Pro-life daily vid: Megyn Kelly refutes NOW’s contraception lies
by Hans Johnson and Kelli
FOX’s Megyn Kelly recently took on Patricia Ireland, the former president of NOW (where is the current president, by the way?), regarding the organization’s decision to place the Little Sisters of the Poor on their “Dirty 100” list. What “dirty” deed are they accused of doing? Opposing Obamacare’s contraception mandate.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/8sLRvgIR2fg[/youtube]
You’ll note that from 3:20 to 4:35, Megyn discusses the abortifacient properties of the IUD and the other contraceptives in question in the Hobby Lobby case. Ms. Ireland tells Megyn that she is wrong and needs to “do a little research”. Apparently, Megyn did – and it confirmed exactly what Megyn said. Be sure to note, in particular, 1:16-3:22:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/tSidMhotsNI[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Thomas S., Susie Allen, Jill]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Thanks Megan Kelly. I know you are being given a lot of flack for standing for life but keep up the good work.
As I frequently point out in my articles, Fox News is neither fair nor balanced. It is, rather, a media propaganda tool for the radical “right to life” movement. The lies told in Kelly’s segment were told by Ms. Kelly who describes herself as a Catholic but who is divorced and re-married in a non-Catholic ceremony. (But identifying as an RC endears her to Fox’s base of 70 year old Catholics who actually believe the sexually skewed dogma of their church…)
As I frequently point out in my articles about Fox’s validation of pro-life lies – the mainstream medical community does not consider IUD’s and emergency contraception to be abortifacients because they act before implantation – ergo, no pregnancy, no abortion. The notion that these very effective methods of birth control are abortions is a theological position which is a core belief of Megyn’s Catholic Church which views ALL birth control is one of the worst sins in their book. Other faiths do not have this view.
Anyway, here is my take on Kelly’s lies and constant overtalking of Ms. Ireland:
http://www.newshounds.us/20140709_proud_catholic_megyn_kelly_still_fighting_for_nuns_who_don_t_want_to_pay_for_abortions
I also have a juicy thread about Megyn’s slut shamming of women who need medically necessary late term abortions:
http://www.newshounds.us/20140717_megyn_kelly_slut_shames_women_needing_late_term_abortions
Newshounds Priscilla
“We Watch Fox So You Don’t Have To”
BarkingBitches Priscilla —
Your hate-speech about Catholicism and Catholics reveal a fierce bigotry, and borderline on blasphemy.
You are invited to express your opinions, if you can be civil and respectful as you expect others to treat you.
This is a polite warning from the moderator. I will let your post stand, as an example to others of how not to behave when commenting on this blog.
Priscilla: “As I frequently point out in my articles about Fox’s validation of pro-life lies – the mainstream medical community does not consider IUD’s and emergency contraception to be abortifacients because they act before implantation – ergo, no pregnancy, no abortion.”
You’re adorable.
As we know from science textbooks, a human being’s life begins at fertilization, and thus destroying that human being before implantation takes place is perfectly equivalent to an abortion.
Thanks Del. The pro-abort natives are really getting restless proclaiming the mantra “abortion no restrictions, no apologies” more and more. It’s all about dead babies at all costs, spreading lots of slander and poison just goes with the territory.
Prolifers PLEASE be very careful out there, the fight against the culture of death is not a game. Christian prolifers we need to fight spiritual warfare “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high places”. We need to pray protection for Jill and all other prolifers on the frontline and in the media. Please note the violent attack by the woman against the prolife protesters last week means we need to be more careful but not fearful. God bless and take care.
Priscilla writes “Church which views ALL birth control is one of the worst sins in their book. Other faiths do not have this view.”
Apparently, you have not read Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. In it, he acknowledges that there may be times when a couple has perfectly legitimate reasons to refrain from having children or wish to space their children. There is nothing sinful about that and the Church does not consider birth control the worst sin in its book. When did you become such an expert on all things Catholic?
It is a matter of how do you achieve the goal of limiting your family size or spacing the birth of your children. The ends do not justify the means! Not having sexual intercourse is a form of birth control. Natural family planning is perfectly acceptable and effective. My husband and I spaced our children five years apart that way.
Other faiths held that view up until the 1930s when the Anglican or Episcopal Church broke with “it is okay for married couples”. You see where that slippery slope led — to the sexual immorality we have today.
