Politics

Multiple abortion supporters slated to speak at Democratic National Convention

Yesterday, Democrat leaders released a list of ten women who have been slated to speak at the DNC in Charlotte, North Carolina this fall. Among them are three prominent and vocal abortion supporters: the infamous Sandra Fluke; Nancy Keenan, current president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; and the ever-present Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

On her blog, Keenan wrote:

As I stand on stage at the convention, I will amplify your pro-choice voices. I will speak on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s million member-activists, and all Americans who understand that women–not politicians–should be able to make personal, private health-care decisions. …

NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsed President Obama for re-election because he understands the issue of choice is a deeply personal one. Throughout his first term, President Obama has been committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and making reproductive-health care more accessible and affordable for women. His administration has enacted critical reproductive-health policies that will affect generations to come.

Indeed, President Obama’s policies will affect generations to come. They will prevent many in those generations from ever being born. That’s about the biggest effect one person can possibly have on others – to prevent them from living, to erase their memory from the world because, while they existed, they were never born.

Sadly, Nancy Keenan and other abortion supporters continually misrepresent the real issue. Let me put it bluntly. Killing your child (and yes, with modern science, we can all agree that a fetus is a young human being – i.e., a child) should never be a personal, private decision. We need to get over the idea that the location of a human being determines whether or not he or she has the right to continue existing. No matter where you are in this world – underwater, in the Sudan, in a secret jail cell, in the United States, or in your mother’s womb – you deserve the equal right to live. And dependence on another human being should not sentence you to death any more than your location or stage of development should.

Even more bluntly, murder is not “health-care.” It never has been. It never will be. The desire of some to define murder as health care does not change the fact that we do not care for one person by intentionally killing another. Mothers do not become healthier when we kill their children. And let’s not get into the life of the mother exception – that’s entirely different. Actions taken in those situations are done not for the purpose of killing a child, but instead for the purpose of saving one life lest we lose both.

For anyone who thinks I’m being extreme in my language, there are many abortion supporters who will use nearly the identical language I am using. They do indeed claim that killing a child is health care. Case in point? A discussion I had with a young woman who will remain unnamed on Twitter. In her bio, she uses the hashtag #ihadanabortion, so it’s clear what perspective she’s coming from. She took issue with an article I wrote, and in our discussion, I said, “Killing your child may sadly be legal right now, but it is most certainly not ‘medical care.’” Her reply? “Yes it is.”

Instead of feeling anger, in this moment I feel grief. Grief that it has really come to this – that a major political party in our nation would fill its speaker list with people who believe that killing children is health care. Truly, this is a sad day for our nation.

Follow @LiveAction_News

Live Action on Facebook

P.D.

“Even more bluntly, murder is not “health-care.” It never has been. It never will be. The desire of some to define murder as health-care, does not change the fact that we do not care for one person by intentionally killing another. Mothers do not become healthier when we kill their children. And let’s not get into the life of the mother exception – that’s entirely different. Actions taken in those situations are not done for the purpose of killing a child, but instead, for the purpose of saving one life lest we lose both.”

no, lets definitely get into the life of the mother exception since you brought it up. so you’re pro abortion in some very specific cases? so not all abortions are so cut and dry as you and your comrades would have us believe?
in that paragraph, you are blatantly lying. mothers indeed do occasionally become healthier when the fetus is aborted, especially when it is the fetus that puts mother’s life in danger. bringing this up, dismissing it, and then saying lets not bring it up, shows that you haven’t a leg to stand on in this situation. in these situations it is indeed called health care. do you honestly not understand this?

you say everyone “deserve[s] the equal right to live.” how do you consolidate this belief with the fact that your political party is pro-murder? criminals on death row, (especially the ones proven innocent after the fact) have less right to life?
- Kristiburtonbrown
  
  First, I did not state my political party, so let’s not assume my general political stances here. It’s probably pretty obvious I’m not a Democrat, but beyond that, you really don’t know if I’m a Republican, Independent, Unaffiliated, or something else.
  
  No, I am most certainly not pro-abortion in any cases. It is not an abortion to remove the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. The removal of the baby is done to save the mother – without such action, both will likely die. But I’d never, ever say that a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy had an abortion. That’s ridiculous in my opinion.
  
