![my freedom does not end where your fear begins my freedom does not end where your fear begins](https://www.tmesickphotography.com/img/s/v-10/p3461035460-4.jpg)
This silly policy demonstrates the totally illogical and schizophrenic nature of pro-abortion “thinking.” (3) The unborn child as parasite Pregnant women entering the White House must formally register their unborn children as separate visitors, with “Baby” as the first name, expected birth date, sex if known, and even “000-00-0000” as a Social Security number! Yet no thinking person would argue that the astronauts are part of a space station!Įven the staff of Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history, recognized the unborn child as a separate human being. This also holds true for a nonviable unborn baby. If they should exit the vehicle unprotected, they would be nonviable, and would die in minutes. They are totally dependent upon their vessel for everything - their air, water, food, and all other needs. We can reply by describing an analogous situation involving astronauts in space. Sometimes a pro-abortionist will also claim that the unborn child is inside the mother, depends on her completely, and is therefore part of her body. The second assertion is that the unborn child is inside his or her mother, and is therefore part of her body. (2) The unborn child is inside the mother And that baby, too, is completely dependent, so the argument is a non sequitur. Every child who is born healthy is already entitled to care under the pain of prosecution for murder. Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of DNA, actually claimed that “no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment, and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live.” 2 Hastings Center ethicist Joseph Fletcher has said, “It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to the positive ending of sub‑human life in utero, as we do in therapeutic abortions, but refuse to approve of positively ending a sub‑human life in extremis. Some “intellectuals” have been arguing for decades that it is perfectly permissible to allow handicapped children to die, calling this “fourth-trimester abortion” or “post-natal abortion.” Moving the goal post means more and more killing is inevitable.įor example, Nobel Prize winner Dr. Does this mean that the newborn baby can be neglected or killed outright? As we see today in the infanticide debate regarding failed abortions where the child is born alive, the inevitable conclusion to draw if one is pro-abortion is affirmative. Certainly a newborn baby is just as dependent upon its parents for all of its needs as one not yet born, and will quickly die if not cared for. These are separate arguments and should be treated as such. They are implying that this allows the mother the “right” to dispose of her baby. When asked to clarify, most pro-abortionists will argue that the unborn baby is totally dependent upon the mother. (1) The unborn child relies on the mother You can give concise and effective answers to each of these.
![my freedom does not end where your fear begins my freedom does not end where your fear begins](https://yesweli.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/redirect-6479.jpg)
To begin with, it is impossible to reply directly to this slogan unless we have the user clarify what he or she means by it. Let’s examine the science that disproves these claims. Who then has a greater right to dispose of the fruit than she who carries it in her womb? … To interfere with the usage a woman chooses to make of it is stupidity carried beyond any conceivable extreme. The penalty against child-murdering mothers is an unexampled atrocity.
![my freedom does not end where your fear begins my freedom does not end where your fear begins](https://www.tmesickphotography.com/img/s/v-10/p1851812170-4.jpg)
His sexual writings actually inspired the word “sadism,” and he was, not surprisingly, guilty of blasphemy against the Catholic Church. Interestingly, the first person to make the “woman’s body, woman’s choice” argument for abortion was the libertine and reprobate Marquis de Sade. A cartoon in the May 1919 issue of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review shows a woman being crushed by a giant roll of paper labeled “Laws Controlling Women’s Bodies.” Other offensive but equally common slogans pro-abortionists use are variations are the indignant demand “What makes you religious fanatics think you can tell me what to do with my uterus?,” and the tiresome chant “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
![my freedom does not end where your fear begins my freedom does not end where your fear begins](https://litonyaknelsen.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p1970875252-5.jpg)
The battle captured by the slogan “my body, my choice!” is not new it has been raging over a century.