Hey Priscilla – The pro-aborts keep trying to say that abortion “terminates a pregnancy” and that is what pro-lifers oppose – you have this wrong. Pro-lifers are all about pregnancy termination, we just believe in ending pregnancy with the BIRTH of a baby. Pro-lifers object to others being allowed to take the life of another person (at any stage of life). These birth control methods kill a tiny developing human being – that is our objection. Please read a freaking science book about human development.
The latest overreach of abortifacient birth control on demand, and subsidized by employers, is backfiring on the pro abort movement.
The reason abortion advocates shifted the definition of when life begins to when pregnancy begins is to avoid the word ABORTION when at all possible. The word itself is toxic to them, and they know it, and so they hide behind novel definitions and play word games.
This is nothing new, but the increase of it may signal a heightened awareness on the part of pro aborts. The word, the thought, of ABORTION is increasingly repellent to the average thinking person.
And that is a large part of what we are working for- revealing ABORTION as the unthinkable, unnecessary, cruel ending of a human life that it is.
I say, Maureen, there may be some “freaking science” on the go here, but overall you are conflating several different things.
“Baby” – there are definitions which could extend back to conception, and then there are plenty which only apply after gestational development or birth itself.
“Person” – this is a societal status. Your Supreme Court has members who feel a business corporation qualifies in some respects – obviously this is an opinion. This is what a court says.
It is also legal status for human beings. This is not a matter of science, this is a matter of what a society says.
Your take on things is individual to you, as is your theological position. An abortion ends a pregnancy, as does a birth. There is “hard” scientific fact, and then there are things which are matters of opinion, as above – “baby” and “person.” If anything, I think you are displeased because society is not following your opinion, here.
To include all this under one umbrella, as it were, is dodgy logic; it’s incorrect. Science does not support most of what you say; science is not involved in determining all of it, i.e. where philosophy and opinion come in.
Would you really say that the zygote or blastophere is a “person”? I imagine you would, but you can as well easily see that many people would say no.
Sorry, Corbin. You fail.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
You are the one who doesn’t understand science. Pro-aborts are all about the semantics (as noted so eloquently by Mary Ann’s post). It is clear that fertilization is the beginning of a human life.
Objecting to late-term abortion isn’t slut-shaming. Nor is late-term abortion medically necessary.
“Sorry, Corbin. You fail.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
You are the one who doesn’t understand science. Pro-aborts are all about the semantics (as noted so eloquently by Mary Ann’s post). It is clear that fertilization is the beginning of a human life.”
Maureen, you are pretending that the argument is something it is not. Nothing in that link disagrees with what I said.
“Human life,” yes. I agree with you. This is also not about semantics – MaryAnn is wrong. Does abortion end a human life? Yes, it does. Once again, not the argument.
Corbin – “Does abortion end a human life? Yes it does.” It is the only argument.
No, the biological reality is not the argument.
Corbin – Seriously, re-read your latest post. Think through the implications of what you posted.
Maureen, the implications? I don’t think it is a matter of that. We are talking about given facts and agreed-upon things.
It’s quite a broad definition of “human being” that would include the zygote, blastophere, etc., but I grant you that under the barest biological minimums, it would apply.
And indeed, as with a miscarriage, the life does end in an abortion. To this point we have medical fact, “hard science,” and no disagreement.
Yet you originally said, “Please read a freaking science book about human development,” as if it covered you in your personal predilections and inclinations – your choice of usages for “baby,” your frustration that the unborn are not full legal persons, etc., a much different thing.
Wow, Megyn Kelly really seems to bring the pro-choicers to this site (or maybe it’s just Priscilla who did that – and thank you, by the way, and welcome to the comment-likers. Come out, come out, wherever you are).
Priscilla has given her “argument” more than once here, stating the same things over and over again. And bmmg is correct, above, on Priscilla’s obvious confusion. I also tried to explain the difference between fertilization and implantation to her on a different thread a couple weeks ago, using medical definitions and links – and I began to wonder if Priscilla is not actually a real person, because she does not interact, nor does she act as though she has read anyone else’s comments.
I also have to wonder if those who dispute the FDA and drug manufacturers’ explanations of how these drugs work even watched the video. (I guess Priscilla watches Fox so we don’t have to, but I’m not so sure she watched this segment.)
