Stanek weekend question: How has the pro-life movement changed for the better?
Pro-life vigils are numerous these days in Ireland, where the abortion-free haven is in danger of legalizing the murder of its wee preborn bairns.
After observing a June 8 vigil in Dublin, Irish Times columnist Ann Marie Hourihane observed:
The ostensible shift of emphasis to caring for, rather than castigating, the unmarried pregnant girl has created a strange anti-abortion world.
This would be considered “strange” only if one had bought the lie that pro-lifers care only for babies, not mothers.
But it is true that pro-lifers have done a better job showing their concern for women in recent years.
How else has the pro-life movement improved over the course of time? What strategies and messaging have we improved?
Jun.15, 2013 1:33 pm |
Weekend question |
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.
I totally think that 40 Days for Life has been a huge blessing to the pro life movement. Oh yes, and then there is And Then There Were None, a new ministry for those who want to leave the abortion industry.
People from all walks of life are involved especially the younger generation who bring new energy, hope, and social media to the cause.
Pregnancy resource centers and ministries which offer free tangible assistance
An optimistic attitude centered on prayer, a peaceful positive presence, and persistence
Legislation since the Webster and Casey decisions that allows states to regulate the procedure and address the humanity of the pre-born child
The pro-life world has gotten better at embracing post-abortive women, and listening to our stories of how we were lied to by the abortion industry and how deeply we regret our decisions. Sadly, I still hear condemning statements.
The Pro-life movement grows larger and younger and more feminine every year.
There are more CPC’s than ever, providing ultrasounds and real assistance to women in need.
We are electing more courageous pro-life leaders, and politicians are listening more to their constituents when we urge pro-life legislation. They have seen the abuse that is inflicted upon women when they refuse to touch Pelosi’s “sacred ground.”
Focusing on state-level legislation, instead of putting all hope of our salvation in Washington.
I give most credit to several critical groups and their allies:
– 40 Days for Life, for giving great masses of us an opportunity to participate locally.
– Live Action, for their innovative exposure of what actually happens inside the abortion industry
– Susan B. Anthony List, for mobilizing political clout and letting authentic pro-life candidates know that they have our support.
– Operation Rescue, for their persistent vigilance in uncovering and exposing the unsafe and unsanitary hacks and scofflaws of the abortion industry.
– March for Life, because the abortion industry and the Washington politicians cannot ignore a half-million young people marching in peace, even if the media can.
– Silent No More, because the voice of the victims is finally being heard.
– And Then There Were None, because Abby is right: The suffering and abused abortion workers are the weakest link in the abortion industry. They need our love and help, as much as the post-abortive women do.
These efforts combine to turn the hearts of the public. These encourage women to go to CPC’s for real help, instead of being coerced into Planned Parenthood’s “choice.” These encourage the post abortive women to seek healing such as Rachel’s Vineyard. These encourage states and communities to pass and enforce laws that protect women from the hard sales-push at Planned Parenthood and all of the late-term abortion hacks.
It hasn’t. It’s raison d’etre is still the denial of womens reproductive rights and choices.
“the abortion-free haven” – and just a little bit more ‘woman-free’ than it would otherwise be as women travel outside the country to maintain their reproductive rights.
HolyLOVE.ORG!!!
We’ve gotten better by realizing many people are woefully ignorant of the unborn, and that simply making the argument about saving lives isn’t enough, we’ve had to reach people where they are to lead them further down the right path. Reality provides an excellent example, somehow inventing wicked woman-hating enemies out of us to buttress his or her shaky view that human life has no intrinsic value and killing them for convenience is justified. For those unwilling to look at the unborn or unready, we have to keep preparing them. Someday we’ll even get you to look Reality, and your reality will change 180 degrees for the better!
Reality says:
June 16, 2013 at 8:05 pm
It hasn’t. It’s raison d’etre is still the denial of womens reproductive rights and choices.
Good point, Reality! The question is, “Has the pro-life movement changed for the better?”
One solid data observation in our favor: Abortion enthusiasts insist that the pro-life movement has gotten worse!
WEIGH IN ON IRELANDS FREEDOM:
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-protesters-demonstrate-outside-politicians-homes-954157-Jun2013/#comment-1298295
Make sure to VOTE at the end of the article
The ostensible shift of emphasis to caring for, rather than castigating, the unmarried pregnant girl has created a strange anti-abortion world.
