« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Finally, Honest Words From the Pro-Abortion Society

By: lineholder (Diary)  |  January 24th, 2013 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I feel like singing the Hallelujah Chorus right now.  No more “safe, legal and rare” canard.  No more lies about how an unborn child is just a “bunch of cells”.  The left is finally coming “out of the closet” on the truth that life begins at conception and abortion is murder.  Or at least, one author on the left is doing so…Salon author Mary Elizabeth Williams who is the author of an article entitled “So what if abortion ends life?”

It’s honest at least.  And that’s a step in the right direction.  Better by far than the constant and repetitive attempts to deceive young females with all the other random dishonest claims that the pro-abortion crowd has used over the years.

For those of us who attempt to live our lives within a scope of moral absolutes, the question of abortion being the equivalent of murder has always been a relatively simple question to answer.  Yes, it is the equivalent of murder.  Our moral standards define various forms of behavior as being right while other forms of behavior are wrong.  Murder is wrong.  Most of us have also learned to stay away from relative moral standards as much as possible.  Why?  Because it can be highly tempting to want to justify behaviors that are wrong.  Human beings are simply human.  No more and no less.  We all face temptations to engage in wrong behaviors from time to time.  It’s how we respond to those temptations that matters, i.e. whether we resist those temptations or whether we allow them to get the better of us.

For those who don’t live within a scope of moral absolutes, the following type of justification can be relatively common:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

(snip)

We’re so intimidated by the wingnuts, we get spooked out of having these conversations. We let the archconservatives browbeat us with the concept of “life,” using their scare tactics on women and pushing for indefensible violations like forced ultrasounds. Why? Because when they wave the not-even-accurate notion that “abortion stops a beating heart” they think they’re going to trick us into some damning admission. They believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom.

But we make choices about life all the time in our country. We make them about men and women in other nations. We make them about prisoners in our penal system. We make them about patients with terminal illnesses and accident victims. We still have passionate debates about the justifications of our actions as a society, but we don’t have to do it while being bullied around by the vague idea that if you say we’re talking about human life, then the jig is up, rights-wise.

Those are portions of Ms. Williams article, which ends with the comments of

And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Yes, the temptation to justify wrong behavior is definitely being exhibited in this article, is it not?  Of course, one of the problems of relative moral standards is that it sears the human conscience causing human beings to become numb on the inside to the low standards consuming their life and the scope of wrong behavior that they are willingly embracing.

But even beyond the question of moral standards and human behavior, I wonder if Ms. Williams has actually considered this question in light of the rule of law.  What is being promoted by the pro-abortion movement is for an individual to take the responsibility upon themselves to define whether or not another human being has the right to life and selective adherence to the rule of law.

In our nation, we have laws prohibiting deliberate, intentional, cold-blooded murder.  As citizens of this nation, we can selectively choose to violate a law, but if we do so, we must be prepared to accept the scope of consequences that exist as punishment for failing to adhere to the law, correct?  That’s how the rule of law works.  We don’t have the right to selectively impose the rule of man (with ourselves as judges for the law) over the rule of law on a whim then simply justify our actions based on our professed “rights”.  We don’t have the right to take the law into our own hands.  Especially when it causes harm to other s within our society.

Yet the life of the innocent and unprotected “is a life worth sacrificing” according to Ms. Williams.

Unborn children definitely fall into that category of “others”, don’t they?  With no voice of their own and unable to stand up for themselves…to protect themselves from harm.   If the pro-abortion society didn’t understand before why those of us who value human life have been as adamant as we have in our fight against abortion, perhaps they will understand this…we won’t leave them to stand alone.  Those unborn children with no voices.  We won’t leave them to stand alone with no one to champion their right to life.  Even if you do desert them, we won’t.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • kipling

    “A life worth sacrificing” for what? For the convenience of the mother? For the good of society because it does not want more black babies, female babies, or low income babies? Just because it is Tuesday and I don’t like Tuesdays? Sacrifice entails rejecting something to gain something more important. What is more important than human life?

