Five questions the media should have asked Wendy Davis

By now you’ve heard of Wendy Davis, the Texas State Senator who, with the help of a rapacious viewing gallery, filibustered a vote on a bill that would have made it illegal for women to abort babies past 20 weeks of their pregnancy.

For her anti-life efforts, the national press corps threw Senator Davis the media equivalent of a ticker-tape parade.

Over at his blog for the New York Times, columnist Ross Douthat, who has written about abortion on multiple occasions, pointed out the media’s hypocritical behavior, especially ABC’s  show This Week. Before getting into Douthat’s reaction, let’s look at the six, utterly absurd questions posed to Senator Davis by that program:

Wendy Davis

1) Why did you decide to wear your running shoes? Let’s take a look at those … they’ve kind of been rocketing around the internet.

2) As the filibuster was going on, you were receiving support from a lot of people and places far away from Texas, from movie stars and the president …

3) The front page of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is featuring the back and forth with Governor Perry and you. He has made this very personal against you. Is that offensive?

4) Do you believe SB5 will become law?

5) Will you have to filibuster again?

6) You gonna put these shoes on again?

Before noting the obsequious, non-confrontational, non-substantive nature of these inquisitions, Douthat explains the politics behind the Texas legislature’s decision to vote on the bill in the first place:

The pro-life movement has been pushing legislation along the lines of the bill that Davis filibustered for some time, but the sudden energy behind SB5 in Texas…has a great deal to do with the recent trial of Kermit Gosnell, and the spotlight that case put on late-term abortion nationwide.

In Texas and in Washington…opponents [of abortion] have basically tried to do what gun control advocates did after Newtown, and use a horror story to make the case for policies that have clear majority support but also face passionate opposition.

Douthat goes on to say how the press has blinders on when it comes to covering abortion:

It seems like a genuinely fair-minded… press would at least tend to mention the link between the Gosnell case and the Texas bill as often as it mentions Wendy Davis’s footwear.

But given that the national media had to be basically shamed into covering the Gosnell case in the first place, it isn’t surprising that we’re getting running shoes instead.

Douthat, per usual, is spot on. But he’s not the only one who noticed the media’s blatant double standard.

On CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz, not known for being a conservative, rhetorically asked: “if Wendy Davis had been conducting a lonely filibuster against abortion rights, would the media have celebrated her in quite the same way?”

The answer, Kurtz points out, is an obvious “no.”

Not all women stand with Senator Davis either, as the press would like you to believe.

Kirsten Powers, a columnist with long-running ties to the Democratic Party, penned a column today wherein she expresses her vehement disagreement with Davis.

“One can assume,” Powers suggests, that “I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent ‘women’s rights’ in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent.”

unborn child

Powers adds that “maybe we should wonder what is wrong with the women who think protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th week is a ‘human right.’”

Noticing how Davis seems to be ignoring what studies confirm to be true, Townhall editor Katie Pavlich tweeted George Stephanopolous, the host of ABC’s This Week, the following request: “when you ask Davis if her feet hurt during her 13-hour stand will you also talk about how 20 week old babies feel pain?”

That question was never asked. Nor did any of the 20 questions Senator Davis was asked by CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS have anything to do with the actual substance of the bill she was filibustering.

Oddly enough, the press also failed to report on the undemocratic methods used by the pro-abortion activists in the viewing gallery. Their lawless, Alinsky-inspired tactics successfully delayed the vote on SB5 until after the 12:00am deadline.

The press clearly wants to make this story less about abortion and more about Wendy Davis. That’s too bad. We’re not going to let that happen. In fact, if the press had any backbone whatsoever, they would have asked Ms. Davis at least one of the following five questions:

1) Nancy Pelosi considers late-term abortion “sacred ground.” But most Americans, including women, favor banning abortions after 20 weeks. And sixty percent of Texans support this specific bill. By doing this filibuster, aren’t you lumping yourself in with someone whose opinion the majority of Americans find morally detestable?

2) If you don’t believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins and at what point does an unborn child acquire human rights?

3) Among other things, this bill sought to prevent abortion after 20 weeks. Studies show that at 20 weeks unborn children can feel pain. Why does science, as well as the pain unborn children go through during an abortion, not seem to matter to you?

4) The abortion rate among African Americans and Latinos far exceeds that of White Americans. Most of Kermit Gosnell’s victims were young black women. How do you respond to the fact that abortion is not only a racist practice but a sexist one as well, as evidence shows more unborn girls are aborted than unborn boys?

