200 Newtown massacres, every day.

The horror felt is real, because the carnage of massacre was horrifying.

Twenty young children, slain for no good reason. Adam Lanza just decided they were inconvenient to him. It was horribly wrong to do this. What Lanza did was wrong not because the parents of those children loved them and wanted them to remain alive. What Lanza did was wrong because each those children was an individual, unique, beautiful human person with his or her own soul and right to continue living.

EmbryoIt is a right that precedes all other rights, and no other rights are possible without it. It is a right that no one can take away, it can only be surrendered through one’s own actions. Adam Lanza ignored the unalienable right those children had to live and killed twenty of them.

Every single day in our country the body count of the Newtown massacre is met two-hundred times over in abortionists’ facilities. Two-hundred Newtowns, daily. The mind reels, the heart breaks.

In response to the Newtown massacre a hue and cry has arisen to restrict gun rights. The awful irony is that the Venn diagram of those who most ardently support such restrictions on guns and those who most ardently support a woman’s right to choose an abortion very likely have significant overlap.

Those same people would be hard-pressed to identify the moment at which the child in utero acquires the right to life, usually preferring to avoid the question entirely. They’d rather discuss the woman’s right to choose what to do with her body and ignore the hard reality that the presence of a new person in her womb changes the dynamic of the question utterly—of course it is her body, but it is also that child’s home.

President Obama and all who have been speaking after him on the topic of gun violence have repeated variations of, “If we can save even one child, it is worth it; we have a responsibility to act; we will be judged on how we move to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.”

Who can disagree with that? And yet, so many who call for measures that would save, at most, a few dozen children’s lives per year in this country defend a practice that directly takes 4,000 children’s lives per year.

Let’s move to value and protect them all.



89 thoughts on “200 Newtown massacres, every day.

  1. John Marshall says:

    Tom, the next-to-last sentence of your blog says “…4,000 children’s lives per year.” You need to change that to 4,000 per DAY.

  2. halberst says:

    That’s one form you are free to practice. One form of many.

  3. Ann Roth says:

    You are spot on with this. I have been wondering why people are so shocked that 20 children could be killed when we kill 4000 everyday in this country. All children have value no matter their age (born and pre born) or condition. We have been killing the most defenseless for so long, are we really surprised by this or any of the horrible things that happen to children?

    I noticed that Greg B. and Marvin have not answered the question of when and how to determine viability. I wonder if they are followers of Pete Singer. Pro abortion commenters are consistently ignorant of the facts: black genocide refers to the obscenely high number of abortions of black babies. 60% of pregnancies of black women in NYC end in abortion. And they consistently refuse to answer questions like the ones you have posed. Which is just another sign of their ignorance. Or their dishonestly. They do know but if they admit it they admit to supporting murder. And they will have to take responsibility for children, planned or unplanned.

    1. halberst says:

      *Most* reasonable people do not equate abortion and murder. This post was intended to inflame and it did. No reasonable person thinks that the victims in the school were not murdered. You and Tom both know this.

      As for the black “genocide” you all seem to want to inflame discussions with intentionally loaded words. Blacks in the US aren’t being forced to have abortions, nor are any other ethnic group. The word congers up Jews and other minorities being rounded up and put in the gas ovens.

      You could make that argument about China and women legitimately, making the stretch that abortion is murder. I and I think most people who favor abortion rights still want abortions to be a last case option used only in rare cases.

      Let’s talk about contraception, or is that “murder” too? No pregnancy = no abortion.

      1. Joe M says:

        halberst. If reasonable people do not equate abortion and murder, you should be able to provide the reasonable basis for assigning less importance to a human being at a specific stage of life.

      2. Ann Roth says:

        In addition to answering Joe M. ” provide the reasonable basis for assigning less importance to a human being at a specific stage of life.”, you need to look at different methods of contraception and how they work. Some cause abortions so yes, they do kill a child. Call it by any name you like. I realize most people to do not call abortion murder and that is the point. “Most people” are not understanding that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life and that it is murder. The abortionist is likely fully culpable of guilt, the mother perhaps less so depending on her knowledge, state of mind, etc. “Most people” are not reasonable on this issue since they refuse to use their God given ability to use reason and logic. I am still waiting for Greg B. or anyone else to use reason and logic to answer the question of when a life is viable-is there an age after birth? Is it attainment of ability to clothe and feed itself? Are the sick and disabled who are unable to care for themselves “viable” and worthy of the right to life? On what do you base your answers? The contention that woman has a right to control her body does not answer any of these questions.