    • lineholder

      How was it that Ms. Williams expressed it? Oh, yeah…”unrestricted reproductive freedom”. That’s more important than human life. At least by the standards of the pro-abortion folks.

      • kipling

        Just more Orwellian language. They do not want “unrestricted reproductive freedom.” Abortion is very restrictive on reproduction. In fact, it ends reproduction and can hinder future reproduction.

        • David

          What she’s really after is “unrestricted freedom” reproductive or other. As a nation, we’ve lost our sennse and desire for “Liberty”- as much “freedom” as possible within the confines of the community, e.g., village, city, state, nation. Ms. Williams doesn’t want her fellow countrymen to imdede her freedom, so she needs to disregard her responsibility to respect the views of others in the country. And, she needs us to play along. She wants us to respect her freedom to kill her unborn child and shut up about it. Sadly, she doesn’t understand the Liberty thing…

          • soljerblue

            What Ms Williams wants is not ‘freedom’, but ‘license’ — as in licentious; the absence of responsibility for any personal decision. That has absolutely nothing to do with true liberty or the interpersonal limits of freedom. It is nihilism, and there are consequences — now and in eternity.

  • avgjo

    I wonder how this miscreant would like the old paterfamilias law in Rome…where the husband, the ‘boss’ to use her words, could kill his wife, at least in its original form.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Or, current sharia law where a man can kill his wife for adultery, or a father can kill his daughter for marrying someone he disapproves of or not marrying someone he has selected for her, or for getting raped. Or, for converting to a different religion.

      • avgjo

        Yessir.

        I only chose the paterfamilias because the idea, as I understand it was, the man was the master of his domain, and that included his property, and those dependent on his property, just as the modern feminazis and Sanda Flukes of the world argue that the body is their property and the baby is dependent on that property, ergo they can kill the baby, just as the paterfamilias could.

  • westcoastpatriette

    “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Silly, Silly Decalogue. It’s like believing in The Tooth Fairy or something.

  • recentlyenlightened

    We all enjoy “unrestricted reproductive freedom”. There is nothing to stop any of us from conceiving at any time. Countries like China have had restricted reproductive freedom, but not here in the US. You may reproduce at will. I’m not sure Ms. Williams understands what those words mean.

    “And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time”

    More accurately, Ms. Williams would put the “lifestyle” of the mother over the life of the fetus every single time.

    I will never understand the argument for the “right to birth control” either. We all have a right to birth control. However, that right ends the moment you spread your legs. At that point you have a “responsibility for birth control”. My Dad used to say that aspirin was the best birth control. “Hold one between your knees and you’ll never get pregnant!”

    Since going to college years ago, I have managed to remain un-pregnant with 2 exceptions, and those were not by accident. I have never been wealthy and, even as a “poor college student”, scrounged up the $10 each month to afford my BCPs.

    How have so many people become so dumb/blind as to accept these arguments as sensible or factual?

    • veritaseequitas

      “However, that right ends the moment you spread your legs.”
      True. However, don’t forget that the male has a responsibility here too. Males are not some out-of-control beasts who cannot control their physical urges. They need to realize the consequences of their choices as well.
      Maybe, since the female population has so bought the lies of the Pro-Abortionists, and is resistant to change, we should seek to educate the males.

      • skorrent1

        Well, not really. After Roe v Wade, men became merely sperm donors with no authority over the consequences; even happy-to-be-father husbands. With lack of authority comes a diminished sense of responsibility. Responsibility comes only if the woman decides to have the baby and a judge says: “Pay up!” Exploding single motherhood results from the triple whammy of no-fault divorce, “daddy” govt welfare, and “a woman’s right” to abortion.

      • recentlyenlightened

        I agree wholeheartedly. However, I learned during those days long ago in college that I can not count on anybody but myself when it comes to something as monumentally important as this. A little slip up, even with the best of intentions, has the power to completely change 1 party’s life. The other party’s life may or may not change and may be only effected financially, not physically or emotionally, depending on circumstance. Like it or not, the woman’s stake in this situation is far higher than the man’s. It is unfortunate, to say the least.