Oh, wow. This is just unreal and shows how astoundingly myopic they are and how mired in chants and slogans that mean nothing. They have never even seriously LOOKED at our actual positions, instead creating a straw man pro-life movement – one that doesn’t exist, one of their own making. That’s why they’re so stunned and calling it “strange.”
I was working on the front lines at a pregnancy care center FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. And there were many, many, many pregnancy care centers at that time. There are even more now. CATCH UP, will ya, abortion fans? You just look ridiculous.
“It’s raison d’etre is still the denial of womens reproductive rights and choices.”
We’ve gotten better at pointing out the “women’s rights” strawman and keeping focused on the fact that killing a very young child is not a reproductive right, since a pregnant woman has already reproduced. We’ve gotten stronger by more WOMEN speaking out against abortion against MEN who use abortion to kill the children they’ve created to whom they have obligations and use US for their own pleasure. We’ve gotten better at showing how abortion is used to kill female children around the world-very young WOMEN-and how that’s caused a demographic catastrophe around the globe.
We’ve gotten better at striking down the insane and absurd notion that abortion is for our own good, baby, just lay back and exercise those rights. *spit*
“a pregnant woman has already reproduced.” – you’ve said this a few times now. You’re wrong. Reproduction is a process, not an instant event. A 10 week fetus is not a ‘reproduction’ it is in the process of becoming a reproduction.
Pronunciation: r??pr?-d?k?sh?n
Definitions:
1. The total process by which organisms produce offspring.
2. The recall and presentation in the mind of the elements of a former impression.
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=77478
If a newly pregnant woman has ‘already reproduced’ then the product of conception would be self-viable.
“more WOMEN speaking out against abortion” – the same ones just getting noisier.
“abortion is used to kill female children around the world-very young WOMEN” – about as accurate as your first claim.
Wow, reality, what you know about science and biology would fit in a thimble. You do know what a thimble is, don’t you? If not, look it up on Wikipedia. The exercise will do you good. ;>)
“what you know about science and biology would fit in a thimble” – well, the information is all at my fingertip but I don’t feel the need to wear a thimble whilst accessing it.
That’s freaky ninek, I provided the link to wikipedia’s explanation of what science is to someone here just yesterday!
And the medical dictionaries – you know, the ones full of the science and biology stuff that anti-choicers keep citing – have shown us that a newly pregnant woman has not ‘already reproduced’. I even provided the link!
After conception, the embryo grows via mitosis. Mitosis. My-toes-es. That, my good friend, indicates that the new creature (whether human, cat, or canary) is already produced, past tense. Conception marked the beginning of your new life, reality. We celebrate birthdays because of social custom. Social custom is not science. Human beings are alive and whole at conception. At birth, we are simply bigger and more developed. Even you!
Since reproduction involves the creation of new people, the entire concept of “reproductive freedom” deserves to be re-examined and perhaps to a large extent discarded. I’m not calling for quotas on how many or how few children a family can have. However, society has an interest in the next generation and, thus, a right to set limits on both the freedom to escape reproducing and the freedom to reproduce.
What an absolute mish-mash of mixed concepts!
“the new creature is already produced” – well something is already produced. ‘produced’ is quite distinct from ‘reproduced’. That new creature is a long way short of what it will be once the reproductive process is complete.
“Conception marked the beginning of your new life, reality.” – a new life, yes. The ‘word’ life means that something is living. That’s all. It doesn’t imbue it with all the attributes which you try to allot to it.
“Human beings are alive and whole at conception” – no need for that gestation business then is there. They can get out and walk, yes?
“At birth, we are simply bigger and more developed.” – it’s what that development entails which is important.
Speaking of that, ahem, ‘abortion-free haven’ that is Ireland, I see that now that the report on the young lady who died needlessly has identified areas of concern, the government is moving to clarify the law.
“The new legislation is aimed at clarifying the rules that legalise abortions in exceptional cases where doctors deem it necessary to save a woman’s life.”
“(Enda) Kenny said he was a Catholic but he was proud to be a Taoiseach, or prime minister, for all the Irish people.”
“Kenny said he had received a barrage of insults over the legislation.”
“I am getting medals, scapulars, plastic foetuses, letters written in blood, telephone calls all over the system,” he told parliament on Wednesday.