5) Studies reveal that women who elect to have an abortion are very likely going to have physical as well as psychological problems. What are you, your caucus and the pro-choice movement doing to make sure women who want to have an abortion are fully informed about the dangers associated with their choice and, if they chose to have an abortion, that they have the necessary resources to get help later on?

8,574 views

Categories:Abortion Law Pro-Life

21 thoughts on “Five questions the media should have asked Wendy Davis

  1. Julie T. says:

    Science and at least a modicum of *moral constraint* should be exercised here. Science now tells us the developing baby FEELS PAIN by 20 weeks, if not sooner. The United States Constitution prohibits *cruel and unusual punishment* in carrying out punishment, including the death penalty, yet women like Wendy Davis see no problem with inflicting a hideous death by chemical burning and/or dismemberment on *a living, sentient being WHO FEELS PAIN as the death sentence is carried out. What does that say about us collectively? Are you aware that even in so-called progressive and socialist countries like France, Germany, and Denmark, abortion is *limited to the first 12 weeks*? Until Americans are prepared to do the same, I am unprepared to charachterize the United States of America as a civilized country. I am so ashamed of the inhumanity of so many of my fellow citizens and I am horrified by their callous cruelty.

    1. SLCMLC says:

      This is where you are just wrong: “Wendy Davis see no problem with inflicting a hideous death by chemical burning and/or dismemberment”. Wendy Davis and others who oppose this law DO have a problem with late term abortions. Just because they think something should be legal does not mean that they like them or wish they occurred. They just think the decision should rest with the mother, not the state.

      I think this is what so many people are missing…abortions at any stage are awful. Pretty much EVERYONE agrees with this. Abortions after 20 weeks are especially bad. But having the state dictate what a woman can do with her body is also VERY BAD.

      This is what the abortion debate comes down to…the lesser of two evils. In your mind it’s not a debate at all…taking a life is the greatest evil of all. And I can respect that. For others (like 50% of the country), taking away a woman’s right to her own body and putting it in the hands of the government is a greater evil.

      I really think many people on this site miss this critical point…pro-choice people are not pro-abortion at all. They simply do not want medical decisions to be made by the state. If you refuse to even acknowledge this very basic part of their perspective I see no way to even begin to find common ground.

      1. JackB says:

        SLCMLC, I agree. I also agree with Mayor Giuliani abortion should be legal, safe and rare. Righties like Rick Santorum Paul Ryan call for outlawing all abortion. I also believe, as the great majority of Americans do, that the mother with the aid of her doctor and her family should be the final arbiter.

      2. Joe M says:

        SLCMLC.

        I see your argument as a retreat. If the pro-choice crowd thinks that abortion is “especially bad”, the next question is “why?”.

        Is it bad because it involves killing a human? If so, when did we decide that it was ok to kill innocent humans for any reason? How is that different than murder?

        As Stephen points out, those are the types of relevant questions that should be asked of Wendy Davis.

        1. SLCMLC says:

          My argument is a retreat from what? All I’m trying to do is show both sides.

          Do you really think if you have a problem with the process of an abortion you need to be pro-life? Did you not see my point where I said for some, allowing women the choice to have an abortion is the “lesser of two evils”.

          Let me flip this on you…do you think the government taking away a person’s right to their own body and medical decisions is wrong? I’m guessing you do. Well then how can you be pro-life? Of course, this is a spurious argument by me. But this is what you just did to me!

          This is what frustrates me so much about this debate…at no point on this site (maybe I’m missing something) has anyone who is pro-life admitted that outlawing abortion would be a massive intrusion on one’s fundamental right to their own body and to make medical decisions.

          1. Joe M says:

            SLCMLC.

            Your argument is a retreat from taking responsibility for what legalized abortion leads to.

            “Do you really think if you have a problem with the process of an abortion you need to be pro-life?”

            YES! Saying that you don’t like abortion but think they should be legal is like saying that you don’t like murder but think that it should be legal. Your opinion about abortion does not change the fact that supporting legalized abortion leads to actual abortions.

            “Let me flip this on you…do you think the government taking away a person’s right to their own body and medical decisions is wrong? I’m guessing you do. Well then how can you be pro-life? Of course, this is a spurious argument by me. But this is what you just did to me!”