      • soljerblue

        At an age when the little head controls the big head? Hmmm.

    • Viet71

      “Unrestricted reproductive freedom” sounds like a Red State anthem. Freedom. Unrestricted. Appeals to the American spirit — Left or Right.

      This command and control of the American English language by the Left in this country, which began circa 1964, is a BIG part of the problem the Right faces.

      To use a 1960s term, the Left has co-opted the language. Hijacked if you prefer.

  • bluedot

    If you REALLY try to live by “moral absolutes”, and REALLY think abortion is murder, then it seems to me you must AT LEAST agree to the following:
    (1) All women who have abortions and all professionals who perform them should be punished for premeditated murder — either imprisoned for life or executed; and anyone else who knowingly paid for an abortion must be prosecuted exactly like one who has hired a hitman
    (2) women who know they are pregnant, or think there’s a reasonable chance, should be prosecuted for negligent homicide if they do anything that might increase their chances of a miscarriage, or fail to do anything that might prevent a miscarriage
    (3) women who actually HAVE miscarriages (at ANY stage of pregnancy) would need to at least get a death certificate for the embryo, and be prepared for police investigation of their role in the death.
    The fact that most abortion-is-murder proponents don’t want to do these things is proof to me that the issue is NOT actually a matter of “moral absolutes”, but quite a bit more complicated. (My vehemently pro-legalized-abortion mother pointed out to me that even the Catholic church does not do a funeral mass if you have a miscarriage. So they think an embryo is a person, except kinda not.)

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      There ya’ go. Alinsky the crap out of this and keep that assembly line of death just rolling along! We gotta quota to meet here, Sparky! Production metrics. We invest TAXPAYER MONEY in Planned Parenthood of AMerica. We DEMAND performance up to Lean Six Sigma standards. Fire up those abortuaries! 53 Million in 40 years is NOT enough.

      • ndmittle

        That was a constructive response…

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Glad you liked it. Now get those abortuaries fired up. Faster! Faster!

    • lineholder

      Thank you for that prime example of justification based on relative moral standards. That’s exactly what I was referring to above. It’s so prevalent in our modern day society that it has been deemed ‘acceptable”. Politicians, physicians, even churches have all become acclimated to this new standard of ‘acceptable” behavior.

      But is it really acceptable? When it takes the life of an innocent human being who has no means of protecting themselves, is it acceptable?

      • bluedot

        I don’t accept the premise that every embryo is a human being. It seems to me that an egg the instant before fertilization clearly is not a human being; a baby the instant after birth clearly IS a human being; and one changes into the other by some kind of continuous process, where you can’t point to one instant where it “became a person”. The instant the egg is hit by a sperm doesn’t seem to me a better choice than other instants.
        But granting your premise that at SOME point the fetus IS a human being, I sitll don’t think the question is simple, because now you have two people claiming rights to one body, so two core values (autonomy and nonviolence) potentially conflict. Saying the fetus’s right to live is more important than the mother’s right to control her body is one solution, but notice that in other cases we usually think person A’s right to control his body takes precedence over person B’s right to continue living; so you dont, for example, HAVE to give someone your kidney, even if it would be completely safe for you and is the only way to prevent another person’s death. The thinking is that a right to your own body is primary, even more than your fellow citizens’ lives. That’s obviously not a perfect analogy for pregnancy (there ARE no analogies for pregnanacy), but it at least shows what I mean.

        • sliverlining

          You really have to split hairs to figure this out don’t you? Not just you, bluedot, everybody.

          My take:
          It seems that a penis injecting sperm into a vagina has no real biological purpose other than to attempt procreation. That it feels good is the incentive to maintain the population by performing the act.
          Mankind can romanticize all he wants about relationships, love, marriage or all the various antonyms thereof. Ultimately, it’s about making living human infants eventually come from mommy’s tummy.

          Intent. That seems to be what the argument is about. Analogies ad infinitum sort of become spin. They sometimes disguise and sometimes clarify.
          Transplantation of an organ has no place in the arena of procreation. Even the intent is quite a stretch as one is beginning a brand new human and one is giving extra time to an old one (meaning post-birth).