  If you want to bring up other life of the mother cases, I don’t believe it’s an abortion for a woman to take chemotherapy or other necessary drugs to save her life while she’s pregnant. Often, the baby doesn’t die and doesn’t have defects, but if the baby does die, that was no one’s intent or purpose. Thus, it’s clearly not an abortion.
  
  I never believe it’s necessary to rip up a baby or vaccuum him or her out to save the mother’s life. However, if the baby needs to be delivered at an earlier stage than she can live at, that’s not an abortion.
  
  So…that’s how I view life of the mother cases. I wouldn’t call the things I described abortions because they’re not. But does the baby die sometimes? Yes, sadly. But that is no one’s intention. The intention is to save the mother’s life.
  
  One final point – you say that some mothers become healthier after abortions. I assume you’re talking about more than just life of the mother cases, which I’ve already addressed. I have to disagree with you there and stick to my original claim. Read some of the studies about effects on women’s health, bodies, etc. after abortion and I don’t think you can truly claim abortion made them healthier.
  - P.D.
    
    i apologize for assuming you were a republican. maybe i should have said conservative? out of curiosity though (and on a completely different note than abortion), are you pro or against the death penalty? many of the people i’ve met who are pro-life are also pro-death penalty, and i really don’t understand how they can consolidate those two beliefs. so if you do happen to be pro-death penalty, could you explain where you’re coming from? if not feel free to ignore this question, (unless you have some insight into it that i don’t).
    
    “It is not an abortion to remove the baby in an ectopic pregnancy.”
    
    you may not call it an abortion to justify your position to yourself, but it is still abortion. it is the killing of a fertilized egg is it not? according to Merriam Webster, “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” perhaps we differ on the definition? if so could you show me a source for yours?
    
    “you say that some mothers become healthier after abortions. I assume you’re talking about more than just life of the mother cases.”
    in this particular instance i was not, though i do believe that in some circumstances (ie rape) it absolutely can be cathartic and healing (psychologically, which is of course an aspect of health) to remove all trace evidence of what the woman went through (though certainly not always). but to remain with the ectopic pregnancy issue, it is always healthier for a woman to be alive than to die. therefore some abortions (using the definition i stated earlier) can absolutely make them healthier. so therefore in some instances “murder” (as you choose to call it) IS healthcare… am i wrong?
    - Kristiburtonbrown
      
      Ok, I understand more where you’re coming from now. Yes, I am a conservative, at least on most issues. I do believe in a limited application of the death penalty and in a system with checks and balances. I see a very big difference between abortion and the death penalty – the person getting the death penalty chose their actions entirely. The unborn baby did not choose to exist. More than that, however, we’re talking about a person who has been proven guilty who has given up their right to life by their own actions vs. a person who is 100% innocent who has not chosen to give up their right. While the right to life is inalienable, it can be given up by a person’s own actions. That’s the difference I see.
      
      You’re right – I think we differ in our definitions of abortion. Miscarriage is also medically called a “spontaneous abortion,” (see this: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=209) and I hate that term because women with miscarriages did not choose to kill their child. Whenever people use the term “abortion,” most think of it as a woman who chooses to go in and get rid of her baby. That’s very different than a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy. Usually, a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is removed and simply cannot live outside the womb at that stage. But the baby isn’t torn apart or otherwise purposely killed in a cruel way. So, I just think it’s unfair to say that a woman with a miscarriage or someone with an ectopic pregnancy had an “abortion.” It makes it sound like they wanted to go in and kill their baby, and that’s not true.
      
      In reference to your final question – yes, I think you are wrong =). Of course it’s healthier for a woman to be alive than to die, and I’ve addressed what I think about the life of the mother concerns. She has just as much right to live as the baby. But, saving her life does not mean you need to purposely kill the baby. If the baby dies in the situation, that’s obviously sad but ok to save the mother. I don’t see how that could be murder under any definition, though, including mine.
      - P.D.
        
        i really appreciate you taking the time to explain your position to me.
        
        i believe that the death penalty would be justifiable if it were infallible , though in practice it can never be perfect (even with checks and balances). if a single innocent person had their life taken from them unjustly by the government (and there have been more than one regarding the death penalty) then it should not be implemented into policy. do you disagree?
        
        one more thing in that paragraph, you say “While the right to life is inalienable, it can be given up by a person’s own actions.” but, if its inalienable doesn’t that mean it cannot be given up or taken away by anyone?
        we certainly do differ in our definitions of abortion, but i hope you will agree with me that neither of us are objectively wrong, and that in this instance it just turns out to be a matter of semantics. the link you provided is broken, but fret not, i’m familiar with the term.
        
