Replies

No, darling, I don't have any interest in persecuting people who have had abortions - nor would I say you should whack her with anything. As your friend's reaction shows, it is a terrible thing. What is even worse is that the Democrats shield the actual horror of it behind rhetoric about "saving women's lives" or a "woman's right to choose". It's time that lie was exposed.

Secondly, you'll hear a lot of rhetoric out of the Left about being "pro-choice". But since when did Planned Parenthood set up adoption clinics? The only choice they are interested is not a choice at all, it's reaching for the abortionist's forceps.

Now there are certain things which should be made illegal immediately, such as partial birth abortion, which is a crime against humanity. As for "generic" abortions, it will take a large cultural change to effect its removal - but as your friend's reaction showed, those who have been through it are not the same afterwards. It's a horrible thing. And as such it needs to be exposed for what it is.

Love, Ivan

The secret to the winning back of hearts and minds to the respect of human life is semantics. The pro-"choice" crowd succeed in their agenda by word games, all designed to dehumanize the unborn and turn it into the opponent of women. "Fetus" (a purely medical term) replaces "baby". "Terminating a pregnancy" or "evacuating a uterus" replaces a D&C or vacuum aspiration. "Right to choose" means a woman's right to destroy the evidence of her "mistake". "Right to control one's own body" replaces "killing a living human, genetically separate and unique, residing within the womb."

People can "choose" to "terminate a pregnancy", but they can't "decide" to "kill an unborn baby". If once we can change the language of the debate, public attitudes will change.

Regarding your previous post as to who is having abortions--actually I'm pretty sure the percentage of abortions among black women is proportionally much higher, which surprised me. But you're right about why most abortions are done; because the teenage girl doesn't want her parents to find out, because the young woman doesn't want a baby to interrupt her college education, because she doesn't want it to interrupt her burgeoning career, because the time "isn't right" or the father "isn't the right one", etc.

Being pro-life may not be a Republican thingy, but the reality is if one votes democrats into power (by voting for them or for a third party candidate), the judgeships will go more liberal; by voting pubbies into power, the judgeships are more likely to go toward stricter interpretation of the Constitution and thus more likely to overturn Roe through some case brought forward. It is obvious, I mean, why else do the despotic democrats hold Roe as their litmust test for considering nominees to the bench?