“I am now being branded by personnel around the country as being a murderer, and that I am going to have on my soul the death of 20 million babies.”
Feel the love.
Since abortion advocates are now embracing infanticide, on demand without apology, it would be futile to describe all the developmental milestones that your average human meets before reaching, for example, voting age. Those of us who are pro-life don’t need to wrestle with personhood or deny science or biology.
You may advocate the destruction of your own fellow human beings, yes, even those human beings that YOU helped create when you and your girlfriend partner REPRODUCED. A baby can’t reproduce, but a post-adolescent human can. Your ex-girlfriend realizes that her baby is dead, and she try-as-she-might isn’t as adept at self-deception as you obviously must be.
Reality, my biology teacher is so sad, won’t you please avail yourself of the basic facts of human reproduction? She’s a sweet old lady, and I hate to see her cry.
“Since abortion advocates are now embracing infanticide, on demand without apology” – are they?
“Those of us who are pro-life don’t need to wrestle with personhood or deny science or biology.” – that’s funny.
That’s a whole lot of imaginery activity you’re attributing to some imaginary ‘you’ there ninek.
“A baby can’t reproduce, but a post-adolescent human can” – indeed. And a female post-adolescent human plays a significant role in the reproductive process.
“my biology teacher is so sad,” – I’m not surprsied! And all that time she thought you were paying attention.
“won’t you please avail yourself of the basic facts of human reproduction” – I have. And what they tell me is that the reproductive process doesn’t consist of intercourse, conception, ZAM!!, instant fully formed human reproduction. My understanding is that there is a little more to it. Claiming that someone or something has ‘already reproduced’ indicates that the process is complete. As I stated earlier “If a newly pregnant woman has ‘already reproduced’ then the product of conception would be self-viable.”
See, you set ‘self-viability’ as your goalpost. When were you ‘self-viable’? 6 months after birth? Hardly. Like Peter Singer, you indeed do support infanticide. You are deeply invested in your belief that new humans aren’t people. Because you don’t want to admit abortion kills a person. There is no illogical length an abortion advocate won’t stretch a lie to in order to comfort himself. We all see it. We all know it. You’re hardly even fooling yourself, much less any pro-lifer who can read.
Is it honestly your life’s pursuit to advocate for killing babies that you claim aren’t people?
1. The total process by which organisms produce offspring.
And a human organism in utero is not offspring, Reality? Really?
You’re reaching so hard to prove your point you’re making quite the fool of yourself.
Your very own definition you’ve supplied mentions absolutely NOTHING about any properties the offspring must possess. That is something YOU inserted YOURSELF because of your mental hang-ups.
the same ones just getting noisier.
You REALLY have to do a lot of imagining to support your worldview, don’t you.
about as accurate as your first claim.
Thanks for backing me up.
OK, everyone, I must repeat it yet again: Don’t feed the troll.
Carry on JDC!!
And thank you. :)
“Carry on JDC!!”
Don’t worry, I will.
“And thank you.”
You’re welcome. :)
I hate letting a trolls get the last word! I admit it! Help me Jesus!
LOL.
“I hate letting a trolls get the last word!”
I can understand the urge, but it’s all worth it when they leave after not getting the attention they desire.
Maypole dancing again are you ninek? Let me clarify for you. self-viable in that it can breath, digest etc. No longer in the womb. The reproductive process has achieved its outcome. You know very well my point is that a six week fetus is not the completion of the reproductive process, it is part way along the process.
“Like Peter Singer, you indeed do support infanticide.” – an assertion you make by being misleading about what I’ve said.
“Because you don’t want to admit abortion kills a person.” – there’s no admission that could be made. A gestating fetus is not a person.
“Is it honestly your life’s pursuit to advocate for killing babies that you claim aren’t people?” – not at all. Part of my life’s work is to support women in their overall freedom and equality, their right to maintain their reproductive choices and their resistance against patriarchy.
1. The total process by which organisms produce offspring.
“And a human organism in utero is not offspring, Reality? Really?” – hey, if you want to refer to a gestating fetus as ‘offspring’ I don’t have a huge beeef with that.
What you seem to be attempting to avoid however, are the words “total process”.
“You REALLY have to do a lot of imagining to support your worldview, don’t you.” – not really, people here confirm it for me constantly.
“Thanks for backing me up.” – hardly. Both your claims are wrong.
