The pro-choice license to kill

What we all knew all the time has been publicly acknowledged by its former deniers — namely, that what is in a pregnant woman's womb is a child.  That child's right to live — given him by the One who made his birth possible — may nevertheless be "lawfully" denied by his mother if she doesn't want him and allows him to be killed for reasons of her own.  Such "legal" killing, deceptively labeled "pro-choice," ruthlessly denies the natural right of the baby to live.

It shatters comprehension that a mind and heart can separate to form such a deadly ambivalence as either to kill an innocent human life in or out of the womb or, alternatively, to bear the child and see to his welfare.  Such detachment from human sensibility and instinct regarding human life — an infant's life, no less! — hovers between pathological and criminal.  The sense and the function of being a mother, especially when pregnancy is not from rape, is surely absent from a woman with such a disordered mind.  We may justifiably suspect that her heart has been hardened and her mind warped by radical feminist ranting.

Hidden from the public by pro-choice activists, precisely because their nitty-gritty is sickeningly horrendous, abortion procedures betray the fiction that they are a function of "reproductive health."  This is clearly a scam.  Everyone knows that abortion on demand kills human beings.  Those who believe otherwise are misinformed, confused, in league with activists who push moon-batty legislation through Congress — laws that, if challenged, clear courts dominated by judges who think the Constitution is "alive."  Alive to what?  Manipulation?  Distortion?

Before the bizarre "legalization" of abortion by nine high-ranking judges fishing the Constitution for an excuse to grant pregnant women a "right" to kill their offspring, if they so wish, women who didn't want their babies had the option — which they still have — to give their unwanted child to women who wants them.  It was, and still is, the sensible thing to do.

A mind that can regard what a pregnant woman carries in her womb as either a human life or a piece of junk, depending on that woman's "choice" between the two, can fall into any trap set by liars and schemers with influence.  This raises the question of how such moral turpitude can be recast as legitimate and sanctioned by a court of law.  How can a woman be permitted to commit murder "legally," under the rubric of "pro-choice," and believe that she is a member of a just and civilized society?  How is it possible that the natural product of sexual intercourse — which includes you, me, and everybody else — may be disposed of at will, like trash?

Nine to ten weeks into a pregnancy (photo credit: Lunar Caustic).

The pro-choice argument that "it's the woman's body" is phony to the core.  It deliberately ignores that other body inside the woman.  The killer of a pregnant woman is correctly charged with two murders, not one, a conviction that pro-choice advocates are already trying to undermine.  And, by the way, what difference does it make on which side of the abdominal wall that other body happens to be?

Bottom line: However labeled, however filtered through the mind, infanticide is not any less barbaric than killing by murderers, terrorists, and heartless rulers.  Words like "choice," "privacy," "reproductive rights," and other hogwash dodges scream against the reality that "abortion on demand" kills babies — regardless of their age.

If you experience technical problems, please write to