            I don’t find this question frustrating at all. It’s easy to answer. Abortion is not a medical decision. Being pregnant is not an illness. Abortion is the decision to kill a human being.

            “This is what frustrates me so much about this debate…at no point on this site (maybe I’m missing something) has anyone who is pro-life admitted that outlawing abortion would be a massive intrusion on one’s fundamental right to their own body and to make medical decisions.”

            You’re framing your opinion as something that others must admit is true. Nobody who is pro-life “admits” that outlawing abortion is an intrusion on any right because they don’t agree with that assertion.

            And I don’t blame them. It’s an absurd assertion. Killing a human being is not a medical decision.

          2. “This is what frustrates me so much about this debate…at no point on this site (maybe I’m missing something) has anyone who is pro-life admitted that outlawing abortion would be a massive intrusion on one’s fundamental right to their own body and to make medical decisions.”

            Yes, you’re missing something. As I’ve pointed out to you before, the zygote is a separate human being, not part of a woman’s body. It has a DNA code complete and distinct from both mother and father. You’re assertion that “The government really has never before dictated what you do with your body. Never.” It is incorrect. I pointed out consensual sodomy was outlawed in many states until recently. The fact that it is no longer the case or involves other people doesn’t change the fact government DID do it, and if two people decide to use there body in a certain way, why is that OK, but not if you’re alone? Suicide is illegal in NY and you can be committed against your will for trying to take your own life in private and even if you have well thought out reasons for doing so.

            Nevertheless, my argument does not rest on analogies but on the following premises, at least one of which must be refuted:

            1. The ‘right to choose” does not encompass the “right to commit murder.”

            2. From fertilization, there is a biological entity that has its own complete DNA distinct from both mother and father and will emerge as a human baby in approx. 9 months.
            3. The zygote is not merely part of the woman’s body if it is a true human life.
            4. The right to prevent the killing of an innocent life trumps any right to autonomy at least for a brief time.
            5. The “pro-choice” side has the burden of proof to show with apodictic certainty that until some definite point, the unborn is not yet fully human. Otherwise, you might be killing innocent life.
            6. This logic applies in everyday life. If you’re a hunter and are not sure if you see a hunter or a deer, you must refrain from shooting because you might kill an innocent person. If a contractor wants to demolish a house with dynamite and there’s the slightest doubt as to whether all people have been taken out, he must refrain from blowing it up until he is certain beyond all reasonable doubt.
            5. The right to life trumps every other right because without life no other rights would be possible
            6. As a Catholic, the light of Faith tells us that human life begins at fertilization–I’m just adding this since it is a religious site.

          3. SLCMLC says:

            Introibo- thank you for your reply. I see your points and ultimately disagree. As per my “inaccurate comments” about the government not dictating what we do with our bodies, obviously in the history of this country it has happened at times (ie: abortion was once illegal). I was referring to the fact that as we progress, there hasn’t been (to the best of my knowledge) a time we have created laws to take away the rights to our own body. Generally allowing us to control our own bodies is a sign of progress. I find your points about not destroying a house if there’s any chance of destroying human life as especially interesting. I wonder how you feel about wars which cause death and destruction but do it in the purpose of saving lives in the long run. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that the state should not dictate what people do to their bodies. In my view abortion is the intersection of these two rights.

            Joe M- there is really nothing left for us discuss. You do not think any outlawing of abortion would be a violation of women’s rights to their own bodies at all. I find this rather shocking but if you don’t believe it, there’s really nothing more to discuss. Most pro-life people I talk to tend to admit that they are violating a woman’s right to her own body but they’re doing it to save a life. And that’s fine. Most people who support laws that prohibit behavior at least concede there is some fundamental right being violated in the process but say it’s worth it. You refuse to even make this basic concession.

            Peace to both of you.

          4. Joe M says:

            “You do not think any outlawing of abortion would be a violation of women’s rights to their own bodies at all.”

            No. I don’t. Your argument is not logically consistent given that abortion physically destroys a human being. How is that not violating that human’s right to their own body in the most absolute way possible?

            “I find this rather shocking but if you don’t believe it, there’s really nothing more to discuss. Most pro-life people I talk to tend to admit that they are violating a woman’s right to her own body but they’re doing it to save a life.”

            I find these statements difficult to believe. I doubt that you are either shocked or know many pro-life advocates that say what you claim they do.

            You have even stated the opposite on this site when you complained that people here don’t agree with your opinion that outlawing abortion violates a right.