          Control. That is the opposite side of the same coin in a way.

          Good luck sorting this out among all the flawed, living, post-birth humans

    • plh

      I believe the Catholic Church only holds funerals for those that have been baptized.

      • plh

        Also, for children whose parents intended to have them baptized but died before baptism, if permitted by the local Ordinary (bishop).

    • dvdmsr

      I would have no problem agreeing to scenario #1.

      Scenarios #2 and #3 are a little different. I mean, what’s the point of making something a crime if you can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and what’s the point of requiring an investigation of possible maleficence if you know beforehand the evidence will be nearly impossible to obtain without mandating a level and frequency of intrusion that has never been and never would be tolerated by the public?

      While I DON’T support the right of anyone to kill an unborn human beings unless it’s for self-defense or in the defense of others, I DO support a person’s right to be protected from the level and frequency intrusive surveillance and excessive regulation of the most intimate and private parts of the lives that would be most certainly necessary to obtain the evidence sufficient to successfully prosecute any crime associated with scenarios #2 and #3. If you’re wondering why so many people, who believe abortion is murder, aren’t willing to agree to scenarios #2 and #3, I suspect it’s for this reason.

      • ndmittle

        It sounds like you’re asserting some kind of right to privacy.

    • peregry

      I am certainly fine with 1 if the law is ever changed to reflect my beliefs that abortions are murder.

      However, this is nothing that can be done, legally, to folks who have an abortion, provided for an abortion or paid for an abortion while it is legal. If you do something when it is legal, and the law changes afterwards, you are not criminally liable for the action and cannot be made so. If a law was structured in such a way it would be an “Ex po factor” law, which is prohibited under the US Constitution (Article 1 Section 9).

      In short, the entire first argument you’re making is a strawman that is being used to demonize folks with a Pro-Life position. Nice try though, it sounds scary and all, but to bad that there’s such a clear stop against it that we tend to respect.

    • streiff

      nothing in here fo allows logically. I will note that I don’t have a problem with 1, which closely comports to what the laws in most states were pre-Roe, and I’d extend that to anyone involved from the receptionist to the driver. 2 already happens in a lot of places IRT drinking. 3 is a logic #FAIL.

      And as a bonus you get the heave-ho for trolling us

  • veritaseequitas

    Lineholder, really, this is all it takes for you to sing the Hallelujah Chorus? Pathetic.
    This is nothing more than “yes it’s life, so what?” The Pro-Abortionists get no credit for this. The Pro-Abortionists will always be in favor of their right to murder innocent babies, no matter what their stage of development. They are a bunch of self-centered, self-indulgent, moral cowards. They think if they put some sort of wordy, psycho babbel in their arguments they will change what something is. Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. There is no dressing it up or disguising it as anything else. Pro-Abortionists are a blot on humanity, they are taking up too much air, and their viewpoint is impossibly stupid and tiresome beyond belief.

    • lineholder

      Fair enough. But here’s a key point. For years on end, the left has used lies to deceive young females in Americans society into conforming to a scope of behaviors that the left has deemed ‘acceptable”. In this case, that behavior is the murder of an unborn child.

      Part of the battle those of us on the pro-life end of the spectrum have faced has been trying to provide information to young females who have been deceived by a lie who do not, for reasons of their own, want to be undeceived.

      Now the most significant efforts at deceitfulness that have come from the left are slipping away. They aren’t hiding behind the lies any more. They are willing to take on this battle in support of abortion on the grounds of justifying the murder of another human being.

      It gives us a better chance. Because there will be young women who simply will not accept becoming a murderer for the sake of their own sexual gratification or sexual pleasure.

      It gives the babies a better chance. And that’s something to rejoice in.

      • adair

        I so hope you’re right.

  • PowerToThePeople

    I am not sure how Heaven works in full, but if we are allowed dialogue with those who are to be sent to hell, I plan on asking this POS how did her disgusting attitude and beliefs work out for her. Going to ask her, as she trembles in fear knowing what is to come, if she enjoys the feeling washing over her that was similar to the fear of the unborn she felt was worth no more than blades, salt, and death.

