Ping!
And to think her parents named her Mary Elizabeth. They must be distraught beyond belief.
This is going to get cited and quoted in my book. The final destination for those intoxicated by the will to power is slaughter and atrocity beyond imagination, and it is slaughter and atrocity for its own sake. A willful and wanton hatred of life itself. On any scale you care to imagine.
Monsters. All of them. Killers without conscience.
Abortion: “What difference does it make”?
Hey Mary, so what if guns end lives?
So what if a criminal ends your life?
So what if anyone ends anyone else’s life?
It’s the ultimate idiocy of liberal pretzel logic. For this group of people who think this life is all there is, and there’s nothing afterward, and who wnat us to spend huge amounts of time and resources keeping requiring us all to buy healthcare and paying for everyone else’s healthcare,
to then say “who cares if ‘x’ ends a life?” is the ultimate rejection of their own position. They do everything possible to stay alive. Yet incredibly glib that something they are for ends human lives by the millions.
See it doesn’t end THEIR lives. But we extend their logic to say “who cares if guns end lives?” Who cares if car accidents end lives? Who cares if transfats end lives? Who cares if cigarettes end lives?
They seemingly do. It’s this selective reasoning, this liberal pretzel logic that shows them to be the true hypocrites that they are.
See, this is the most morally despicable part of the liberal position. They know it too, because most of them try to completely gloss it over because they don't want to have to defend it.
They might be able to make some kind of moral argument that if the mother's life is threatened, her rights trump the child's. They can possibly try to extend that argument to just a hazard to the mother's health, since any hazard could conceivably be life-threatening. However, most of the abortions in the country don't fall into those categories, and everyone knows it. The vast majority are abortions of convenience; and so to support those they have to argue that all of the child's rights should be suspended in favor of the mother's hypothetical right not to be inconvenienced.
Not only do most liberals not want to discuss that argument, they really don't even believe the principle of it themselves, because they don't apply it consistently. A "pro-choice" liberal will defend the mother's right of convenience to get an abortion, but will never claim that same mother has a right of convenience which allows them to get drunk and smoke cigarettes while pregnant.
It's the pro-choice title that is "diabolically clever." I am pro choice. Pepperoni or mushroom. BK or McD or neither. Health insurance that doesn't violate your religious convictions (or pay your own way, or only catastophic coverage. ) Glock or Ruger. Coke or Pepsi, 12 or 44 ounce. I'm pro lots of choices, many of which the left would prefer to take away. I just think mom's freedom ends where the baby's nose begins.
“Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life?”
She said, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.” Abortion takes a human life, and she doesn't care. She is on the side of " not-life."
Hi. You might be interested in this thread. Any comments?