        “Usually, a baby in an ectopic pregnancy is removed and simply cannot live outside the womb at that stage. But the baby isn’t torn apart or otherwise purposely killed in a cruel way.” are you suggesting malice on the part of abortion doctors? this sentence seems to suggest that there is a less cruel way to perform an abortion, but medical professionals choose to do it as torturous as possible. i don’t think that’s the case at all.
        
        “saving her life does not mean you need to purposely kill the baby.” if knowing that the baby will not survive on its own then i don’t see how this isn’t purposefully killing the fetus (even if it is an attempt to save the mother). it is the purposeful act of killing the fetus in order to save the mother’s life.
        
        i apologize if i’m making you feel like you’re beating a dead horse. i believe i understand the points that you are trying to make, and i’m fine with either agreeing to disagree on this topic or continuing it and fully clarifying both opinions. your choice.
        
        once again, thanks for taking the time and sharing your viewpoints with me.
      - Kristiburtonbrown
        
        Thank you, also, for taking the time to talk =) I’ll say a couple things one last time, so feel free to finish the conversation if you feel like it.
        
        Personally, I don’t think a system has to be 100% perfect before it can be implemented. I get that most systems don’t take away people’s lives, but still, I don’t think we can demand perfection or not do something at all. Maybe you are against all wars, but I’m not. Innocent people can certainly die in wars – and it should be avoided – but it happens accidentally sometimes. That doesn’t mean a nation should always avoid war because it isn’t perfect. Unfortunately, this world isn’t as peaceful as we would wish.
        
        I would agree that, in our case, we both have a valid definition of abortion. Yours is technically accurate, but I believe mine is more fair to the women with miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies who would never want to be labled – and never should be – as having had an “abortion.”
        
        I think all abortions are cruel. (And of course, I’m operating under my definition here =). While I believe that some abortion doctors honestly think they’re helping women, I also believe they know deep in their heart how very cruel and inhumane abortion is. After all, they’re the ones ripping up the babies or sucking them out in pieces. Not sure how they can’t know. Hopefully this link will work, but it will give you an idea of what I’m referring to: http://www.meehanreports.com/whytheyquit.html. If not, you can always look up “abortion doctors who quit” on Google and get a good idea of what these doctors actually go through and know.
        
        If there was an emergency room doctor who had three patients, all with gunshot wounds who had to be operated on immediately or they would die, and yet he chose one to operate on, leaving the others to die, I don’t believe he purposely killed the other two. They were simply unable to survive on their own, in their current environment. The doctor was neither cruel nor did he kill them. When “Siamese twins” are separated – with the knowledge that one of them will likely die, but that both will die if the operation is not done – the doctor doing the surgery has not intentionally killed the one who dies. Similarly, when both a woman and a baby are going to die in an ectopic pregnancy and a doctor separates them with the knowledge that the baby cannot survive on his own, he did not intentionally kill the baby. The baby just died, sadly. That’s how I see it..
        
        Thanks again for talking =)
      - kyukiyoshida
        
        I enjoyed reading through that brief debate between you, kristieburtonbrown and P.D. you both bring up very good points. I personally am pro choice, because there are many circumstances in which a woman may need an abortion. even if it’s personal, you can’t really put yourself in their position and understand why they needed it in the first place. it may seem selfish, but it’s no one’s place to judge. I however don’t believe in this growing fad of using abortion as birth control basically. especially with how easily accessible contraception is nowadays. i mean there are womans health centers practically giving it away, and alot of insurance companies will cover pills and IUD’s, so i don’t understand how some of these people can afford abortions which are 2 to 8 hundred dollars, and not contraception which is way cheaper, to prevent this in the first place. while most of the “harmful effects” of abortion circulating around are myths, i can see getting it done often causing some sort of problem. it seems they main concern health wise with abortion is hemoraging (sorry for the misspell) and infection, along with emotional and mental problems. it seems alot of people are ignorant about sex, pregnancy, contraception, and abortion nowadays. probably thanks to parents not educating and the school systems extremely wrong sex ed classes. not to mention the media wanting to give pregnant teens fame and fortune. if people were more aware about contraception, and parents more willing to teach about it, the “Abortion fad” would probably decrease alot. parents need to be more aware of basic human needs and desires and prepare their kids enough to prevent them from making severely damaging mistakes. here’s a really taboo and often uncomfortable topic…masturbation, if parents weren’t so up and arms about it and trying to bar kids from satisfying basic primal urges, alot of them wouldnt be so eager to hook up with the first thing that moves. and honestly it’s just cruel in way. plus everyone has the right to their body, and it’s hardly as harmful as getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant at a young age. above all i think abortion should be open to those who truly need it, and kids need to be educated more so abortions dont happen as much. i guess you could say a mix between pro life and pro choice? i know some of this seems long, random and off topic, but it all seems to fit together in a way.
      - P.D.
        