Hey Corbin – Are you sure the pro-aborts aren’t all about semantics? You seem very upset by my use of the word “baby” in my original post:
“Pro-lifers are all about pregnancy termination, we just believe in ending pregnancy with the BIRTH of a baby.”
So let me fix that for ya – “Pro-lifers are all about pregnancy termination, we just believe in ending pregnancy with the BIRTH of a neonate.” Feel better now?
I think you need to actually read my posts instead of writing regarding my “predilections and inclinations,” a subject about which you know nothing. However, you are engaging in another favorite pro-abort game called “Change the Subject.”
It is not a “broad definition” to include all stages of human development when referring to human persons (yes – persons), it is scientific fact. You see it is not the pro-lifers who avoid science – quite the opposite.
Finally, since you cannot see the implications of avoiding “biological realities” when speaking of human beings, I will clue you in. In every case of oppression and genocide, the victims were viewed as less than human. Of course the “biological reality” was that they were human, therefore their oppressors had to come up with subjective methods of defining what was fully human or (to use your terminology) what constituted a “person.”
Hope you think about these things and join us one day.
Good evening, Maureen.
What I objected to is the proposition that “a freaking science book” supports your way, and not other ways.
Science does not rule on moral questions – that is my point.
Science will not be altered by semantic differences. I’m sure you agree with that, and the fact is that you and I do not disagree on any medical/biological/scientific facts mentioned here.
What you and I disagree on is not a matter of science. Yet you said, “You are the one who doesn’t understand science.”
That simply does not make sense.
I’m not objecting to saying the birth of a baby, or the birth of a neonate, not in the least. I’m also not changing the subject; again – I’m stating that neither semantics nor biological reality is the argument here.
My comment about “baby” goes to the fact that yes, you can say, “baby at conception,” and somebody else can say, “not a baby until birth,” and both are equally correct – the meaning of the word can be varied (as any number of dictionaries will support), much more so than, for example, “neonate” – which you mentioned. There, the definition is much more nailed-down within our language.
“It is not a “broad definition” to include all stages of human development when referring to human persons (yes – persons), it is scientific fact.”
This is where you are wrong. Your frustration is not based on the presence or lack of scientific fact. It is based on the legal status of the unborn, and science does not weigh in on that (as above, it does not rule on moral questions).
Thus my objection to the premise that a science book supports your position on the abortion discussion. It does not address any position, there.
________________________________________
Long post, I know…
” In every case of oppression and genocide, the victims were viewed as less than human.”
Not every case – sometimes it’s just that one tribe wants to bash another, knowing full well they’re really the same in most ways – but I understand what you are saying.
“Less than human” is not the case, here, regardless. I am not saying the unborn are not human. They are as human as both of us. So, really, are the egg and sperm, prior to fertilization and conception. What of it? It’s not the issue.
What you are really saying is that we should treat the unborn differently. Okay, and many people feel as you do, obviously.
So now we are down to the real argument. Even before we get to how we feel about abortion, it is not possible to treat the unborn exactly the same, because the unborn are within a person, to begin with. Again, this is without making any statement about the morality of abortion.
Beyond the practical impossibility of such exact-same-treatment, I grant you that there are possibilities for change in the legal status of the unborn.
Corbin writes, “Person” – this is a societal status. Your Supreme Court has members who feel a business corporation qualifies in some respects – obviously this is an opinion. This is what a court says.”
The First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Notice that the word people only appears with the right to peaceably assemble. It is not found in the sections regarding religion, speech, or redress of grievances. When the Founders wanted to restrict a right or responsibility to individual human beings, they inserted the word person or citizen into the Constitution. Otherwise, it is open to groups or corporations as well. I hope this clears it up for you.
Hello Corbin –
Egg and sperm before conception are not as “human as both of us.” They only have 1/2 of the chromosomes, among other differences. At fertilization a totally unique and new human being begins.
I think my mistake was still giving the benefit of the doubt to most pro-aborts. I thought that if people understood the scientific facts of human development, they would not be able to support abortion. I am coming to the realization that many pro-aborts fully understand that abortion takes the life of a human being, but do not care.
That is why there is such a disconnect between us, for example. It is unfathomable to me that anyone can be okay with this. The placement of the person makes no difference (dare I say look in a “freaking” textbook for how the human race reproduces). The only argument may come when the life of the mother and the life of the baby are in conflict. I feel I must note that by “life” I mean the scientific definition of life, not some subjective opinion.
