Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

I was getting lots of links to this piece from a couple years ago so I thought I’d re-post it.  The moral schizophrenia of our society knows no bounds, as evidenced by the circumcisions are barbaric but abortions are fine positions of these folks on the Left.

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

Abortionist declared a murderer . . . wait, isn’t that redundant?

Good news: Kermit Gosnell convicted on 3 of 4 counts of murdering babies, killing 41-year-old woman.

When your legal job description is to deliberately kill innocent but unwanted human beings, it is a little weird that you would get convicted of murder. Yet because Gosnell killed the babies 30 seconds too late he will (hopefully) spend the rest of his life in jail (I doubt capital punishment will be an option given his age).

But never forget: Just because his victims were a little bigger than average and his clinics a little dirtier than average doesn’t mean he isn’t virtually indistinguishable from the other “doctors” who kill babies for a living.

This will go down in history as one of the biggest stories buried by the Liberal media. They try to ignore it, or when they do report it they treat him as an anomaly. But he’s much closer to the mean — just like Planned Parenthood.  People who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the rules in place for killing babies for a living.

The anti-science pro-abortion lobby visits MSNBC

Via MSNBC Talking Head Calls Babies “Things That Might Turn Into Humans” – a pro-abortion “expert” made the following anti-science claims:

Oh, no. That might be bad. I seemed to have popped open the fertilized egg. We’ll put that back together. But the very idea that this would constitute a person, right? And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this.  Look, I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?

The video didn’t show the response of the MSNBC hosts, but I doubt they told her how spectacularly she wrong she was on the scientific facts.

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization.  It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.  The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons).  Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Note that we didn’t use religious reasoning there, though I’d be glad to share with her what God has to say in his revealed word!

She plays the typical pro-abortion word games of de-humanizing the unborn by claiming they aren’t persons, as if there was a meaningful distinction between human beings and persons and the distninction meant that the mother could have one killed but not the other.

per·son  [pur-suhn] noun

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

My guess is that if you asked her if “people of faith” were anti-science she’d probably agree.  But who is really opposed to basic science and logic?

Life still begins at fertilization

This is a great example of “sibling rivalry”* in action.  Just because some people question whether the unborn are living human beings doesn’t mean they have any facts on their side.  Pro-lifers have all the embryology textbooks to support their view, not to mention concessions from leading pro-abortion people (see this link for a lot of examples of both).

Dream all you like about finding life elsewhere in the universe, but don’t be anti-science and ignore the logical and scientific fact of human life in the womb.

“Sibling rivalry” is a phrase used by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason to describe the situation where people hold opposing ideas at the same time.

Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this “sibling rivalry” because they are like children fighting.

Pro-capital punishment = pro-life

gavel.jpg

I received a comment on this old post so I thought I would re-run it.

First, the comment.

I could only get through about the first few paragraphs before getting bored of the same old hypocrisy.  If killing people is wrong, then killing anyone is wrong. And that includes killing those that kill.

My reply:

Can you see the difference between A and B?

A. Innocent but unwanted human being crushed and dismembered in the womb with no appeals.

B. Convicted rapist / murderer put to death in least painless way possible after surviving 10+ years of appeals.

If you can’t, then rational dialog here will be impossible.

Too many people confuse the principle of capital punishment and the practice. There is nothing wrong with capital punishment in principle: A life for a life. There can be things worth debating about CP in practice.

There are 20,000+ abortions in the U.S. per week and one capital punishment. If anyone thinks CP is unfairly applied then they are welcome to oppose it. But if they are pro-legalized abortion then I will mock them until my fingertips are raw.

The original post

Huh?  How can a pro-capital punishment position be considered pro-life?  OK, I’ll concede that it isn’t particularly pro-life for the one receiving the death penalty.  But it is pro-life for the rest of us.  For what it is worth, I do prison ministry and know more murderers than most people do.  I’m not all hot-blooded about killing people, I just don’t like to see bad arguments on either side of the issue.

I realize that the media, pro-choice people and comedians like to mock the alleged inconsistency of pro-lifers who are also pro-capital punishment (“They oppose killing in the womb but don’t mind it for those outside the womb!  Ha!”).    I’ve heard many Christians poke fun at it as well.