        very well put. i agree with you 100%.
      - Kristiburtonbrown
        
        Thanks for joining the conversation. You do bring up some good points about teens needing more education and parents who discuss sex, etc. with them. I also totally agree (of course =) that it’s just unacceptable to use abortion as a form of birth control. However, I’d have to object to your point that women are justified in having abortions for their own personal reasons. If it’s really true that an unborn child is a human being, then we should apply the same standards to them that we apply to any other human being. And that standard is that it’s never acceptable to kill an innocent human being for our “personal” reasons. In fact, in every other situation, that’s considered a crime.
Mitch

Not only are they bringing abortion supporters, but they’re also bringing radical islamists.
- P.D.
  
  give me a break. you probably think all islamists are radicalists… “oh no someone is different from me! they must be dangerous!!”
  
  this is America. if muslims want to use the democratic process to further their agenda then that’s part of the game. vote against it. as an atheist i personally think islam is no more and no less wrong than christianity or judaism. however freedom of speech should not be denied to anyone in this country, no matter how ridiculous their claims.
  
  its people like you that continue the cycle of bigotry and hatred in this country that we all share. stop it.
  - http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger
    
    Actually, the far bigger problem in this country is ignorant, arrogant people who have no idea what somebody is referring to, yet are quick to call that person a bigot anyway: http://aifdemocracy.org/2012/the-trouble-with-jumah-at-the-dnc/
    - P.D.
      
      wait, so the bigger problem than hatred and bigotry in America are people who are quick to call someone a bigot? really?? do you even read what you write anymore? do you know how ridiculous you sound? i realize you just wanted to attack me, but you can do better than making yourself sound incredibly stupid at the same time…
      
      and you assume (remember who that makes an ass of?) that i don’t know what i’m talking about. i’ve read the article you link to and Jasser does make some good points and we can probably agree that he is a good man. but anyone who uses the existing democratic system to further their agenda is not radical. to say they are (out of ignorance mixed with fear) IS bigotry…
      
      do you know mitch? or do you just dislike me (and my positions) so much that anyone i disagree with is now your closest ally? because i call it like i see it, and making the blanket statement that 20,000 (as they may or may not have in attendance) muslim americans who merely attend a prayer “radicals” is bigotry. and you just defended the bigoted statement (what does that make you?)
      
      the leaders of the Jumah (that word doesn’t sound english, it must be radical!) are Hough and Wahhaj.
      
      Hough quoted in 2010:
      “As citizens of a non-Muslim country and as American Muslims, we have a contract with America and not a contract on America. This means that we must abide by the laws of this state and we cannot be at war with this state.”
      
      a quote about Wahhaj taken from IBN media library: “He is known to encourage Muslims to be God-fearing, enjoining good and forbid evil, practice regular charity, stay away from drugs, abstain from pre-marital relations, and other issues as well.”
      
      wow, these two muslims (OHMYGOD!) sound really radical (that was sarcasm, not sure if you would understand or not). got anymore ad hominems to throw my way? as these seem to be the only way you are capable of responding to my (valid) claims.
      - http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger
        
        Well, I was referring to the demonization-tendency of people like you being a bigger problem than people like Mitch, who hasn’t said anything a reasonable, fair-minded person could construe as bigotry. Obviously, actual bigotry is bad. But since you ask, statistically speaking Islamophobia actually isn’t a significant issue in the US: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/11/no-islamophobia-epidemic-here-the-surprising-truth-about-hate-crimes-in-america/
        
        My problem is that in your short time here you’ve managed to develop quite the MO for defaming people by unjustly accusing them of having various prejudices. Mitch said “radical Islamists,” and he was clearly referring to “radical Islamists.” Not Muslims generally. He was referring to the specific individuals Dr. Jasser (an American Muslim deeply concerned and well-versed in Islamic radicalism) is sounding the alarm on (for reasons that run far deeper than a couple flowery, vague quotes you cherry-picked).
        