    2. halberst says:

      *Most* reasonable people do not equate abortion and murder. This post was intended to inflame and it did. No reasonable person thinks that the victims in the school were not murdered. You and Tom both know this.

      As for the black “genocide” you all seem to want to inflame discussions with intentionally loaded words. Blacks in the US aren’t being forced to have abortions, nor are any other ethnic group. The word congers up Jews and other minorities being rounded up and put in the gas ovens.

      You could make that argument about China and women legitimately, making the stretch that abortion is murder. I and I think most people who favor abortion rights still want abortions to be a last case option used only in rare cases.

      Let’s talk about contraception, or is that “murder” too? No pregnancy = no abortion.

  4. halberst says:

    I strongly doubt you’d make that argument to a relative of any of the victims.

    On another but related note, I’m surprised in the recent Abortion coverage there’s been little coverage of the drop in crime associated with the legalization of abortion: http://goo.gl/udn78 .

    1. Birdie says:

      That could be because there is none associated with abortion. However, there is a drop in population. Could that be what you are referring to? Or are you making a comment about black Genocide in NY and Chicago?

      1. halberst says:

        Black genocide? Not sure what you are talking about. There hasn’t been a drop in population, the population of the US has continued to grow since Roe: http://goo.gl/5lxW1 they’re up about 50%. But crime took a notable dive about the time the first crop of would be children that weren’t born due to the legalization of abortion would have reached the age where they were most likely to cause problems: http://goo.gl/aDl4b . For example the greatest demographic by age to murder is 18-24. Abortion became legal in 1973 in the US. There is a downward slope in the murder rate about that many years later.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          So execute would-be criminals is your solution? I thought our justice system was about “innocent until proven guilty.” You’ve turned it into “likely to be guilty so kill ’em before they have the chance.” Disgusting.

          1. halberst says:

            As you well know, most people consider abortion something short of execution. That is an extremist position. What I do find particularly frustrating though, is the fight against contraception. Imagine how many abortions could be avoided if women and couples who didn’t want children had the knowledge and access to cheap or free contraceptives. Taking an extremist position on contraception too simply has led to more abortions.

          2. Joe M says:

            People already do have access to cheap or free contraception.

          3. halberst says:

            Women who get pregnant in most cases were not using contraception. It isn’t always easy to get, and not always cheap. Particularly for those who most need it. For some there is also a stigma, that we as a society would benefit by reducing.

          4. Joe M says:

            You can find where to get free contraception with Google. It is false that it’s difficult or cost-prohibitive to get.

          5. halberst says:

            Is it next to the Overstock iPads? Or maybe on Obama’s secret Kenyan birth cirtificate? If you saw it on the internet……

        2. Joe M says:

          This is a corellation-does-not-imply-causation fallacy.

          What next? Abortion is responsible for the increase of computer processing power?

          1. halberst says:

            Can you make that argument? You understand the abortion – crime connection even if you don’t agree with it. Guess you just want to be funny?

          2. Joe M says:

            halberst. A correlation does not imply causation. It is a fallacy to make an argument on that basis. If you don’t understand that, read up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_fallacy

    2. Tom Crowe says:

      Considering any of them could read this and I had considered that possibility, I kinda did. Consciously. Emotion ought not get in the way of sound argumentation. I try not to let it.

      I’ll look at your link later on.

    3. Tom Crowe says:

      So you’re for eugenics then? Kill the kids who are more pre-disposed to become criminals before they mug their first “beautiful person.” What a horrid way to view human life.

      1. halberst says:

        We don’t all consider abortion murder. You know that, but enjoy throwing such terms around. CatholicVote is very picky about which parts of religion you choose to emphasize. There’s plenty of anti abortion clatter, but you’d have to look hard to find the anti war, anti gun, or death penalty articles.

        1. Joe M says:

          Actually, you wouldn’t have to look very hard for discussion of those issues on this site. I’ve read them. Google it.