    I seldom celebrate a person’s place in eternity of they rejected Christ, but I love the fact that this scumbag will be in hell for eternity. She has a lot of blood on her hands and she will pay the price. And we should rejoice that God has the proper punishment.

  • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

    I just heard a national radio show talking about the same article, and pretty much making the same points you did lineholder.

    Good post.

    • lineholder

      Thanks, Toby.

  • puritand71

    Next step, infanticide as our deal leader has voted for as a state senator. May our Lord help us.

    • avgjo

      Why should He if we won’t fight this with everything we have and if we can’t even clean our own churches, which represent Him, out? You’ve got pluralities, and even majorities of major denominations, as well as many non-denominational churches, voting for baby killers like Obama and his ilk.

  • Melody Warbington

    Thankfully, we give voice to those unborn children. That vile display of the birthday celebration for Roe v. Wade yesterday confirms what most of us have known all along. The pro abortion crowd is just that – not pro choice. As you say, Ms. Williams finally just admits it.

    lineholder, thank you for bringing this to our attention. A worthy article for the front page.

    • lineholder

      I’m actually rather excited about this new development, Melody. One of the hardest things for pro-life supporters to achieve has to been to break through the barrier of lies that the left has used to convince young women that this was a “good thing” for them to do. And through those lies, they were actually hindering and limiting the freedom of those young women to genuinely make their own choice based on a full and honest disclosure of the facts. It is indeed another human life, not a ball of cells. It also was much more devastating to those young women later on when they came to grips with the reality that they had been deceived…deliberately and intentionally deceived.

      I know that isn’t the case for all women who get an abortion. There are women just like the author of this article who know exactly what the truth genuinely is. They choose to take the life of their unborn child. It’s a deliberate choice on their part. They’ve hardened their hearts to the point that the reality of murdering another human being really doesn’t have much impact on them.

      But for those young women susceptible to being deceived…this could make a lot of difference, I think.

  • proprevention

    The Salon article was indeed an interesting look into the mind of someone who is strongly “pro choice”. I found her reference to being a mother and being on experimental drugs, and her need for an abortion should she become pregnant while on those drugs, intriguing.

    Some research shows that the poor woman is currently suffering from Stage 4 Cancer (http://www.maryelizabethwilliams.net/8201.html ). All life is precious, and hopefully it works out for her. While I could not disagree with her views more, it could have been a better outcome if all the energies she spent on her article, and the energies spent by those protesting her ideas were instead channeled into making sure pregnant women are not exposed to medications harmful to the child (the example I’ve used in the past is the administration of routine vaccines by error to women who are pregnant and do not know it). Perhaps that would have prevented some abortion decisions.

    This debate I fear will not change any hearts or minds and change the terrible math.

    www.proprevention.org

  • usadying

    “A life worth sacrificing.” How soon will it be before lives worth sacrificing also include the elderly (read Japan’s new finance minister comments), the ill, the handicapped, premature babies, etc. because we just can’t afford their health care costs. This woman is unabashedly selfish and self-absorbed. A perfect poster child of the left.

    • adair

      There was a Governor Lamb of Colorado (I think) who was in favor of euthanasia 30 years or so ago. He wasn’t completely pilloried because I believe it was to be the elderly, perhaps to keep them from using up all the Medicare and Soc.Sec. money. Oregon later decided it was okay because, well, sure, you have to really prove it’s necessary and voluntary and palliative and stuff. And you can’t just willy nilly assist a suicide.
      For years Ms. Williams and the other pro-abortion folks had to try to lay out a very noble, justifiable case against babies. Now it sounds like they’ve given in and decided to admit it’s been for convenience and isn’t really all that high-minded.

  • runner12

    Quite frankly, Ms. Williams’ reasoning (if you can call it that), seems more like a page out of the eugenics programs of the Third Reich. When even one innocent life ceases to be precious, all life loses some of its value. When I hear arguments like this it makes me cringe. I fear for the children I work with who have disabilities.