        For you to infer from this the various slurs you did is unjustified and dishonorable, especially since you concede that Jasser “does make some good points.” So why does it make somebody a bigot for agreeing with him and having concerns? What’s so hard about admitting you jumped the gun and badly misjudged a person and his viewpoint?
      - P.D
        
        i stand by my point that making a blanket statement calling 20,000 muslim americans who attend a prayer “radicals” is bigoted statement. maybe a definition is in order so that we can both be on the same page: bigotry –
        one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.
        
        statistics can be made to show whatever it is you want to show (lies, damn lies, and statistics). as long as islamophobia exists in America then it IS a big issue in the United States. especially to the thousands of victims of violent (and nonviolent) crimes. for you to write this off as “insignificant” is incredibly insensitive. and in your clarification (read: back-peddling), your point that the “demonization” of those who are intolerant are worse than those who practice intolerance (or write it in blog) is STILL ridiculous. we agree that bigotry is horrible, why can’t you admit that
        
        judging by the very short comment Mitch left, i can’t help but to believe he was not referring to radical islamists, he was referring to a very large number (20,000 Americans) of a specific minority (just islamists, not radical) attending the DNC. even if, indeed, he was ONLY speaking of the two individuals leading the Jumah, i again stand by my previous point that anyone using the democratic process already in place to further their agenda (as they are) IS NOT RADICAL (calling them so is fear-mongering, ie intolerance). you and i (as well as everyone involved in the political process) do this on regular occasions.
      - http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger
        
        “i stand by my point that making a blanket statement calling 20,000 muslim americans who attend a prayer ‘radicals’ is bigoted statement.”
        
        Which he did not do.
        
        “statistics can be made to show whatever it is you want to show”
        
        Translation: you’re gonna continue believing whatever you want without regard for what the facts actually show.
        
        “as long as islamophobia exists in America then it IS a big issue in the United States.”
        
        Only to the same extent that the existence of ANY crime “is a big issue in the United States.” Y’know what that’s called? The simple reality of human nature in a free society of 300+ million people. It’s not an epidemic or a sign of some deeper problem in American culture.
        
        “your point that the “demonization” of those who are intolerant are worse than those who practice intolerance”
        
        You’re lying again. I didn’t say your demonization was a worse act than true bigotry. I said it was a bigger problem because it’s a more widespread phenomenon. Case in point: there aren’t any bigots on this thread, but there is one peddler of false bigotry charges.
        
        “i can’t help but to believe he was not referring to radical islamists,
        he was referring to a very large number (20,000 Americans) of a specific minority (just islamists, not radical) attending the DNC.”
        
        And you believe that not based on the evidence, but based on prejudices that lead you to choose the most malicious possible interpretation.
        
        “anyone using the democratic process already in place to further their agenda (as they are) IS NOT RADICAL (calling them so is fear-mongering, ie intolerance).”
        
        Wait. As long as one uses the right *process* he’s automatically not a radical, regardless of the content of their ideas, actions, associations, or goals? That’s insane.
      - P.D.
        
        alright, lots of points, lets start at the top.
        
        “Which he did not do.” certainly sounded to me like he did. guess we will never know.
        “Translation: you’re gonna continue believing whatever you want without regard for what the facts actually show.” real translation: i’m not going to trust your source link (to your very own article) as unbiased statistics. you are aware that statistics can be incredibly misleading, right?
        “[islamophobia is] not an epidemic or a sign of some deeper problem in American culture.” while true it may not be considered an epidemic, the fact that it exists at all IS a sign of some problem in American culture. the fact that the presidential hopeful met with an unabashed anti-muslim activist proves that this is a serious problem (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/08/jerry_boykin_romneys_anti_muslim_general/)
        
        “I said it was a bigger problem because it’s a more widespread phenomenon.” you know what else is more widespread? taking the “Lord’s” name in vein. its one of the freakin ten commandments as i’m sure you’re aware. but does this make it a bigger problem than hatred and bigotry? of course not. you’ve made yet another ridiculous claim. lets drive the point home: calling someone (whether errant or not) a bigot is not a worse problem (even if more widespread) than bigotry. period.
        