But that argument is just a foolish sound bite, as it assumes that killing an innocent unborn human being is morally equivalent to killing a convicted murderer.   One is innocent, the other guilty.  If they want to argue against capital punishment then they need better reasoning than that.

Capital punishment is pro-life in that it regards the taking of innocent human life as the greatest crime, and thus deserving of the greatest punishment.  It also recognizes the deterrent effect as well as the prevention of future murders (executed criminals hardly ever kill again).  Therefore, it seeks to preserve additional innocent lives.  This is consistent with the pro-life view that abortions are permissible if the life of the mother is at stake.

If people want to make jokes about inconsistencies, a better example would be those who don’t mind the crushing and dismemberment of innocent human beings (without anesthetic) but protest when a convicted murderer is to be executed and who want to ensure he dies as painlessly as possible.

As always, I am pro-choice provided that the unborn get the same 10 years of appeals that convicted murderers do.

Perhaps we should just call capital punishment “123rd trimester abortions.”  Then the pro-choicers would support it.

Finally, consider how many pro-legalized abortionists wax philosophical about how we just don’t know when life begins.  Aside from the scientific fact that life begins at conception, they never consider erring on the side of caution.  If you aren’t sure where life begins, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of life?  But here’s the bigger irony: While they ignore that rather obvious point, they have no problem saying we should never use capital punishment because we might be executing someone who is innocent.

I realize that there can be legitimate concerns about whether capital punishment is always applied fairly, but that is a topic for another day.  Just for the record I do have concerns about how it is applied in the U.S. If we used a Biblical model for justice (i.e., two eye witnesses and punishments for perjury equivalent to the crime in question) then I’d be more comfortable with it.

Also see ineffective arguments against capital punishment and somewhat effective arguments against capital punishment.

A Facebook conversation on abortion

I had an extended-play discussion with someone on Facebook that I didn’t want to go to waste.  It was fairly classic reasoning from someone on the pro-legalized abortion side, and it remained civil throughout.  I hope people will take the time to go through it and see how to navigate through these conversations.  It takes a little practice but we’ve got the science and logic on our side (and the word of God, if they are interested in that!).  The other commenter used the same arguments and tactics (i.e., changing the subject) that professional pro-aborts use.

—–

EMatters:  And he [Obama, at the recent prayer breakfast] spoke of speaking up for those who can’t speak for themselves, yet he’s the most pro-abortion President ever.

Other person:  how is he any more pro choice than clinton?

EMatters:  Obama wants taxpayer-funded abortions and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When you are so pro-choice that you read the Constitution and see a right to a dead baby, even if she survives the abortion, then you are pro-abortion.

Other person:  no one is pro abortion. you can skew the argument all you want. Its Pro Choice

EMatters:  If someone supports taxpayer-funded abortions then I think it is fair to refer to them as pro-abortion. Think about their premise: “There should be more abortions than there are already, so we need taxpayers to fund them — many of which are pro-life.” If wanting to increase abortions isn’t pro-abortion I don’t know what is.

EMatters:  Having said that, I don’t care if someone is “just” pro-choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings. It is still wrong to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortions.

Other person:  you have every right to have that opinion. as i do mine.

Other person:  but you still havent made the case for this president being the MOST pro abortion president ever.

EMatters:  Show me one who was pro-taxpayer funded abortions and who fought against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

EMatters:  Yes, you have a right to your opinion. I never thought otherwise. I encourage people to base opinions on facts and logic. Here’s mine: It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq). And most people agree that you shouldn’t kill an innocent human being just for reasons of economics, romantic life, education, career, etc. Therefore, abortion is immoral in 99% of the cases (the exception being to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic).

You can have a different opinion on whether the unborn are human beings, but I have all the embryology textbooks on my side.

You can have a different opinion on whether innocent but unwanted human beings can be killed as well.

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony  www.abort73.com  A new human being comes into existence during the process of fertilization.

Other person:  http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Abortion.htm  Clinton actually used a number of executive orders to undo some pro-life legislation. i dont believe obama has.  if its so cut and dry then why did the supreme court rule the way they did…..or with their conservative advantage overturned it. Why hasnt congress drafted legislation to ban abortion if its so apparent

EMatters:  Re. Clinton — I assume you don’t think I’m a Clinton fan ;-). He was bad on abortion as well. That is a contest no one should be proud to win. Obama has also done his best to export abortion.