          1. halberst says:

            Funny, I just read on this very site a fairy tale about Jesus being in favor of conceal and carry laws: Jesus Supports Concealed Carry, Settles Gun Debate 82 comments

          2. Joe M says:

            What does that have to do with your incorrect claim that the other issues you list are not discussed on this site?

          3. halberst says:

            Not discussed? I wrote emphasized. You suggest I google the site to find a non-right wing stance represented by CatholicVote. That’s kind of a hint, you have to search for an answer. Joe, why don’t you tell me, of the say, last 20 postings, how many would be listed on the Democratic side over the Republican?

            The Church doesn’t fit neatly into either the US Democratic or Republican world view. It is against abortion, gay marriage, on some other issues that favor the right.

            But the Church is anti-gun, anti-war, pro universal health insurance, pro government spending on poverty programs, and not all together pro-capitalism for that matter. See any hint of that in the last 20 posts? Please show me.

            I just scrolled down from the latest entry to “Obama’s Orwellian Marriage Moment” and every entry appeared to be right leaning on abortion, marriage, pro-gun, anti-Obama, anti contraception. Not one emphasized the many issues where the Church and the left meet.

          4. Joe M says:

            You claimed that you would have to look hard. Using Google is not looking hard.

            The Church is not anti-gun, anti-war (in all cases), pro universal health insurance or pro government spending on poverty programs.

            20 postings only represents about a week on this site. That certain issues don’t appear in the mix within a given week really indicates nothing at all. When these issues are relevant in news, they are “emphasized”. Sometimes they are brought up out of the blue.

            The Church has had the same principles since before we had political parties. If you sense a right-leaning tendency, it’s because right-leaning ideas are in line with the Church. Not the Church or this site aligning with right-leaning ideas.

            From a Catholic perspective, there is a lot to criticize about the Democratic party and the left. That isn’t the Catholic perspectives fault.

          5. halberst says:

            Tell me how far back you have to go to find some of the more liberal leaning ideas of the church then? I could use (any major search engine) to find a metaphorical needle in a haystack. But the point that it’s hidden is worth noting.

            The Catholic perspective on abortion, gay marriage do indeed favor the right in the US. But the Pope would be considered far too liberal for him to gain a national office in the US. He’s far left of Obama on some hot button issues. The Pope has stated that health care is a right of man, opposes private ownership of most firearms, has had some rather critical things to say about capitalism etc.

          6. Joe M says:

            Neither the Church or this site has to have liberal positions in order to hold positions for non-partisan reasons. The policy positions of the right happen to line up far more closely with the principles of the Church than the policy positions of the left.

            The catechism doesn’t really address gun control. The Pope’s opinion on that issue is not a tenet of the faith.

            His statements on health care and capitalism have been distorted. The right to access health-care is not a commentary on what system is best for accomplishing that goal. It is not an endorsement of single-payer government health systems. Adam Smith had critical things to say about capitalism. That the Pope criticizes financial abuses does not make him left-leaning on that issue.

      1. halberst says:

        I think I see your problem. You just sent me a link to a site that is anti abortion for information. How can you trust that they are telling the full story when their stated goal is only telling one side. Reminds me of the Republicans in the last election and their surprise that the Muslim Socialist from Kenya won. They’d been living in the bubble of Fox “News” and didn’t realize it wasn’t “Fair and Balanced.”

        Just to make a point, here are a couple other titles from your source of “information”: “The Lazy Slander of the Pro-Life Cause” and “The Right to Life and the Irrelevance of Rape”.

        1. Marvin Derks says:


        2. Joe M says:

          That’s a funny argument coming from someone who just cited a statistic compiled by Planned Parenthood explaining how good Planned Parenthood is at preventing abortions.

          Good one halberst!

          1. halberst says:

            Do you have any reason to believe that Planned Parenthood would downplay how much contraception they prescribe? Unlike right wing thinktanks I think they get audited and need to get licenses, etc. Do you think they are paying for birth control pills and just throwing them out because they enjoy performing abortions? You can hate PP all you want but I sincerely doubt that they are performing abortions that aren’t recorded or not prescribing birth control on the books.

            Do you have a statistic that shows women having more abortions because of more birth control? No pregnancy = no abortion.

