Shocker! Planned Parenthood Pres: “When Life Begins Not Relevant!”

How convenient for her.

Cecile Richards doesn’t “feel” that this question is really “part of this conversation”.

Now why might she say a thing like that?  Why might she distance herself from that question?

Maybe (since “science” seems the default arbiter of morality these days) it because embryologists tell us that life begins at conception?

Trending: Clash Poll: Do You Oppose Or Approve Of Kavanaugh’s Nomination

Maybe because there’s compelling evidence is to believe the in-utero baby is alive?  Maybe because heartbeat, brain scans and a host of other evidences show signs of life?  Maybe because baby has independent blood supply (or even blood type) and unique DNA. Maybe because boy babies have organs their mothers do not possess?

Maybe because someone without a scalpel and forceps causing a miscarriage through abuse or neglect can be charged with homicide?

Maybe because we’re seeing stories of people regretting their abortions, even, in some cases, to the tragic end of suicide?

Maybe because we distrust the objectivity of an industry that couldn’t say at a Senate hearing that a baby that somehow survived an abortion was to be afforded full medical care? Maybe we have seen damning hidden-camera video of providers offering late-term abortions, and promising not to provide exactly that care.

Maybe because of cases like Gosnell, and others where young mothers died so that the abortuary could make a buck?

But beyond all these reasons, there is a more fundamental reason this question can, should, and MUST be “part of the conversation” regardless how uncomfortable it makes her.

We cannot arbitrarily decide for ourselves when life begins. Otherwise, people like Peter Singer could lawfully kill infants up to one or two years old.  We cannot dictate such things any more than we can arbitrarily define particle physics according to our own preferences.  What is, is — with our without our approval.

That noun in the womb is either “a thing” or “a person”.  A “thing” can be destroyed, and need not be consulted without consequence.  A “person” on the other hand, can only be destroyed one way: murder.

But I suspect Ms. Richards knows that on some level. Otherwise, she would not duck the question.

Like Clash? Like Clash.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.