            “Most people who support laws that prohibit behavior at least concede there is some fundamental right being violated in the process but say it’s worth it. You refuse to even make this basic concession.”

            You’ll have to back this claim up in order for it to be compelling. I don’t think that many people think that laws against murder are violating anyone’s rights.

            It’s the exact opposite. People do not easily concede rights. Society in general welcomes prohibitions on some behavior precisely because those prohibitions protect our rights. Not because they are “worth it”.

          5. SLCMLC says:

            It’s time to move on. I wasn’t contradicting myself, many pro-life people I have talked to understand that a society free from abortion would put some limitations on what women do with their body but those limitations are well worth it to prevent murder. I was disappointed because this site doesn’t seem to ever concede these limitations and apparently neither do you. I truly do find it shocking that you refuse to concede this basic point, by conceding it you are in no way justifying abortion or saying it should be allowed. You disagree, we move on.

  2. SLCMLC says:

    I can try to answer your questions:
    1. It’s pretty clear that with many abortion issues the nation is split very close to 50-50 with obviously different polls having different leading questions. I think we’d both agree that deciding our laws based on polls is silly (although we’d also agree that the national view on something should have some relevance). So I don’t even know why you brought this point up, should we have national and state votes every year on abortion? Would you accept the results and not fight back if nationally people vote to keep abortion legal?
    2. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, many struggle with it. But I do know for a fact that any abortion restrictions would limit a woman’s right to her own body at any term of the pregnancy. When does the fetus’s right to life trump this right to her own body? You think at conception, many disagree.
    3. The idea of an abortion past 20 weeks definitely makes even the most pro-choice advocates uncomfortable. But your comment of “why does science…not seem to matter to you” is just an absurdly leading question. I don’t like the idea of a 20 week fetus being aborted. I don’t like the idea of a woman not having full control of her own medical decisions on her body. And science matters to me. It’s almost as if…this is an extremely complicated issue that divides America!
    4. That’s actually really, really sad that this goes on, but the study you link to specifically links to Asia. Any stats for America?
    5. Ignoring the fact that most of the post-abortion research is controversial, I do agree that many women probably struggle with the decision on many levels after they make it. And many women also struggle as impoverished single mothers who didn’t have the abortion. It’s going to be tough on the decider no matter what.

    I tried to answer your questions as best I could. I actually agree that even if you’re pro-choice, banning abortion after 20 weeks seems like a good law. But it’s also extremely complicated for many people as there would be widespread implications in enacting this law. I just wish you wouldn’t oversimplify the views of one side and would work to find common ground.

    1. Larry says:

      Excellent summation. Thank-you.

      1. SLCMLC says:

        Thanks- I actually left out an important answer to question 5. Half of this country actually favors universal health care and making sure that all children and mothers are guaranteed health insurance. So I can assure you, many pro-choice people do wish that “they have the necessary resources to get help later on”.

        I wonder how the author feels about making sure all children in this country have access to health care?

    2. In reply to your response of the second question, I think the absurdity can be brought out by comparing abortion to slavery. In 1857 the US Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans (“Negros”) were 3/5 of a human being and can be property. If you think about it, the Confederacy was not pro-slavery, they were pro-choice. They didn’t force white people to own slaves it was a matter of choice. The problem is that in order to be given the chance to make such a choice, you must deny the humanity of the object chosen. A Confederate politician could answer in similar fashion, “I don’t know if blacks are human. It’s above my pay grade. Many people struggle with it. But I do know for a fact that any restrictions on slavery would limit a white man’s right to own property and make a living. Many people think blacks are fully human, just like white people, but many disagree.”

      1. SLCMLC says:

        I can see your point. A few counter-arguments:
        1. While not really relevant, the SCOTUS didn’t make the infamous 3/5ths argument. That was made at the founding of the republic, ironically by anti-slavery states who didn’t want the South over-represented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
        2. “I don’t know if blacks are human. It’s above my pay grade. Many people struggle with it.”…so you’re pointing out the obvious fact that not giving blacks the same human rights as whites would be incredibly wrong. Meanwhile, I realize this gets tricky and controversial, but in your mind should a fetus have full human rights? If so, can a pregnant woman have an amniocentesis which increases the risk of miscarriage? We have basic rules of nutrition for what children are required in this country, should we apply these same rules to fetuses? Even pro-life people I’d think would admit that while a fetus has a right to life, applying all the rights we give living humans have to a fetus is rife with many, many problems. Notably, you would not just have abortion outlawed, a pregnant woman would be subject to standards that would be incredibly intrusive. We both agree a parent who feeds their 6 month old alcohol should get in trouble. How about a pregnant woman who has a glass of wine? Who gets to make all these decisions?
        3. Most importantly, what i’m getting at is “I do know for a fact that any restrictions on slavery would limit a white man’s right to own property and make a living.” We all have restrictions on what we can do on our property and how to make a living. However, the idea of the state dictating what people can do with their own bodies is literally unprecedented (except for maybe drugs and even those can be taken under a doctor’s care). This is such a critical point…the government can dictate what you do on your property and for work, it does it all the time. The government really has never before dictated what you do with your body. Never.