I also want to go back to my original post and say that the methods opposed by Hobby Lobby and other groups do result in an early abortion. The science on this is clear.
Despite my sadness that pro-aborts can be so callous toward a young, totally innocent human being, I am heartened by the fact that this argument will be made more obvious as time goes on. I hope the majority of people will be repulsed by this and we can finally put an end to the acceptance of this legalized carnage.
I do hope that you continue to ask yourself why, knowing that the unborn are humans in an early stage of development, you can sanction their murder (semantics alert – yes, I mean murder).
Rita
Very good thread here.
MoJoanne (surely one of the great Forum names there), the Constitution is really about limiting powers of the gov’t with respect to the people. It’s not about enumerating rights nor deeming rights present for corporations.
The Hobby Lobby deal is not big for me. I do think the precedent set, and the shameless way in which the supposed “narrowness” of the decision was immediately discarded (the very-soon-following Wheaton College decision) are bad, though. The door is open for discrimination laws to be skirted on the basis of “it’s our religion to do so.”
Corbin’s point about personbood being a societal status stands, whether we consider people or corporations, etc.
—–
Maureen (and Rita is darn nice too), I’ve had similar discussion in the past. The egg and sperm are just as human. Doesn’t matter if the number of chromosomes is different. If there was only one, and it was “human,” then 100% is still 100%.
After fertilization, a totally unique and new human being – yeah, but nobody told you any different. As Corbin was saying, not the argument.
—–
I am coming to the realization that many pro-aborts fully understand that abortion takes the life of a human being, but do not care.
I think you’re misstating things, there. And most people are hardly “pro-abortion,” any more than you are “pro-woman-enslaving.” It’s not that there is “no caring,” it’s that not everybody agrees with you. There is plenty of caring – for the pregnant woman. Why should your will be enforced by law, over hers? I say that we, as a society, have no need to do that.
—–
That is why there is such a disconnect between us, for example. It is unfathomable to me that anyone can be okay with this. The placement of the person makes no difference (dare I say look in a “freaking” textbook for how the human race reproduces).
We know reproduction, but his point is well taken – that the unborn are inside the body of a person most definitely makes a difference. It is impossible to treat them the exact same way.
“Being okay with this” – I do see a difference between earlier in gestation and later on – but even without getting into that, an abortion results in the same thing as a miscarriage. A miscarriage can be a very sad thing when the pregnancy was wanted, no doubt about it, but when it is not, then not, and a miscarriage may not be known about, by anybody.
The fact is that you never or almost never know when somebody has an abortion, or a miscarriage, for that matter. It is the idea of abortion that you object to. I also note that even among people who would previously call themselves “pro-life,” a significant percentage of unwanted pregnancies are ended via abortion. Those people see that in their particular situation, an abortion is the best thing. Once again, why should your opinion be enforced over theirs?
—–
Despite my sadness that pro-aborts can be so callous toward a young, totally innocent human being, I am heartened by the fact that this argument will be made more obvious as time goes on. I hope the majority of people will be repulsed by this and we can finally put an end to the acceptance of this legalized carnage. I do hope that you continue to ask yourself why, knowing that the unborn are humans in an early stage of development, you can sanction their murder (semantics alert – yes, I mean murder).
You’re jumping off the track with “murder.” It’s a legal term. It does not mean something that you don’t like, and that’s what’s operative here.
Still, I can see you’re pretty earnest. However, “callous” implies being unsympathetic or blind to the suffering of others, and it is only a very small percentage of abortions that a case for suffering on the part of the unborn can be made. Additionally, there is the suffering of the woman who does not want to be pregnant – that cannot be argued. If we are to talk about being “callous,” then let us consider the pregnant woman or girl – this is why I’m pro-choice.
Beyond our talking points, I think that your argument won’t be “more obvious” in the future. It’s pretty obvious, now, but by no means is it the only consideration. Not claiming to be able to predict the future 100%, but worldwide, population pressure is working against you.
Hello Doug:
I only know you as Doug, but I noticed you did some checking up on my name. Don’t know how you did that – I am not very savvy about those things but it felt like it was a pretty creepy attempt at intimidation. You could have just asked for more personal information about me if you wanted to know. I don’t have to remain anonymous but I thought this was the norm for this site.
At any rate, your argument seems to boil down to a few points.
