby.

Ms. Williams is just being refreshingly honest about the thoughts those in the Planned Parenthood corner have — that they have the putative right to kill their children.

unclesmrgol on January 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?

Why not abort all babies that don’t have blonde hair and blue eyes? That worked pretty good for the Germans a bit over half a century ago, didn’t it? Aborting female babies fetuses seems to be working pretty well in China now, too. They’ve got a helluva military right now, and they’re gearing up to take us on soemwhere down the road….

olesparkie on January 24, 2013 at 8:29 AM

FWIW, as a member of the largest Christian denomination on the planet (Roman Catholicism), we are supposed to confess our sins in private and are specifically not to reveal them to others.

Shump on January 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

Not true. You, as a Catholic, have the obligation to go to confession and seek forgiveness for your sins. It is the absolving PRIEST who has the obligation not to reveal what has been said under seal of confession, not you — and even then the seal is not absolute — if you confess a sin you have not yet committed, in the erroneous assumption that you can obtain forgiveness before the fact, the priest has the obligation both not to forgive you AND to act to prevent the sin from being carried out. Furthermore, if your penance requires you to publicly reveal your sin, then you have the obligation to do so.

Confession, over the ages, has gone from being quite a public rite (the early Christians experimented with revealing sins before others) but discovered that such an arrangement actually got in the way of a congregational relationship with God. The priest stands as the representative of Peter — and has the right to bind or loose sins.

unclesmrgol on January 24, 2013 at 8:34 AM

We have to be blunt about these kinds of arguments.

They are evil.

They are Satanic.

That is not hyperbole. These arguments are not just wrong, they are monstrous and unnatural.

For ages one of the greatest afflictions of humanity have been fathers who value their own wants and desires above that of their child. Now we want to encourage mothers to act the same way?

Truly these are the days spoken of by the prophets, that the hearts of men shall wax cold, and they shall be without natural affection.

What greater lack of natural affection is there then an expectant mother who values herself above the child she bears?

Sackett on January 24, 2013 at 8:39 AM

This.

kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Have you noticed that all of these ‘rights’ given to us by the left are man given and not God given. Abortion, death with dignity, now that’s a semantic prize winner, green energy, and feeling good about yourself for paying more taxes have all been given to us by the left. They all give the left more power over us in one way or another all the while telling us that we now have more power. They are all falsehoods whipped up by evil. Belgium has expanded the death with dignity to control by the state over who gets to live if you have something wrong with you. How long before it gets here? The left has already planted the seeds and will cultivate this culture until they get what they want.

Kissmygrits on January 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Kissmygrits on January 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Exactly right.

kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Conservatives and in particular Conservative Christians can use the powerful virtue of charity of spirit to reach women who are deluded by the lie. We should speak the plain truth. Abortion is eugenics.

The Eugenicists lie to women and damage their natures. The Eugenicists seek to disrupt what binds communities and replace those binds like families with loyalty to the state. The Eugenicists seek to confuse by clinging to materialism using the mechanism of replacing the priest/pastor/rabbi with the scientist..replacing the parents with the sociologist…replacing charity with welfare…replacing churches with community centers..replacing human unity with competitive grievance factions…replacing God with the State and calling that freedom…the list is endless as most conservatives know..

It’s paganism wearing different clothes.

workingclass artist on January 24, 2013 at 1:41 AM

Some people are frightened by those scary “eugenicists” until the point they have to decide whether to abort a fetus with Down’s Syndrome. Then 90% of them become eugenicists. As at least 20% of the population of is pro-life, this means when push comes to shove the majority of pro-lifers are eugenicists! Pro-life ideals don’t even work in the the lives of pro-lifers.

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM

As the Dad of a special 25 yr old, I advise you to take your head and do something anatomically impossible with it.

kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 8:55 AM

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Cite your made up stat you sick evil bastard. Better yet, prove that you believe what you’re saying and go hang yourself. If you don’t do it clearly you value your life JUST AS EVERYONE ELSE VALUES THEIRS. Unfortunately you get to breath today, you don’t deserve it. But the world will be a much better place when your evil life is over.

Flange on January 24, 2013 at 8:57 AM

When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person.

We mark the end of a life when the heart stops beating.

If pro-abortionists refuse to agree that life begins at conception, then how about life begins when the heart starts beating?

itsnotaboutme on January 24, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Everybody thinks they are decent. Even most Christians that confess to sin publicly do so strictly for self-aggrandizement. Whether people generally want to be decent? That makes it sound like such an easy choice, when I don’t think it’s easy or simple most of the time.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM

FWIW, as a member of the largest Christian denomination on the planet (Roman Catholicism), we are supposed to confess our sins in private and are specifically not to reveal them to others.

Shump on January 24, 2013 at 8:26 AM

“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.”

Matthew 6:4-6

I’m also Roman Catholic and I was taught that deeds to be considered worthy were to be performed only in the sight of God. It’s those who are raised outside this belief who create elaborate shows to worship their own self-importance.

itsspideyman on January 24, 2013 at 9:07 AM

thuja on January 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM

As the Dad of a special 25 yr old, I advise you to take your head and do something anatomically impossible with it.

kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Well said kingsjester. Long before people like them were tossing their children to the wolves, people like ourself loved and cared for their beautiful children. God bless you and your family.

itsspideyman on January 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM

itsspideyman on January 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Thank you, my friend. And, the same to you and yours.

kingsjester on January 24, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?

How about all the liberal moochers who have made entire lives out of being a burden on the rest of us?

Midas on January 24, 2013 at 9:21 AM

If pro-abortionists refuse to agree that life begins at conception, then how about life begins when the heart starts beating?

itsnotaboutme on January 24, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I wish it were that simple. There’s cardiac arrest, which was once thought to mean death, but now “brain death” is considered clinical death. Your heart can still beat without the brain, and as my dad’s SCE (sudden coronary event) proved, the brain can keep going without the heart to a point.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, life does begin at conception simply because that’s the only approach grounded in science.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM

I don’t know which is worse: Liberals failing to grasp the unborn being slaughtered are human lives, or them admitting they are and not caring a whit.

Liam on January 24, 2013 at 6:52 AM

Both are certainly bad, but its pretty clear to me which is worse.

Midas on January 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, life does begin at conception simply because that’s the only approach grounded in science.

gryphon202 on January 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Ah, but like every other topic, libs believe in science right up to the point where it’s inconvenient to do so.

Midas on January 24, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4