          2. Joe M says:

            I get it. In your view, it’s ok for you to question Tom’s source. But, your sources are beyond doubt.

          3. halberst says:

            Not at all. You are free to question my source. But I think there is little reason to doubt that PP is handing out birth control. I think they admit to it. And so does their opposition. I think you could reasonably question their opinions about abortion. But how many contraceptives they dole out seems a really unlikely source of misinformation. There’s no motivation. And I think it reasonable to assume that in most cases pregnancy is in fact avoided (and thus abortion) with help of contraception.

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            Ad hominem? That’s what you’re reduced to? You dismiss the research out of hand because of the source… not very serious of you.

          5. halberst says:

            Someone else on this discussion has informed me that the pill is also abortion, so I guess we actually need to up the number of abortions performed. This has gotten to a level I had never dreamed of. If the pill results in abortion, and abortion is murder, we better start building prisons big and quick. The murderers are among us. Our neighbors, friends, family roughly 17% of women are “guilty.” Of course I also heard that if they didn’t know it was murder – maybe it’s just manslaughter?

            Can somebody come on here and throw in some more crazy stuff, maybe some holocaust denials, the moon landing was a hoax, 11 Septemer was an inside job, that kind of thing. We seem like we’re getting close where were headed with contraception=abortion=murder…..

          6. Joe M says:

            That they are handing out birth control was not the citation. You didn’t even use it that way yourself.

            It was a claim that their birth control services prevented x number of abortions.

            Lets examine that for a moment: how could they possibly know that number?

            How do they know that A) the people would effectively use the contraception they got. We know that people do not always use contraception that they have in their possession. B) How do they know that if the person did get pregnant, that they would choose to have an abortion rather than some other option?

            No. Your assumption is not reasonable at all for the simple fact that many people do not abort unexpected pregnancies.

    4. Joe M says:

      I think it’s clear that Tom grieves for the victims of both acts.

      It is you who, by your logic, would find yourself in the uncomfortable position of explaining to a woman who loses a late-term child that the baby wasn’t important because they were still just a fetus.

      1. halberst says:

        I think that it would be less difficult the further from birth that may have happened. That’s to say, I don’t think most women who’s pregnancies end unintentionally in the first month bury the fetus, give it a headstone with a name etc. They are different things and the answers aren’t black and white as when a crazy person shoots up people.

        1. Joe M says:

          So, you actually do acknowledge that a human is important before birth?

          You are contradicting yourself.

          1. halberst says:

            Where did I do that?

            And tell me, I’ve been to dozens of cemeteries all over the world, and I don’t recall headstones ever predating birth. Hundreds of thousands of miscarriages happen every year, why don’t we think of those like the death of infants, toddlers, children, or adults?

          2. Chelsi Creech says:

            People do. There are headstones for children who were miscarried or stillborn. My own mother miscarried without knowing it and therefore was unable to save my sibling’s remains, but we still grieve for the child.

          3. halberst says:

            Like I said, I’ve never seen one. I’ve seen markers with days, or months, or where the child died during birth with the mother. I’ve been to dozens of cemeteries in the US, and in half a dozen other countries too. If you can find a handful somewhere I’m not surprised. But the fact that cemeteries don’t commonly have markers for unborn children seems to reflect my views on how we look at fetuses compared with born children.

          4. Joe M says:

            I’ve known hardcore liberals that grieve their miscarriages.

            That you haven’t seen headstones in cemeteries really indicates nothing about whether or not people care about the life in their wombs. Some cultures don’t use headstones in any case. Does that mean to you that that culture doesn’t care about anybody?

          5. halberst says:

            Sure, I’m a liberal, and I’d be sad about a miscarriage that happened to anybody, your family or mine. But I think a miscarriage of a two week old fetus is different than a two year old child. I think most people who would bury a loved one at a cemetery would only do so for a born child. I’m sure there are exceptions, but hundreds of thousands of miscarriages occour in the US every year, and I’m guessing very, very few get a headstone. I’ve never seen a headstone with an inscription that predates birth.

            This discussion seems to try and conflate abortion with murder. Even if the egg and sperm joined only hours ago, that death is according to some on this board equal to primary school kids getting gunned down in class. Note the title of this entry: “200 Newtown Massacres Every Day.”