1.) More people agree with the pro-abort philosophy so therefore the pro-aborts are right. The pro-life position is not based on popularity, but in saving the lives of human beings despite their age. (There are many corollary subjects, but they do not change the heart of the issue). Of course, now that the popular tide is turning toward the pro-life side, particularly regarding young people, I can understand the desperation that is seeping out in the pro-aborts posts.
2.) A persistent denial of the scientific facts of human development. Eggs and sperm by themselves do not constitute a human being. A unique human being is created at fertilization. This is a fact, deal with it.
3.) Your misogynistic view of pregnancy aside, pregnancy is not a parasitic fatal disease, it is one of the normal states of the human female. In no way does being pregnant give someone the right to kill another person. The viewpoint that the stronger should be able to dominate (to the point of death) those that are weaker is not a valid moral position. It is an immoral position.
4.) Word play. Your posts, like most of those by the pro-aborts, boil down to semantics. Words have meaning. Murder is not just a legal term that can change on a whim. It is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.
5.) This “Aw, schucks, can’t we all just get along” mentality, along with a dose of condescension, is wearing thin. As I posted before it is becoming clearer that pro-aborts (yes – pro-aborts) are fine with the killing of those that are weaker.
Rita
Maureen, I think he addressed you as Rita because you signed your last comment as Rita.
http://www.jillstanek.com/2014/07/prolife-video-day-marxism-good-charitable-nuns-bad/#comment-496766
Wow, Megyn Kelly really seems to bring the pro-choicers to this site (or maybe it’s just Priscilla who did that – and thank you, by the way, and welcome to the comment-likers. Come out, come out, wherever you are).
A certain longtime commenter here (that recently returned from a lengthy hiatus) always seems to be joined by a rather boisterous crowd of trolls whenever he’s around. I’m not naming names or making an accusation (and it’s probably entirely coincidental), but it is something I’ve observed.
Maureen, oh lawd – I didn’t check up on you – I have no way of seeing anything “more,” here. On your last two posts, I am seeing “Rita” down at the bottom, that’s all I know.
Must be something like a saved signature, Maureen…? Not all your posts show it, so I don’t know the deal, really. I’m sorry you felt like it was creepy; I simply would not do that.
We also have Kel’s wonderings if Priscilla is a real person. I think we should call in the Jackson, Mississippi police, to get to the bottom of it all.
If it makes any difference, I will henceforth post in my real name: Bartholemew Q. Schmecklestein. (Just kidding.)
1.) More people agree with the pro-abort philosophy so therefore the pro-aborts are right. The pro-life position is not based on popularity, but in saving the lives of human beings despite their age. (There are many corollary subjects, but they do not change the heart of the issue). Of course, now that the popular tide is turning toward the pro-life side, particularly regarding young people, I can understand the desperation that is seeping out in the pro-aborts posts.
“Semantics” has been mentioned, and here you are engaging in it. If you find somebody that favors women having abortions against their will, i.e. having them forced to have them, then you’ve got somebody that is actually “pro-abortion.”
Meanwhile, “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are understood by all here. As for really being “for abortion,” or not, if nobody wanted abortions, it would be fine with me.
I’ve also never said that the amount of people with one opinion or the other is the end-all of anything. It has fluctuated and will fluctuated, and I grant you that in the past couple decades there has been an increase in pro-life sentiment.
Good to know Doug about the name thing! My apologies to you. I just go ahead and sign my name without thinking. I’m not so good with the anonymous. Again, I’m sorry for accusing you of nefarious dealings.
2.) A persistent denial of the scientific facts of human development. Eggs and sperm by themselves do not constitute a human being. A unique human being is created at fertilization. This is a fact, deal with it.
You have never seen me say anything to the effect that at fertilization a unique human being is not created. I also specifically reaffirmed this above: “After fertilization, a totally unique and new human being – yeah, but nobody told you any different. As Corbin was saying, not the argument.”
(As far as “human being,” and the egg and sperm, it depends on how we are using the term. Obviously, the “human” as an adjective can apply, and as long as a thing has existence, reality, a state of “being,” itself, then it can be said to be a being, as a noun. Of course this would be a broader definition than one where “living, unique organism that will develop (usually)” is included as a qualification.
Likewise, there can be further restricted usages of the term where more is imputed, consciousness, for example. This is all the scope of the discussion here, but there has been no debate over it yet in this thread.)