Why do you feel the urgent need to get approval from pro-lifers? Hmm? Why come here on a daily basis trying to get our attention and approval? If you’re really so at ease with your baby’s death, why persist? Why haven’t you moved on with your life?
“Why do you feel the urgent need to get approval from pro-lifers?” – what is this statement supposed to be attempting to do? I don’t need or seek your approval. How could I possibly be doing so by questioning, disagreeing and challenging your claims? If I sought your approval I would post sporadic two or three line comments agreeing with you without actually contributing anything.
“If you’re really so at ease with your baby’s death, why persist?” – while it may be easy to toss in such absurd disparagements, they need to be based in fact to be useful.
“Why haven’t you moved on with your life?” – I’ve done a bit of ‘moving on’ during my life. But I can’t move on in regard to this topic while I still see the need to support women in their overall freedom and equality, their right to maintain their reproductive choices and their resistance against patriarchy.
Your urgent need to get the last word with us IS proof that you need US to give you the response you crave. Why? Why is Jill’s audience so important to your self-esteem?
You MUST respond to my last comments. If you don’t, that means I win.
Every time you let me get the last word, a non-person is born into this world…
Every time I get the last word, Amanda Marcotte gets a new gray hair.
Each time I comment last, Cecile Richards loses the heel off one of her shoes…
Be their knight in shining … oh no you can’t rescue them, that would make you the patriarchy!
OK, stopping now..
Seriously, after this comment, I’m not going to type any more…
“Seriously, after this comment, I’m not going to type any more…”
We believe you…
Aw gee, I thought you wanted the last comment? I do like your string of comments though, nice touch.
I don’t have an”urgent need to get the last word with us”, I just don’t see why I should idly stand by and let inaccuracies and singular viewpoints be espoused without response.
“IS proof that you need US to give you the response you crave. Why? Why is Jill’s audience so important to your self-esteem?” – again with the disparagement. You can’t debunk the message so you attempt to debunk the messenger, is that it?
“I’m not going to type any more…” – what, ever? Anywhere? About anything? :-)
“…The reproductive process has achieved its outcome. You know very well my point is that a six week fetus is not the completion of the reproductive process, it is part way along the process…”
Actually, the zygote is the completion of the reproductive process of sexual reproduction. We learned about this starting in high school, and went further in depth in college biology learning about mitosis and recombination and all that.
This is…really SIMPLE stuff, Reality.
Given how much doctrine masquerading as science can be found in too many schools, backed up by some states school boards constant attempts to hijack facts, who knows what you were taught back then.
I constantly review information and update myself on what is current.
Perhaps this would have been useful at your school? It’s quite clear –
http://www.sciencehelpdesk.com/unit/bg3/4
This one isn’t too bad –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction#Process
The zygote is not the completion of the reproductive process.
Lol! X is right and Wiki concurs:
“Human reproduction takes place as internal fertilisation by sexual intercourse.” Gosh, that’s “life begins at conception” and nary a word about mom having to say magic words of personhood over the little baby! Reality, please don’t change sides; you’d embarrass us. Lol, just kidding, please do cross over!
And hey let’s crack a bottle of bubbly to celebrate the passing of 1797 by 228 over 196!! Now, to watch the obaminator bring attention to his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. What’s that prez, you want to veto what? why? Oh, do tell!
“Lol! X is right and Wiki concurs:” – er, no. You are talking about two different things. Wiki concurred with my rebuttal of xalisae’s claim.
“Human reproduction takes place as internal fertilisation by sexual intercourse.” – that’s not what the link you provided says. It states “Fertilization which takes place inside the female body is called internal fertilization.”
“Gosh, that’s “life begins at conception” – yes, something that I have agreed with on numerous occasions.
“and nary a word about mom having to say magic words of personhood” – no magic words, just science. ‘Life’ is one thing, ‘person’ another.
“Lol, just kidding, please do cross over!” – I know you don’t mean that in a John Edward way :-)
“And hey let’s crack a bottle of bubbly to celebrate the passing of 1797 by 228 over 196!!” – better drink it fast! It’s gonna turn bitter very quickly.
“Now, to watch the obaminator bring attention to his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” – about as successfully as has happened so far. At least it’d give him the opportunity to expose the TRAP elements.