  • proprevention

    Sorry if some of your are seeing this for the third time but my comment just vanished for the second time. Let me try one last time.

    The referenced article was an interesting insight into the mind of a ultra pro-choice person. I was intrigued by her references to (i) her being a mother, (ii) her being on experimental drugs, and, (iii) her statement that she would have an abortion if she became pregnant while under treatment.

    Some web searches on the name of the author showed that the poor woman has Stage 4 cancer; hope she makes it. I strongly disagree with her views. Perhaps if the energies that went into the article, and the responses it provoked, had all been channeled into ensuring that pregnant women are not administered medications that could harm the child. In the past I have used vaccinations of certain kinds administered in error to pregnant women as an example. That might have actually caused a few women to completely avoid the abortion decision.

    www.proprevention.org

  • Darin_H

    No better and no worse than Casey Anthony – a girl’s got to party.

  • phaselus

    Like most issues, the stance of conservatives on abortion is fueled purely by emotion and ideology instead of practicality. Whether you like to admit it, a fetus is biologically dependent on the mother and is thus not a person with legal rights. There is a reason most folks don’t have funerals for miscarried babies.

    Fetuses lead the only kind of “life” that conservatives are in favor of. Once you’re out of the womb, you get no help. No healthcare, no assistance. Go off to war and fight. Arm yourself to the teeth. Rape the environment which supports us all.

    Pure idealism.

    • westcoastpatriette

      Go away, communist troll.

    • PowerToThePeople

      Lets banter with you just for kicks and giggles and see if we understand what you mean.

      You say we are fueled by emotions when it comes to abortion. Do you mean emotions like the ones when you mom found out you were in her. Emotions like shame, regret, disgust? Just wondering?

      You talk about idealism, let me see if we use the word idealism the same way. Do you use it in the tense like what your mom used to feel when she thought you would grow up to do great things (Idealism) yet remained a moron. Is that the kind of idealism you are referring to?

      As to your tripe, ignorance runs deep in you does it not? I am willing to bet when you typed all that nonsense, you had a misplaced smug sense of superiority did you not? Hate to break it to you bub, you are insignificant, your lefty talking points are laughable, and you are and always will remain a moron.

      • phaselus

        I would be happy to engage in a meaningful conversation, but you jump straight to insulting me personally. You also try to discredit my opinion as “talking points”, when you just laid out the most orthodox of talking points possible. If you’d like to have a real conversation, let’s have it. Otherwise you are a negative force on political discourse.

        • Jack_Savage

          You’re not interested in discourse. You are a drive-by who gets all whiny when someone disagrees with him.

        • PowerToThePeople

          Maybe you misinterpreted my thinly veiled insults, I have no interest in discussing anything with you or any other pro abortion leftist. My only interest would be to mock you incessantly.

        • runner12

          What rank hypocrisy! How dare you lecture on civility when in your opening comments you accuse conservatives of advocating violence, “raping” the environment, and insensitivity to the poor. Spare me the phony outrage. You are embarassing yourself now.

          • westcoastpatriette

            He’s a ghost, runner. But, I shared your disgust with him.

        • avgjo

          It’s sort of hard to have a ‘meaningful conversation’ with someone who justifies baby-killing for the most tenuous of reasons.

    • Jack_Savage

      A three-month old is also dependent. So is a one year old. And a three year old. And many ninety year olds.

      Nice to see that your standard for legal rights and a life ripe for sacrificing is “dependency”. Thank you for being so honest, and best of luck when you reach that stage in your life. And it is always interesting that those most in favor of abortion can’t see the irony in the fact that they are alive to speak.

      We didn’t have a funeral, but we mourned for the two miscarriages we suffered. What a sickening and sad world view that you have.

      By the way – any children? Nieces or nephews? Didn’t think so.

      • ndmittle

        A 3-month old is outside the womb and can be cared for by someone else.

        • avgjo

          Go away, Nazi.

          take your culture of death ethics somewhere else, To another country would be nice, freak.