What I said in the posts above was, “The egg and sperm are just as human.” I did not say they are a “human being” in the same way that one is present after conception.
You said my argument seems to boil down to a few points, but you are missing it, so far.
3.) Your misogynistic view of pregnancy aside, pregnancy is not a parasitic fatal disease, it is one of the normal states of the human female. In no way does being pregnant give someone the right to kill another person. The viewpoint that the stronger should be able to dominate (to the point of death) those that are weaker is not a valid moral position. It is an immoral position.
I don’t see why you say I have a misogynistic view of pregnancy, Maureen. I also said nothing about “parasite.”
I agree that being pregnant does not give somebody the right to kill another person, but full personhood is not present for the unborn – and it is this fact that you (and pro-lifers in general) object to.
Corbin said that personhood is “legal status for human beings. This is not a matter of science, this is a matter of what a society says.” Well, that is correct. What you want is for different status to be deemed for the unborn – you want them protected by the Constitution, you want some laws changed, with respect to the unborn, etc. You want society to change the way it treats the unborn.
It is not that “the strong should dominate the weak.” It is that the unborn are inside the body of a person. This would be the case even if somehow the unborn baby were stronger than the pregnant woman. As before, it is just plain impossible to treat the unborn exactly as we treat the born. This is a practical matter of fact, even before we start arguing about all the good/bad/right/wrong of abortion.
4.) Word play. Your posts, like most of those by the pro-aborts, boil down to semantics. Words have meaning. Murder is not just a legal term that can change on a whim. It is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.
Pretty much disagree across the board, there. ;)
For the *’manyeth’* time (I have said this or similar literally hundreds, if not thousands of times on this blog alone), it really does not matter what our preference in terminology is. Example: there is no point in arguing over when “baby” applies. It’s not a valid argument to say that abortion is okay because “it’s not a baby,” nor is it one to say that abortion is wrong because “it’s a baby.” That kind of thing goes nowhere. Dictionaries support using the term either way.
While I agree that murder does not just change “on a whim,” it remains a legal term (and not one of preference), not necessarily applying to an act due to the fact that you don’t like it.
The killing, first of all, would have to be illegal for “murder” to apply. That a death occurs, by itself, in no way means that it’s murder.
I am no Bible scholar, not at all, but we often hear one of the Commandments quoted as, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Well, no, that’s wrong. “Thou shalt not murder,” was the deal, there. In no way was all killing prohibited – the Old Testament is chock-full of killing, situations that called for killing, rules for killing, etc. For “murder” to apply, the killing had to be illegal, and in a general sense had to be held as harmful to the community.
5.) This “Aw, schucks, can’t we all just get along” mentality, along with a dose of condescension, is wearing thin. As I posted before it is becoming clearer that pro-aborts (yes – pro-aborts) are fine with the killing of those that are weaker.
Not sure what you mean about the “Aw, shucks,” attitude, or condescension. I don’t think you can point to scientific errors in what I post, nor do I fail to note when things are opinion, as opposed to external fact. Rather than incorrectly paraphrase my arguments, why not just quote them?
In no way does “weaker” really matter here. “Inside the body of a person” certainly does.
In the end, you and I agree on physical fact.
You more want the unborn life to continue, regardless of the wishes of the pregnant woman, and I more want the pregnant woman to be able to choose to end the pregnancy if she wishes (to a point in gestation).
Hey Doug – I am embarrassed that I moved somewhat into “crazyland” by accusing you of stalking me. I am going to take this as a sign that I need to sign-off on this discussion. I appreciate that you took so long to write a reply, please read my original posts. There is nothing that you wrote that changes my original position, it seems that you are just trying to obfuscate the science of when life begins and the moral positions of killing that life. I know you want me to chase you down the rabbit hole with word games etc. But I just can’t play that game, the stakes are too high. We are talking about taking an innocent human life here. Again, I am sincerely, sorry to accuse you falsely and appreciate your gracious acceptance of my apology.
Maureen, no big deal at all, totally understandable.
I didn’t expect you to change your position – how often does that ever really happen, anyway?
You are still pretending about where we differ, and how, though. You spent a lot of time paraphrasing what you claim I say, but incorrectly so, and in any case you could have just quoted me…
It all boils down to this: “You more want the unborn life to continue, regardless of the wishes of the pregnant woman, and I more want the pregnant woman to be able to choose to end the pregnancy if she wishes (to a point in gestation).”