The people who support full personhood for embryos do. Paul Ryan did when he signed on to that bill. Y'all act like this isn't actually a threat to our western values
I would love you to explain that....
Oh wait, no I wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Meanwhile, I notice that you have provided no real support for your stupid statement...aside from another, even more ridiculous comment.
" the current regime of abortion on demand in America is a grave evil that ought to be abolished. It is murderous, if not categorically then at least in its extreme manifestations.
Maintaining it requires an assault on language and logic that has taken on a totalitarian character. And it is politically poisonous."
..."To avoid confronting the reality of what they were doing, Gosnell and his employees spoke in an elaborate euphemistic code. A baby wasn't born, "the fetus precipitated." Gosnell didn't slash it to death, he "snipped" it to "ensure fetal demise." The Times, in that A17 story, adopted the Gosnell code, referring repeatedly to the babies Gosnell is charged with murdering as "fetuses." "So did Roger Simon, we're guessing out of "pro-choice" habit. This Orwellian use of language was a commonality between the Gosnellites and the "safe and legal" abortion crowd. "Pro-choice" itself is one such euphemism. Lots of political movements are in favor of one or another form of "choice," but this is the only one we can think of that cries foul if you specify the choice that they're pro."
"
Most news organizations have adopted this pro-abortion doublespeak as a matter of style. The New York Times, for example, characterizes the two sides as "abortion-rights" and "antiabortion." That at least has the virtue of acknowledging that the debate is about abortion, but it still tips the scale in favor of the pro-abortion side by acknowledging its claims of rights but not the antiabortion side's. And then there's the ever-popular "
procedure whose opponents call it partial-birth abortion." What do its supporters call it? And who are they?
The most jaw-dropping example of pro-abortion Orwellianism is the one we
cited last week: the fierce objection to the assertion that life begins at fertilization. As we noted, that is a simple statement of scientific fact--a tautology.
MediaMutters responded, in essence, that human embryogenesis is just a theory. The proof was--you guessed it--an appeal to authority, namely the majority opinion in
Roe v. Wade:The law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth.
Justice Blackmun says it, I believe it, and that settles it!
We'd like to cite one more example because we find it especially neuralgic, though we must acknowledge this is one that professional abortion advocates typically have the sense to avoid. It is the characterization of an unborn child as a "parasite" because it depends for sustenance on its mother. Again, this is at best scientifically illiterate: In biology, a parasite by definition is a creature of a different species from the host. At worst, calling a baby a parasite is an act of rhetorical dehumanization, of a piece with likening hated minorities to insects or rodents or pigs."
That is a brilliant piece, incidentally.
Best of the Web Today: From Roe to Gosnell - WSJ.com