        • Jack_Savage

          Dependency is the issue. And if the 3-month old becomes “inconvenient”, on what basis would you compel someone to take care of her? After all, this is about living the life you want without being “punished with a baby”.

          • plh

            One of the saddest, yet most revealing comments ever uttered by the President.

          • Jack_Savage

            I agree. And it went by with hardly a mention.

            Children ARE punishment to them, along with anything that prevents them from living the way they want to. Which is selfishly.

    • Bill S

      Heh. I looked at your user name and read it as “Phallus”. Then I read your comment and it confirmed it.

      Bye.

      • westcoastpatriette

        LOL, Bill S. nt

      • PowerToThePeople

        Bill, you are showing me up. That was one hell of a clever kick in the teeth to a deserving party. Yet, it is doubtful that the left could put together enough IQ to be able to figure out what you just called him. I am going to have to work harder on my insults as you just put me at the back of the line when it comes to clever.

      • plh

        I had to check. It means boat. Or kidney bean.

        • plh

          Not to be confused with the Fesarius of Star Trek fame.

    • runner12

      Actually, the position is fueled by science. The advances in imaging technology is giving us more and more insight into when life begins. It is the pro-abortion position that is based on emotion and a misguided notion of a “woman’s right to choose.” By your logic, it would not be murder to kill a 6 month old. After all, a 6 month old cannot feed itself, clothe itself, or take care of its needs. It is completely dependent on its caregivers for life. Without it, the child will die.

      I cannot believe you would make such an insensitive comment about women who have miscarried. Many actually do have funerals and it is devestating to them. You show such an insensitivity towards women with your comments.

      As to the rest, it is pure nonsense and lies. None of which are worth addressing. Defeating Leftists with logic is almost too easy.

    • adair

      If some adults are “biologically dependent” upon government largesse and are thus not persons with legal rights, then what the heck are they doing voting?

    • plh

      True conservatives believe that the right to life of all human beings – dependent or not – is endowed by their Creator, not by the laws written by man.

    • streiff

      sort of like you are dependent on us? In that case, your account has just been declared “an account no worth having.”

  • chipbennett

    I dearly hope all pro-aborts decide to state the same views. Then we can dispense with the inanity of debating whether a human zygote is an organism or not (yes, pro-aborts actually argue that a human zygote is not an “organism”), and focus on the real issue: the morality of placing the value of one life over another, and denying the most innocent and vulnerable of us the inalienable, God-given right to life.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Well, here are some truths: Those on the extreme left are arrogant enough to believe that only they know who has the right to live or die, in this they place themselves above even God. And, they are so desirous of power over others that they insist that they be given the authority to exercise such power in pursuit of their self-aggrandizement to be able to act on their beliefs on who lives and who dies, and even how those they allow to live actually get to live. It starts with the size of their sodas, or the number of bullets they can have in their guns, but will only end when they can legally kill anyone they want to. And, they are selfish enough to actually do it for money, and have legally done if over 50 million times in the last 40 years.

  • Jack_Savage

    “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

    “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion, because if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.”

    –Mother Teresa

  • romeg

    “What difference does it make? We have [n to the nth] dead Americans…”.

  • sliverlining

    Williams’ words “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?”

    Who co-opts ideas and themes more than the left?
    Who wants pollution?
    Who wants people shot?
    Who wants clear cutting of the world’s forests?
    Who wants nuclear waste?
    Who wants unfair . . . anything?
    Who wants the entire laundry list of easy things to rag on an on about?

    The entire platform of lefties is to try to take the obvious “it doesn’t really HAVE to be this way” route. “Finally” lineholder, is a great start to your article’s title.

    Hey, Williams, co-opt the idea of co-opting while you’re at it, you duplicitous idiot.

  • markkozikowski

    Can I terminate Grandpa if he becomes a burden.

    By her arguments, my life is much more important than any life that depends on me.

    There is no grey area.

    You killed another human being. AND just because someone else did it, does NOT make it right.

  • soljerblue

    Her attitude is exactly, precisely mine when it comes to the Second Amendment — and I have moral and spiritual support for my position; all she has is a smokescreen of lies.