Abortions?
very good. I just found it funny that the Times has never said one word about the 40,000,000 babies killed since Roe v Wade but is now shedding tears for the 18,000 a year, and note that the article said perhaps 18,000, it could well be much less than that.
Not that they’re not worth it or anything but it’s just an interesting reflection on the prioroties at the Times.
Somehow I think if a deal was presented whereby health care reform is enacted but at the same time Roe is overturned, resulting in a net saving of lives that is far greater than perhaps 18,000 a year, the NYT would be aghast at such a thought