        “And you believe that not based on the evidence,” oh, is there evidence somewhere as to what he really meant? will you show it to me so we can be on the same page?
        
        “Wait. As long as one uses the right *process* he’s automatically not a radical, regardless of the content of their ideas, actions, associations, or goals?” i never said regardless of their actions. using the system as it is set up to bring change is inherently not a radical action. in America, radical (in regards to islam) implies a par with al-qaeda and jihadists or others who do not use the democratic process to bring change, but instead use fear and violence to force their ideas upon others. mitch, if he is American, knew exactly what he was invoking when he said “radical islamists.”
      - http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger
        
        “i’m not going to trust your source link (to your very own article) as unbiased statistics. you are aware that statistics can be incredibly misleading, right?”
        
        Shoot the messenger, ignore the facts. You could judge the article for yourself, but you choose not to. Pitiful.
        
        Oh boo hoo, Romney met with somebody whose ideas aren’t reflected anywhere in Romney’s campaign. Shall we start listing the nuts and degenerates Obama’s done a heck of a lot more than meet with?
        
        “its one of the freakin ten commandments as i’m sure you’re aware. but does this make it a bigger problem than hatred and bigotry?”
        
        Wow. This is so stupid I’m actually at a loss for words.
        
        “oh, is there evidence somewhere as to what he really meant?”
        
        Now you’re practicing sophistry of the most brazen, shameless sort. It’s the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE for your interpretation, pal. You’re so biased you don’t even know how not to be.
        
        “in America, radical (in regards to islam) implies a par with al-qaeda and jihadists or others who do not use the democratic process to bring change, but instead use fear and violence to force their ideas upon others.”
        
        Now you’re not arguing any real substance or facts, you’re just arbitrarily redefining “radical” in a way so as to disqualify most of what it really means to most reasonable people – kind of like drawing a brand-new goal on a board with a marker, then moving your piece to it and demanding everyone accept your victory.
    - P.D.
      
      jesus effing christ, i still can’t believe you said that being quick to call someone a bigot is a FAR bigger problem than hatred and bigotry itself. wow… i just can’t get over that… i’m literally laughing out loud at that ridiculous statement…
      - Mitch
        
        hey, don’t use Gods name in vain. Go somewhere else. bye.
      - P.D
        
        i’m not christian, i’ll take whatever fictional character’s name i want in vain. now, you’re trying to take away my freedom of speech? i shouldn’t be surprised by the anti-choicers, but i constantly am.
      - Mitch Behna
        
        not anti choice. Pro-life. And just like you have the freedom of speech, I also have freedom of speech to tell you my opinion. Noone is taking your freedom of speech away.
  - Mitch
    
    don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know who I am. I never said all muslims are radicals, just some of them. You stop it.
Pingback: Multiple Abortion Supporters Slated to Speak at Democratic National Convention | Live Action News | A mí, háblame en Cristiano
http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Bruce-de-Avila/1427623792 Ann Bruce de Avila

Can’t quite understand why, in America, there is no death penalty for the rapist. Only the innocent baby, a result of the rape, is sentenced to die.
Pingback: ThinkProgress Tries, Fails to Sanitize Barack Obama’s Abortion Extremism
Pingback: ThinkProgress Tries, Fails to Sanitize Barack Obama’s Abortion Extremism
Pingback: Latest Scrapbook Die Cuts News
Rebecca Downs

” Killing your child (and yes, with modern science, we can all agree that a fetus is a young human being – i.e., a child) should never be a personal, private decision.”

Thank you so much for adding this bit in! I have heard the same thing, both by politicians like Obama who are speaking to a general crowd of people, and those who are speaking directly to me in a debate like way. And I have always thought the same thing! It’s not personal and it’s not private to dispose of someone because you think he or she might be inconvenient… the reason why the pro-life movement gets involved is to step in and save these tiny, but nevertheless, still human beings, because somebody has to if they are permitted to be killed in the name of privacy…
WmFBuck

Once again, the zealots are changing English to support their fascist views. Please get a dictionary to use words correctly and maybe you could present an argument. To prove my point, start with “child” and “baby” then progress to “ignorant” then “stupid”. Ignorance is fine and can be fixed.