EMatters:  I encourage you to study Roe v Wade and how Justice Blackmun was pressured to make it happen. It doesn’t get overturned (yet) because of all the money involved. Planned Parenthood and the other aborts make huge $$ and funnel it back and forth to politicians.

Interestingly, Blackmun conceded that if if we knew life began that would change things. He made a major scientific error there. Even PP used to be pro-life and knew when life began — http://tinyurl.com/ykeex9e — that is, until they realized how much money they could make.

Having said all that, I don’t follow your point about it not being cut and dried. My scientific fact and simple logic are there to criticize, if you like. But there existence of an opposing view doesn’t mean there is no morally correct view.

The issues surrounding abortion are psychologically complex. I do pregnancy center ministry and can attest that the pressures on women are severe (often from boyfriends pushing them to “choose” to abort). But there is moral simplicity: You shouldn’t kill an unborn human being for the reasons given for abortion.

Other person:  there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for. There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right

So eMatters: , let me ask you, are you pro capital punishment? What do you think about us killing Bin Laden? Are you in the “all life is sacred” camp or do you pick and choose which already “birthed” people deserve to live?

EMatters:  Re. capital punishment, there are questions of practice (e.g., Can you get a fair enough trial given our lax treatment of perjury?) and questions of principle (i.e., is it always wrong to use CP?). Your question was about the principle of CP, and I’ll answer it with a question.

Do you see any difference between A and B?

A. Completely innocent human being — no record of any crimes, ever — being put to death for being unwanted, with no appeals.

B. Human being guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt who survived 10+ years of appeals.

EMatters:  ‎”there is just a much pressure on women to have a baby they arent capable (or willing) to care for.”

I conceded that abortion situations are psychologically complex. In fact, if there weren’t some factors that made the situation psychologically complex I doubt anyone would consider an abortion. So that isn’t the question.

The question is whether feeling ill equipped to care for a baby is justification to kill her.

For every situation you come up with to rationalize abortion, I encourage you to ask the same question with a toddler plugged in the example. What if the toddler is causing economic / romance / career / education problems? Can you kill her for those reasons? Most people would say no.

Therefore, the only question is, “What is the unborn?” The answer is that they are human beings that are simply at a different stage of development than the toddler, but with the same right to life.

EMatters:  ‎”There are also women that are very much in control of their lives that find themselves in a motherly way who want to maintain the right to determine whether or not to have a child…..”

If I understood that correctly then you are making a factual error. The woman already has reproduced a human being, so she has a child. The question is about birth control (whether or not to have a child), it is about abortion (whether or not to kill the child).

“just the speed of the backlash against Komen today should show you that women will fight to preserve this right”

I don’t dispute that. The fact that the pro-aborts are venomous and radical in their pursuit of the legal right to kill innocent human beings is true, of course, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal.

Other person:  venomous and radical? i only see doctors being killed and clinics bombed by one side, my friend.

EMatters:  So we agree that killing humans is bad. Your side kills 3,000+ daily with your apparent approval. My side vehemently denounces murders and violence against abortionists, which are extremely rare. And your media apparently forgot to tell you about the pro-lifer killed a couple years ago.

Other person:  abortion is legal in this land. has been since 1973. so you statement is wrong…..legally speaking

EMatters:  Huh? We are debating whether it should be legal. The fact that it is currently legal is irrelevant. It is a fact that abortion kills an innocent human being.

Other person:  we’re getting no where here. you may want to stick to the moral arguments, because currently you dont have a legal one. You can work you elect folks to overturn Roe v Wade to change that, but you arent ever going to convince citizens who believe in choice to change their minds…..and as of today, we dont HAVE to convince to come over to our side.

EMatters:  I’ve noticed that you change the subject every time I make a point. I’d appreciate if you’d close out on a topic or let me know if you see my point. Examples:

1. Do you see the difference between aborting a completely innocent child who had no appeals (20,000 per week in the U.S.) and executing a first-degree murderer who lost 10+ years of appeals?

2. Do you see how the fact that pro-abortionists are really committed to their cause has nothing to do with whether their cause is just? (Same thing for pro-lifers, btw)

3. The reasons you are giving for abortion (women wanting to control their lives, not equipped to care for kids, etc.) would justify killing infants and toddlers as well?

4. The existence of two sides to an issue doesn’t mean neither is correct.

Etc.