            Not so. We as a society see life prior to birth differently than after birth. It’s not black, it’s not white, it starts out light grey and gradiates to dark grey. That feeling seems to be reinforced in how we bury our dead.

          6. Joe M says:

            Why are you sad about a miscarriage?

            Again, headstones are not the barometer of care. Furthermore, the average care-level is not the barometer of whether or not something deserves care. At one point in time, the majority of Americans didn’t care about the well-being of Native American people. That didn’t mean that Native American people weren’t deserving of care. Americans were wrong.

            Murder is the deliberate ending of a human life. Abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life. They are the same. Americans who deny this fact are wrong.

            You engage in a fallacy by speaking for “we.” More and more, “we” is polling as pro-life.

            Do some searching around. More people are interested in burying or otherwise honoring miscarriaged children than you seem to think.

          7. halberst says:

            Assuming the woman wanted to bare the child, I’d be sad about the lost possibility. I also feel sympathy for those who wish to conceive but can’t. But I don’t feel sad for those who don’t wish to conceive but can’t.

            Human beings can be sad about many other things besides human death. We lament the loss of animals, jobs, friendships, houses and even seemingly inconsequential inanimate objects.

            Headstones are how we mark the death of our loved ones. Sure, not everybody does it. But if you are being honest, you know it. You likely can tell me where you can find the headstones of your grandparents. If not, you know for a fact, most people can. And sure there are cultures that don’t. But most of us do for the born. And most of us don’t for fetuses.

          8. Joe M says:

            Isn’t being sad about losing a six year old also largely about the lost possibility?

            A very large number of people choose to be cremated. Incidentally, the same thing that is done to many miscarriaged people. The headstone angle is just not convincing for a variety of reasons.

  5. Greg B. says:

    You’re really comparing 1st trimester fetuses to 6 year old children? WOW.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Tell me when a fetus acquires the right to life, be specific, and back up your claim philosophically, or spare me your ignorant shock.

      1. Greg B. says:

        When they’re viable outside of the womb and no longer dependent upon the body of the woman who has the right to continue or terminate the pregnancy. Your suggestion that the “life” of a zygote is on par with the lives of 6 year old children with lives, personalities, emotions, memories, feelings, dreams, fears, knowledge, skills, talents….it dishonors their memories in a disgusting way. Added to the irresponsible pro-assault rifle, pro-NRA rhetoric we’ve seen here on CV since December 14, it paints a picture that you all should be completely ashamed of.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          So it has nothing to do with the humanity of the child itself but something extrinsic to the child, this arbitrary point of viability outside the womb? The time at which a premature baby could survive has crept ever earlier due to advances in medicine. Was a child who could not survive at five weeks premature not a person a few years back, but is now? How do you justify that? FYI: your scolding is entirely ineffective because your opinion and judgment are not respected.

          1. Greg B. says:

            It may not be effective to you but trust me, it is to others reading it which is all that really matters.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            And yet, you still have not answered the question of precisely when a child is endowed with the right to life. When the umbilical cord is cut? When it stops breast feeding? When it takes its first breath? When it leaves the birth canal? And wherever you put that line, why do you put it there and not a moment sooner?

          3. Greg B. says:

            Actually I did. It’s when the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Not the moment that sperm meets egg, or sperm exits urethra or whenever it is that you think a few cells have the same importance of the life of a first grader.

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            So then you’re okay with partial-birth abortions? And what about “viable outside the womb” confers these rights? Because while it is “viable,” it is unable to live on its own outside the womb any more than it was a few moments before while inside the womb. It is only “viable” if cared for, which is the same situation as when it was inside the womb.

          5. Joe M says:

            Greg. You are explaining different stages of life for a human being. You are not explaining the basis for why you assign “importance” at one stage and not the other.

            Your designation of “importance” appears to be arbitrary.

          6. Marvin Derks says:

            How is “before being born” and “after being born” arbitrary? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

          7. Joe M says:

            I think you need to read my comment more closely.

            What is the basis for why being born makes a human important?

            According to your logic, someone else could say that humans don’t become important until they are 21.

          8. Marvin Derks says:

            What’s important got to do with anything?

          9. Joe M says:

            That’s the term that Greg B used in the comment I was replying to.

            If you like, you can replace the word “important” with “deserving of legal protection.”