“What’s that prez, you want to veto what? why? Oh, do tell!” – because the majority wouldn’t like the idea of legislation based on spurious claims and with no exceptions. “Discovered at 22 weeks that your fetus is lacking a brain? Bad Luck.”
Given how much doctrine masquerading as science can be found in too many schools, backed up by some states school boards constant attempts to hijack facts, who knows what you were taught back then.
Or who knows what you’re trying to pass off as fact right now. See, the sword you’re trying to use to discredit me cuts both ways.
The fact that the curriculum you’ve cited talks about contraception tells me it is agenda-driven rather than factually-oriented.
Sexual reproduction is a process that creates a new organism by combining the genetic material of two organisms…There are two main processes during sexual reproduction in eukaryotes: meiosis, involving the halving of the number of chromosomes; andfertilization, involving the fusion of two gametes and the restoration of the original number of chromosomes. During meiosis, the chromosomes of each pair usually cross over to achieve homologous recombination.
Yeah. When you cut through that “doctrine masquerading as science”, you find the facts agree with me, “Reality”.
no magic words, just science. ‘Life’ is one thing, ‘person’ another.
…said the 1800’s slaveowner.
mods, I have another comment that’s stuck due to copy/paste links. If you could fish it out for me, I’d be highly appreciative.
“Or who knows what you’re trying to pass off as fact right now. See, the sword you’re trying to use to discredit me cuts both ways.” – conveniently ignoring “I constantly review information and update myself on what is current.”
“The fact that the curriculum you’ve cited talks about contraception tells me it is agenda-driven rather than factually-oriented.” – contraception isn’t factual now?!? Show me which sections aren’t factual.
The Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and the British Council are agenda-driven? In what way? Where is the evidence? I think they do have an agenda, it just isn’t anything like what you are trying to imply.
So you looked up what Wiki tells us about ‘sexual reproduction’, as distinct from other methods of reproduction. It details the process which initiates the reproductive process. At least you didn’t change the words when you did the copy and paste thing.
As Wiki tells us when we look up ‘human reproduction’, it is a process which “begins with sexual intercourse, followed by nine months of pregnancy before childbirth.” It then details this process.
So no, the facts do not agree with you. You keep selecting elements of the processs and claiming that because they include the word ‘reproduction’ this indicates that the process is complete at its commencement. The text you cited covers more than just one element of the process so it needs to inform us of those elements encompassed into a term which indicates that they are part of that process. But when we seek information on the ‘reproductive process’ – from the same source – it includes a whole lot more, demonstrating that the process is not complete at its commencement. If it was complete at its commencement then either the ‘process’ would only include what you claim is the complete process or the term ‘process’ wouldn’t be mentioned at all.
“…said the 1800?s slaveowner” – 1800’s slaveowners said that slaves weren’t people because they made their claim based on things other than science. The science demonstrates that the people subject to slavery were in fact persons. I stated “‘Life’ is one thing, ‘person’ another.” because ‘life’ exists on a broader range than just humans and the science that tells us that slaves are persons also tells us that gestating fetuses are not.
The same Wikipedia article includes “many years” of parental care as part of the process. So I guess you haven’t really finished reproducing until a sexually mature adult walks out of your house.
Perhaps
It says “Human reproduction begins with sexual intercourse, followed by nine months of pregnancy before childbirth.” – full stop.
It then goes on to say “Many years of parental care are required before a human child becomes independent.”
It also says “Pregnancy can be avoided with the use of contraceptives such as condoms and IUD’s.”
Do you consider condoms and IUD’s to be part of the reproductive process?
Under the ‘Parental care’ part of the reproductive process it states “Human babies are nearly helpless and require high levels of parental care for many years. One important type of parental care is nursing – feeding the baby milk from the mother’s mammary glands in her breasts.” – it doesn’t go any further.
Maybe none of us should use wiki as a source, it almost looks like they are heading into Singer territory!
But since Merriam-Webster tells us that a reproduction is:
1: the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual
2: something reproduced : copy
perhaps you are right that the reproductive process isn’t complete until sexual maturity is reached.
It seems like you’re just cherry-picking parts of the article. “Many years” is in there twice, and breastfeeding is only described as “one important type of parental care”.
Do you consider condoms and IUD’s to be part of the reproductive process?
They’re tools that can be used to reduce the likelihood of successful reproduction without inflicting harm on a human being.