        I just wish pro-life people would acknowledge this point and realize this is why so many people are uncomfortable with banning abortions. It’s not that they enjoy abortions. It’s that the idea of the government controlling one’s own medical decisions is so tough to swallow. This is where your slave analogy, which I can respect, simply breaks down.

        1. In response to your counter-arguments:

          1. I agree that it’s irrelevant, and I do advise against using Wikipedia as a source.

          2. “…in your mind when should a fetus have full human rights?” I’m afraid your response is rife with relativism that pervades our culture. It’s a biological fact that from fertilization, a zygote has human DNA distinct from both the mother and father. The only thing that remains is for him/her to develop. The fact that he/she can’t live apart from the mother for the first few months does not rob him/her of humanity. Consider a person who must depend on an iron lung and can’t live apart from it. Does that person cease to be fully human because of his condition of dependency? Obviously not. So, it really has nothing to do with my mental perception (i.e. “what’s true for you may not be true for me”) but biological fact.
          Your underlying foundational presupposition, which I reject, is that “we can’t know when human life begins.” I have shown that condition of dependency has nothing to do with it, but what about consciousness? That fact that a zygote can’t yet think also does not rob him/her of humanity. What about the severely retarded who some believe are not self-aware, or those in a persistent vegetative state with no brain function and are breathing on their own? Can we put them down and harvest their organs for someone who is conscious?
          Even if I were to fully concede that we don’t know when human life begins, that alone is grounds to end all abortion. Imagine you are deer hunting (not with Dick Cheney). You see something move in the bushes and you are not sure if it was a prize deer or a human. Are you justified in shooting and hoping it’s not human? When not sure if human life is at stake you are ethically bound to take the safer course. As to the “Big Brother will be watching us argument,” I was born in 1965 when abortion was illegal in NY except when absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother. My mom was not being watched to make sure she wasn’t drinking, etc. Individual liberty must give way to the sanctity of human life, so for 9 months some liberties may be curtailed when necessary. You ostensibly have no problem with the government controlling our health care and with Obama and company making myriad decisions that curtail our liberty, but to put reasonable restrictions on a pregnant woman who carries another human inside her is unthinkable?
          3. You are wrong as a matter of historical fact when you say “The government really has never before dictated what you do with your body. Never.” I already addressed your presupposing that it’s the woman’s body not an independent life. Remember that until the 2004 SCOTUS decision Lawrence v. Texas, the States were free to criminalize consensual sodomy done in the privacy of the home. That’s government dictating what you can do with your body. We must wear seat belts and in almost every state, you can’t commit suicide.
          This country was built on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But you can’t pursue happiness if you have no liberty, and you can have liberty unless you have life. Respect of life trumps. Also, for a Catholic, being a so-called “Catholic for Choice” makes about as much sense as being a “Vegetarian for Meat.”

          1. SLCMLC says:

            The main point I was trying to make in reply to your slave analogy (which I said I respect) is that analogies when it comes to abortion are ultimately hard to make because it’s an incredibly unique thing.

            The examples you give are all flawed (an iron lung doesn’t interfere with someone else’s body, sodomy is now legal and also involves multiple people, seat-belts are only required on public roads) and I say this not as a criticism. Any analogy I come up with would be flawed. For example, if someone is dying and needs a kidney and only my kidney will save them, am I required to give it up to them to save their life? Of course not…but I’d fully admit that this is a very flawed analogy because there’s a difference between killing and letting someone die.

            Really that was the point I was trying to make. I think your slavery analogy SHOULD be told to pro-choicers who sometimes try and take the easy way out. But I also think it is flawed and easily disputed. And in turn you can easily turn around and dispute those arguments.