EMatters:  Your last comment made no sense. Saying I don’t have a legal argument is merely stating that abortion is legal. That proves nothing, because we both agree that it is legal. Do you see how anyone could make that claim as justification for keeping the status quo at all times? Using your logic, the pro-lifers were correct before Roe v Wade because the law said abortion was illegal. Therefore, they had no legal argument. Now does that make sense?

I’m arguing that abortion kills an innocent human being and that it should be illegal. Your response is that it is currently legal. But my argument assumes that already.

I hope you give this important issue more serious thought than you have to date.

Other person:  ‎1. We’ve executed innocent people. Even if they were possibly “bad” in some other way, they werent guilty of capital murder. One of these “mistakes” is one too many IMO.

EMatters:  I agree that we shouldn’t execute innocent people. You are the one whose views are in conflict. Using your logic, we make 3,000+ mistakes per day — but you are OK with those (that is, unless you are going to attempt to refute my scientific argument that the unborn are human beings).

And using your logic, capital punishment is legal, so you shouldn’t complain about it or expect it to be changed.

Other person:  ‎2. We ARENT pro abortionist. We are pro choice. Must pro choice women never make the decision to actually abort their babies. I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.

Other person:  what dont you get about my statement that I DONT THINK ABORTION ARE MURDER

Other person:  ‎3. That is a ridiculous statement. Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder

EMatters:  Right, but you aren’t offering any facts. Which do you deny, and why?

1. The unborn are human beings from fertilization. I’m claiming that as a scientific fact and offered references to 10+ embryology texts — not to mention common sense (what else would two human beings create?)

2. Abortion kills human beings.

So do you deny that the unborn are human beings or that abortion doesn’t kill something?

Other person:  why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?

EMatters:  ‎”Since we believe people are given rights at birth, killing a toddler WOULD be murder”

You are once again begging the question and assuming what you should be proving. We are debating whether unborn human beings have rights, so you can’t just claim that they don’t have rights.

EMatters:  ‎”why doesnt the supreme court deem it so then?”

I’ve addressed that above (money & politics) and you’ve ignored it and once again changed the subject. I’ve answered your questions. Why do you ignore mine?

Other person:  i just answered them all. i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law

EMatters:  ‎”I never said my side is more JUST than yours…its just legally supported.”

And for the 3rd or 4th time I’m pointing out that you are making an illogical statement. Saying, “abortion is legal,” when I concede that and when we are debating whether it should be legal is meaningless.

Other person:  ok. so lets stick to the moral argument

EMatters:  ‎”i believe rights to be granted at birth…which is the law”

You stated your opinion without reasons and for the 5th time you’ve begged the question on the law issue. If that is the best you’ve got you may want to reconsider your position.

EMatters:  Yes, let’s stick to that.

EMatters:  Is it moral to kill human beings because they are unwanted?

Other person:  i dont think its moral to kill ANY human being.

Other person:  but we do for all sort of reasons

EMatters:  So you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  in war, criminals. if they really scare us

Other person:  but we kill in war because it makes us more secure…but its not moral

Other person:  was the constitution moral? is everything in the Bible moral?

Other person:  eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? which is it?

Other person:  my point is moral is malleable. mostly shaped by the culture, the victors. Is abortion a good thing to be doing….absolutely not. but 35% of US children in poverty isnt very moral either. a large number of those babies would be in poverty

EMatters:  Interesting questions, but irrelevant to the debate. We are debating whether abortions are moral, and if so, should they be illegal (we probably agree that you don’t want gov’t micro-managing every activity of our lives and assessing whether they are moral or not).

I think we agree that war and capital punishment exist, and people can debate the “just cause” theory of war and the principle and practice of CP. But we can address abortion whether those exist or not or whether they are just or not.

I will answer a side note: Of course everything in the Bible isn’t moral. That’s the point! Even Homer Simpson quipped, “And talk about a preachy book! I mean, everyone’s a sinner . . . except this guy.”

So, I’ll ask again: Do you think abortions are immoral?

Other person:  why is every point i make irrelevant to you. i think all my points form why i think the way i think. just because you dont like the points dont make them irrelevant

EMatters:  Yeah, we agree that poverty is bad, too. But using your logic, it is legal and exists, so you definitely wouldn’t ask the gov’t to do anything about that.