Maybe none of us should use wiki as a source, it almost looks like they are heading into Singer territory!
Nah, Peter Singer doesn’t advocate for “reproductive choice” past a few months post-birth. Not “several years”. Though I’m pretty sure his arguments aren’t based on semantic trolling about where the reproductive process ends…
Merriam-Webster’s definition is questionable. I thought we already established that the the unborn is a new organism (rather than a “segregat[ed] portion of the parental body”) that directs its own growth and differentiation? The second definition, of course, is only relevant to cases of monozygotic twinning.
“Though I’m pretty sure his arguments aren’t based on semantic trolling”
Anyone else think that semanti trolling would make an awesome name for a band?
“It seems like you’re just cherry-picking parts of the article.” – I think there’s been a whole lot of that going on here Navi.
The bottom line is that reproduction is a process which extends beyond conception. Therefore the claim that a newly pregnant woman has ‘already reproduced’ is just plain wrong. Reproduction has commenced.
“They’re tools that can be used to reduce the likelihood of successful reproduction without inflicting harm on a human being.” – I think I’ve seen people here say things about IUD’s that disagree with that.
“Nah, Peter Singer doesn’t advocate for “reproductive choice” past a few months post-birth. Not “several years”.” – I thought it was a few years post-birth. Agreed, I think he uses personhood as a definer.
“Merriam-Webster’s definition is questionable.” – maybe they are starting from the distinctive egg and sperm.
Indeed it would JDC.
Of course he’s cherry picking! LOL, of course, cherries, being not human, get to be cherries the whole time they’re cherries. Humans must wait for the magic words to be spoken over them before they become people.
Basically, what Reality is saying, over and over, is that men can’t reproduce human beings. They can help produce primates with half their DNA, but those aren’t ever, ever going to be people. Only women can make a primate a person. Right? ONLY A WOMAN CAN MAKE A PRIMATE A PERSON. Ooo, so scientific! I wonder if the magic words appear as a question on a college biology test?
In summary: It is impossible for men to reproduce. Though other mammals reproduce, in the human race, men cannot. Get that guys? YOU CAN’T CREATE HUMANS, only primates! If mommy doesn’t say the magic words, and the little critter escapes the scissors, we gotta send that critter to a zoo. Adoption is only for people. Animals (who are not people) belong in the zoo. So, Reality, should he produce any primates, will have to go to the zoo to watch them grow up. Yep. That’s your biology lesson for the day. Brought to you by the man in the green vest!
Semantic Trolling’s first hit song will be: “Ima Chimp Cuz Mama Din’t Love Me.”
Does this mean that Michael Jackson actually had 4 children? I think it does. I think WE saw a chimp, but Michael, oh he believed Mr. Bubbles was a person. Too bad Michael wasn’t a woman, cuz then he could’ve said the magic words and Bubbles could’ve started kindergarten.
Readers, I am of course using humor to drive a point home. You can’t claim to be scientific in one breath and in the next claim that biologic facts are determined by maternal opinion. For over 10 thousand years, humans took it for granted that we are all people. Only in the twisted world of abortion do they suddenly decide in the last few decades that 10K years of human history are wrong. In 1972, a pregnant lady was going to have a human baby. But since 1973 in the United States, nobody is assumed to be a person anymore. The founding fathers, when they signed the document that began “We the people..” were a bunch of ignorant liars. None of them could be sure they were people because Planned Parenthood hadn’t gone into business yet culling the primates out of the people’s herd. Maybe John Hancock’s mother didn’t really want him. She couldn’t snuff him before birth, so he may very well have been a talking monkey.
Goodness me! You are totally ignoring all the science and evidence which has been under discussion here.
“Basically, what Reality is saying, over and over, is that men can’t reproduce human beings” – you really haven’t been paying attention have you.
“In 1972, a pregnant lady was going to have a human baby. But since 1973 in the United States, nobody is assumed to be a person anymore.” – you mix two distinct concepts.
“The founding fathers, when they signed the document that began “We the people..” were a bunch of ignorant liars.” – not at all, they were indeed, talking about people. Just not fetuses.
“John Hancock’s mother couldn’t snuff him before birth, so he may very well have been a talking monkey.” – no, prior to the completion of gestation he was a developing human fetus.
No, it is you who dehumanize people. Humans = people from conception.
“Humans = people from conception” – humbug.