            That’s the problem with abortion debates…two fundamental rights are at stake.

    3. Joe M says:

      SLCMLC.

      1) Your comments are misleading. The nation is not split on late term abortions. In fact, the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester, as it is in most of Europe. That is at 13 weeks.

      Stephen’s question is not based just on a poll as you write. It is in regard to legislation that was put forth by democratically elected representatives. The poll numbers just reinforce the point that Wendy Davis is defying the will of the people.

      2) We have laws that punish a mother for abandoning a born child. How is that not imposing a requirement on “her right to her own body”? She physically must care for a child after birth or be punished. Do you think that is a bad law also? If not, how are you not contradicting your own argument for abortion?

      3) Why? Why do late term abortions bother you, specifically?

      4) Why specifically is that sad to you?

      5) You didn’t address the question. Products and procedures that include danger or risk typically require by government disclosures about what the dangers are. That is not occurring in the abortion industry. Why does Wendy Davis want to prevent women from knowing the dangers that they are taking on?

      It’s good to hear that you support the law that Wendy Davis opposed. It’s not surprising given that most Americans want even more strict laws than the bill Davis filibustered. However, I don’t see how Stephen has over-simplified any views. If anything, he is pointing out that the media is over-simplifying the issue by not asking obvious, relevant questions.

      1. SLCMLC says:

        1. The link Stephen gives showed a poll that was 48-44.
        2. I see your point, but it’s just different. Handing a baby over to foster care or a hospital or whatever takes minimal effort. Carrying a baby to term, risking your own health, and facing child-birth/surgery is a bit more intrusive.
        3. You know, that’s a good question. Deep down they bother me because I do acknowledge, that’s a life there. Maybe not life “as we know it” or “define it” but it’s a life. And I know there are people out there desperate to be parents too. And I know a lot of these women who have an abortion are tortured by their decision. It’s all very, very sad. And I really wish nobody would ever have an abortion (even at 5 weeks). But unfortunately I just can’t see myself dictating my beliefs onto someone else’s body. If that makes me a monster or accepting murder, I don’t know what to say.
        4. This is sad for similar reasons to what I defined above. It seems like an abuse of giving someone a right to their own body.
        5. I hear what you’re saying, of course I am in favor of giving someone full information. But who gets to decide which information we give these women? It’s extremely complicated.

        I do think Stephen oversimplifies the pro-choice side in two related ways:
        1. There is a heavy implication that pro-choice = pro-abortion. If you don’t interpret his article that way, that’s fair.
        2. Likewise, at no point does he mention being pro-life means violating someone’s right to their own body and to make medical decisions. That’s literally an oversimplification of the pro-choice argument by ignoring that basic fact.

        1. Joe M says:

          1. Pointing to the poll does not change that Stephen was correct when he referred to the will of the people.

          2. Having a spouse cheat on you is also intrusive and painful. Yet, we don’t allow people to murder their spouse for cheating.

          A person who fails to follow through with service they signed up for in the military can be jailed.

          There are all kinds of physical requirements in life. Protecting the life of a human being, even though it might be intrusive to someone else, would be no different than the mechanics of many other laws.

          3. Actually, it is a life as we define it. A human fetus, according to long-standing scientific definition is a living human being.

          “If that makes me a monster or accepting murder, I don’t know what to say.”

          It does make you accepting murder. And it’s easy to know what to say: “That is wrong and I don’t accept it any more!”

          4. If someone tries to commit murder, is it enough for you that it is sad? Or, shouldn’t it be illegal? What kind of society would we be if we said “Well, murder is sad. But, you know, sometimes people decide to do it. Who are we to get in the way?”

          5. Why would it be any more complicated than the required disclosures for other products and services? The issue is only made complicated by giving any weight to the argument that the abortion lobby should control the information. That’s like saying that the best source regarding the safety of smoking is cigarette companies.

          1a. Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion. The bottom line is that people who call themselves Pro-Choice support laws that lead to more abortions. Their actions are directly tied to the existence of actual abortions. They are in denial if they think that calling themselves a carefully crafted word removes their responsibility for the abortions that occur.

          1b. That’s because that idea is an assertion. Not an agreed to premise. Stephen not bringing up an assertion he doesn’t agree with is not an example of him misrepresenting anything.

  3. Donna says:

    Rumor in Texas is that Wendy Davis will be running for President. For once, I am ashamed to be from Texas.

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=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.