A while ago now I met & interviewed Dr Leah Torres, a twitter-famous abortion advocate and provider, a licensed Ob-Gyn. We still dialogue infrequently on Twitter. What I love about her is her honesty. I mean, there’s the PC veneer over what she says, like preferring to say “pregnant person” instead of “mother”, so there’s still elements of obfuscation to cauterise what we should feel when an expectant mother collaborates in destroying her preborn baby.
But she doesn’t pretend she’s justified in performing abortions by anything more than the mother’s wishes. Responses like this one today are markedly increasing in abortion industry rhetoric.
My right to life supersedes any belief system.— Leah Torres, MD (@LeahNTorres) August 5, 2019
Nothing and no one is allowed to be inside my body without my ongoing consent. https://t.co/P42GgqivWD
As an aside in response to the claim “My right to life supersedes any belief system,” I have to ask: is that what you believe? Well, apart from being an obviously self-defeating claim, it likewise can support the claim a baby’s right to life supersedes beliefs like feminism, legal positivism and moral relativism. Glad we agree.
I love how useful it is to finally set aside the utterly ignorant tripe feminists still spout like the second living person at the centre of the debate is “just a clump of cells“, as if you aren’t just a bigger clump of cells.
Instead of pretending there’s only one person’s body involved with the facile slogan, “My body, my choice“, even abortionists can now acknowledge that they are intentionally violating the the right to life. Their argument is personal autonomy is a transcendent right, superseding all other rights. They don’t need a good reason, or any reason beyond “I don’t want to be pregnant.”
They don’t mind if you’re killing your baby because it’s a girl, or has the ‘gay gene’, or because a baby would cramp your professional/party lifestyle. None of those reasons matter in the slightest because of what they claim is every woman’s extreme right to personal autonomy, even at the cost of another living human’s entire existence.
We know 96% of biologists agree that each human starts life at fertilisation. There’s no pretending anymore this isn’t a stark choice between full term abortion on demand, for any reason, without limits – and what most of humanity once agreed was the fundamental human right to life. Abortion advocates do not believe there is such thing as a bad abortion if the woman wants it.
If you meet someone who still says dumb things like “clump of cells” or “my body” you can inform them feminists and abortionists have moved on. We all agree with the abundance of scientific evidence that we’re always talking about two living humans, and they should get with the times, keep up with the debate, especially if they call themselves progressives.
No – thinking voters with a sensitive conscience (not yet seared by the cult of feminism) now have a set of stark alternatives to choose from. Either you support the universally transcendent right of every innocent human to life before and above all else, or you support the unlimited and radical claim that a “pregnant person” may destroy any new human life in the intended safety of her womb simply because she doesn’t want to be pregnant, regardless of why.
You either support the human right to life, or the claim to take an innocent human life.
What do you think? Join the conversation and leave a comment below…
Are you looking for a break from the regularly regurgitated mainstream rhetoric?
Do you value news and opinions which prioritise Truth over feelings?
We have no taxpayer funding or corporate backing. It’s only support from people like you: mums and dads, workers and business owners which is helping produce & publish more of what you’re looking for from leading conservative voices.
Together, we can’t be censored. Would you like to help?
Consider generously supporting The Good Sauce today & help us plan our growth with as little as $10 per month.