What it says is that the vacuum created by casual infanticide will be filled by our new fully grown masters.

We've invited them in to do our heavy lifting and they are coming over our borders in droves and have no respect for us and our wickedness.

♣ a seal

Especially about the 20-25 million more taxpayers. But in my opinion, it is better strategically to frame the argument against abortion in moral (natural law) terms and not utilitarian terms. The left wants to paint "right to lifers" as a bunch of bible-bashing rubes. As opponents to abortion we should bring up more often the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, and shy away from Thomas Aquinas and the School of Salamanca (but of course we could pay tacit tribute to them in arguments). When someone rejects the idea that a baby is not a person, it should be made clear that logically a baby is its own person from the moment the DNA of a mother and father combine. The fact that the baby needs food and shelter from the mother while in the womb does not differ from when the baby is out of the womb. By logical extension, the baby cannot be identified as a person qualitatively simply because it is out of the womb. This tactic might bring more libertarians over to an anti-abortion stance, since most are predisposed to logical arguments.

Unfortunately, the hard left isn't much interested in rationality or intellectual honesty. But those people on the fence might still be converted. The natural law argument, specifically, that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Locke says property - though this idea is flawed), should be punctuated with those facts about abortion that are emotionally repulsive - such as abortion procedures. This puts the emotional appeals in a philosophical framework, and thus will seem less heavy-handed and unintellectual (of course, intellectualism has little to do with total affective austerity). Anyway, I think the ritual murder of babies should stop in this country and those interested in ending the practice need to think carefully how to tip the scales more heavily in our favor.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

I'm a woman and I can tell you, those kinds of photos and video have been made available for decades. I remember seeing footage of bloodied bodies as far back as the early 90s when I was a pre teen. Maybe women are given more exposure to it than men and maybe that's why you hadn't seen it before.

Incidentally, the shock value of those photos may work on people like you, but they don't faze abortion proponents.

People quickly become desensitized to things they don't have to deal with. Abolitionists used the same techniques of showing people the horrors of slavery to little effect. How many times have seen reports of torture and genocide in Iraq before we invaded, and still people say it wasn't that bad there?

Open minded people quickly see abortion for what it is. Most people end up saying "yes that's awful but I can't judge those who choose it."

For the Supreme Court, Barry will choose those who will use the Constitution to further their agenda:

To kill babies

To deny you the right to protect yourself

To deny you the right to pray wherever and whenever you want to do so

To deny you the right to practice your religion in public

To give illegal, non-citizen criminals their "Constitutional rights"

To give "rights" to terrorists  

And much more. A vote for Barry is a vote for left-wing "liberalism/socialism/communism. Is this what we want for our children?

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

"In no way am I saying I am for or against abortion, but it is now currently legal"

Abortion is more of a LACK of legality on the part of the rights of the fetus, and that child's protections under the law, than a right on the part of the mother to abort her unborn child.

Due to the Roe Vs. Wade ruling where the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not considered human until it has reached a certain level of development, the unborn child has no rights at all and no protection under the Constitution or the laws of this country.

Other courts have expanded that initial ruling to include all stages of development if child is still within the mother’s womb. As long as that child is contained with the womb, the courts consider it to be the property of the mother (but not the father, interesting enough). Since there are no violation of human rights when an unborn child is aborted, the courts have ruled that no law has be violated and so no charges can be brought against the woman. Hopefully this appaling lack of human rights will be addressed soon and the law will finally protect the most innocent humans ever, our unborn children.

On-the-rocks: no offense taken at your comment. But the fact is that Roe v. Wade and abortion-on-demand is the law of the land. That makes it a right, albeit one that many would like to see restricted or revoked.

I dunno... There are a lot of of people running about who might be better referred to as "it" than "he" or "she". A lot of them are useless lumps of tissue, too... </sarc>

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -

Bringing Democrats together by taking babies apart.