          10. Tom Crowe says:

            Marvin— Very straightforward, but irrational. Why is location-in-relation-to-the-uterine-wall determinant? Children born very premature are just as dependent on care as children at the same point of gestation who remain in the womb to term, yet the law protects children born very premature. Give me something intrinsic to the new human life in question rather than its location that indicates how we can know it is a person.

          11. Right before it is born, it is in the birth canal. After it is born, it has moved several feet out. Did those several feet make that much of a difference?

          12. Viability is based upon medical technology. This means that fifty years ago, viability would be less, meaning the fetus had no right to life. Again, this makes life completely arbitrary.

        2. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

          J.M.J. Sure, Greg, a six year-old child can “do” more than a child in the womb. But the older child cannot “be” more than one in the womb. The essence of human life is the same for both. A child in the womb must depend on his mother for care but that child doesn’t depend on his mother for the right to continued life. That right exists independently of the mother.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            In my opinion, a woman has the right to do with the fetus as she wishes because that fetus is completely dependent of the woman for everything it needs. A fetus has no rights. A woman does.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            So dependency on another, then? Dependency only on the mother or dependency on any care giver? That would, of course, mean the child has no right to life until well after infancy and the mother could opt to “abort” it at five or six months after birth.

          3. Marvin Derks says:

            At birth,the child is no longer dependent on the mother for anything because someone other than the mother can supply what the child needs. Not so before birth.

          4. Joe M says:

            So, if it were possible to transplant a fetus into another womans womb, that would indicate to you that they are a life deserving protection?

            It sounds like your argument is that a human being can be killed as long as it is a dependent of a specific woman. Is that correct?

          5. Marvin Derks says:


          6. Joe M says:

            Can you then explain the contradiction in your statements?

            You argue that a human being becomes worth protecting once they are not dependent on a specific mother. However, if we can use technology to change the dependency of a human before birth, that would seem to qualify that person for protection under your logic.

          7. There are people living off of machines who cannot live on their own. Do they somehow have less right to life?

        3. Personalities, emotions, knowledge, skills, etc are all things that develop gradually. You either must pick a completely arbitrary point in development in which they have enough of listed things (why can’t I pick six years old?) or you must admit that they gradually gain rights, meaning someone who is say, sixteen has more of a right to life than a ten year old.

      2. Matthew_Roth says:

        The answer to which can be found here, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1974 responding to erroneous arguments posited by Blackmun in Roe. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

    2. Marvin Derks says:

      Excellent point Greg B. This is simply another shock value post by Tom, who’s well known for this. Suggesting that the fetus in the womb has as much value as a six year old child is simply beyond comprehension and does indeed, as you stated, lower the value of the 6 year old, 20 of whom were murdered in cold blood. Tom will go to extremes to get responses.

      1. Tom Crowe says:

        Beyond the comprehension of some, yes.

        1. Marvin Derks says:

          It certainly does lower the values of the 6 year old regardless of your belief system. That may not be your intent and if so, great.

          1. Joe M says:

            Insistence is not an argument. You provide no rational basis for this statement.

      2. Joe M says:

        Marvin. What is beyond comprehension is your refusal to acknowledge that the fetus is as human as the 6th grader. Only at different stages of life.

        No 6th grader was ever not a fetus first. You promoting the killing of a fetus is you promoting the killing of a human who would otherwise become a 6th grader.

        1. Marvin Derks says:

          I promote a woman’s right to choose when and if she will bring a child into the world and I believe that right surpasses any right you may perceive that a fetus has. I’m sorry if that’s beyond your comprehension.

          1. Joe M says:

            Do you believe that a jealous boyfriend has a right to murder a girlfriend that cheats on him?

          2. Marvin Derks says:

            See my previous response to you. You coming up with strange scenarios is not going to change my mind.

          3. Joe M says:

            It’s a simple question and is relevant to our discussion about who has the right to end the life of who.

            Why are you afraid to answer it?

          4. Marvin Derks says:

            If it were relevant, I would consider answering it. You believing it’s relevant doesn’t make it relevant, unless of course you’re the god of relevancy.

          5. If the child becomes to much of a burden at say, five years old, do you promote her right to kill it?

    3. You’re really begging the question this badly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.