And I realize that societies have different views at different times. Abortion was illegal, now it is legal. But it was either always moral or always immoral. Same thing with slavery and many other ills.

EMatters:  You are welcome to your opinions, but I am free to point out whether those have anything to do with whether abortion is moral or should be legal.

Back to the topic: Is abortion moral or not? You say it isn’t a good thing. Why not? I say it is a bad thing because an innocent human being is killed with no appeals. And if government exists to do anything, it exists to protect the lives of human beings. Therefore, it should be illegal.

Feel free to use facts and logic to point out why my premises or conclusions or false.

Other person:  its not moral

EMatters:  Thanks, that helps the dialogue. Why do you think it is immoral?

Other person:  i dont think its immoral.

Other person:  i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period

EMatters:  I’m confused — did our comments get out of order? You said “its not moral” then you said “i don’t think its immoral” . . .

Other person:  i got ahead of myself. sorry….and we’l have to pick this up later

EMatters:  ‎”i think the mother has rights until the baby is born. period”

Yes, we’ve established that you hold that opinion. I’m asking you to be more specific. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the mother should have the right to kill an innocent human being.

EMatters:  No problem! I need to run as well. I appreciate the charitable dialogue. I know these things can get testy so it is nice to be able to discuss it with someone who is civil. I just think it is a very important topic.  Have a blessed day!

Update: Not surprisingly, he never came back.  Hopefully it planted a seed.

An easy way to spot a false teacher

Today was Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  So what did false teachers communicate?

Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ blog had nothing to say about the human beings destroyed around the world each day. Nothing.

That’s typical of the “social justice” crowd.  What could be more unjust than ignoring that 3,000+ human beings are crushed and dismembered each day in the U.S. alone just because they are unwanted?  What about the tens of millions of gender selection abortions that kill females for the sole reason that they are female? What about 90% of Down Syndrome children killed because they are a little different?

Wallis has a big microphone but just uses it to advance his politics-disguised-as-religion wealth redistribution schemes.

I have yet to find a pro-abortion “reverend” who isn’t a fake.  Case in point: Race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie.  He and his fellow false teachers aren’t just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion, because they advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions.  These will obviously increase the number of abortions, so he can’t even play the lame “safe (uh, except for the unborn), legal and rare” card.  And his policies will certainly increase the rate of abortions in the black community, which is already 3x that of whites.  It is the ultimate racism.

See “Observe the Roe v. Wade Anniversary by Staying Vigilant and Taking Action” for a shining example.

As the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice celebrates the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the war on women rages on,

War on women?  What about gender selection abortions that have killed tens of millions of females for the sole reason that they are female?  What about the women pressured to have abortions by family members and the fathers of the children?

and we who trust women and respect their decisions

Those are empty words.  What if the women wanted to kill their toddlers?  Would you trust and respect those decisions?

must renew our commitment to protecting this landmark Supreme Court ruling. On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court said, in simple terms, that women have a constitutional right to privacy to make decisions about whether to have an abortion. Because this decision involves moral as well as medical considerations, the Court ruled, a woman has the right to consider her personal circumstances and the dictates of her conscience.

Again, if her conscience permits her to kill her toddler is that adequate?  Of course not.  So the only question is, “What is the unborn?”  The scientific fact is that they are human beings.

It’s especially important for the pro-faith community to speak out now.

Read: Fake Christians.

For the past year, zealots in Congress and state legislatures

So trying to save the lives of innocent human beings makes one a zealot, but President Obama’s fight to be able to kill those who survive abortions is not zealotry?   Chuck seems pretty zealous about wanting to have even more unborn human beings killed, at your expense!

– many of whom preach the sanctity of privacy and freedom from government –

Can women kill their toddler’s in private?  No, so privacy isn’t the issue.

“Freedom from the government” ignores that they are protecting a human life who should be free from being crushed and dismembered.  One of the main roles of government is to protect human life.

have relentlessly waged a vicious war on women’s access to health care.

Crushing and dismembering innocent human beings is not health care.

More than 1,000 bills were introduced in state legislatures, including the Ohio “heartbeat” bill banning abortion after the 6th or 7th week of gestation, and numerous bills requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds. In 2011, 92 anti-abortion provisions were enacted – the most in any year since Roe v. Wade was decided!

Yea!  Keep up the fight, pro-lifers!  That is great progress.