Richard Dawkins Should Be Anti-Abortion

If you’re atheist or agnostic, you should be anti-abortion. That’s because from your perspective, the chance of any single person ever existing – including a pre-born person – was infinitely remote. Being conceived is a monumental achievement in beating the odds.

Abortion is akin to someone having a one in trillion trillion trillion chance of winning the ultimate lottery, then winning it, and then being put to death before he or she can claim the prize money.

“Before you were conceived, the chance of your existing was all but zero,” said renown atheist Richard Dawkins in a live-streamed discussion with physicist Brian Greene.

“All of us owe our existence to the happenstance of one particular sperm hitting one particular egg on a particular day, not only in our parents’ generation (but) our grandparents’ generation (and) our great-grandparents’ generation.”

He continued, “All of us are incredibly lucky to be here. And once you’ve been born – once you’ve been conceived indeed – the probability that you’re going to go on becomes much, much higher.”

Wow. That’s a powerful argument for the extraordinary specialness of each and every person, born and pre-born.

You’re infinitely lucky not only because your parents happened to meet each other of all the potential mates, not only because they happened to conceive you during the brief two- or three-day window when the spermazoa from which you originated were alive, not only because the two unique cells providing your genetic code connected with each other rather than the billions of other possible combinations of cells, but also because those same improbabilities applied to your parents and grandparents going back many generations.

Start from a point 200 years before you were born. What were the chances you would grace the scene two centuries later? Two-hundred years works out to about eight generations and 256 great (x8) grandparents. (Four grandparents, eight great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, etc.) Had none of those 256 been born, you wouldn’t have either. Assume each had a one-in-a-billion chance of being born. To calculate the probability of you being here, multiply a billion by a billion 256 times. That’s about 1 in a billion to the power of 256. Essentially, it’s infinitely remote.

You and everyone else are truly exceptional; you’re the only one among trillions of potential humans who ended up being conceived.

The next time you see a newborn, appreciate that this is “The One”. He or she beat out billions of other wanna-be humans vying to become one of us. Likewise, the next time you see an ultrasound image of a human fetus – or indeed become aware of any human fetus – appreciate that this also is “The One”.

Can you imagine beating infinite odds to make it that far – so close to being able to experience the world outside of the womb – only to have your life unceremoniously snuffed out?

There are many reasons why abortion is cruel and immoral, but this reason takes the cake. It is sad, outrageous, and terrifying that someone would kill a pre-born person who had overcome such odds. We should be showering them with praise and honor, not killing them.

With a declared appreciation for such long odds of being conceived, Richard Dawkins of all people should be ardently pro-life, right?

Preposterously, no. On Twitter a few years ago, he boasted of his “strong pro-abortion views”.

There’s a strong disconnect between what Dr. Dawkins says regarding the specialness of a life including pre-born ones, and what he advocates regarding abortion.

To be sure, he tweeted that “Unlike many pro-choice friends, I think fetal pain could outweigh woman’s (sic) right to control her own body,” implying that he may be against abortion in certain circumstances. But that certainly has nothing to do with the killing-the-ultimate-lottery-winner argument.

Meanwhile, a theist may or may not believe that a person had an infinitely remote chance of being conceived. The Creator may have planned you all along. In the Bible, Jeremiah 1:5 states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”

Had your parents not conceived you, you may have been born to other parents or to your existing parents at another time. This is because your consciousness – i.e. your soul – is primary and your physical body is secondary. (Even quantum physics implies that your brain is derived from your consciousness rather than the other way around. Quantum physics pioneer Max Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”)

Under the theist position each person born and pre-born is exquisitely special as well, because God personally created him or her.

So whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, theist or deist, abortion means killing an incredibly remarkable arrival on the world scene, making it morally wrong from anyone’s perspective. Richard Dawkins, of all people, should grasp that.

 

(Originally published in Newsmax.com)

Roots of the Planned Parenthood Debacle

In addition to the outrage, Americans are downright dumbfounded as to as to how our civilization could sink so low that Planned Parenthood professionals engage in the selling of organs of aborted human fetuses. Even worse, a large portion of the general public actually supports Planned Parenthood’s efforts, and the U.S. Congress chooses to continue to allocate U.S. taxpayer money toward the organization.

We’ve sunk so low in part because of three long-festering falsehoods that have pervaded our culture: that pre-born babies are not human beings, that humans are just another animal, and that abortion is a solution to overpopulation.

Most of us have no problem with the prospect of cutting up and selling body parts of pigs, chickens, cows, and other animals. The folks at Planned Parenthood and their supporters have no problem with doing the same to pre-born humans because they don’t look upon them as human beings. Using the word fetus helps condition people to not regard pre-born humans as actual humans.

But their DNA indicates that they’re human in every way.

Ask any biologist, and he or she will tell you a dog is a dog, regardless of whether it’s a fetus or a puppy. The DNA indicates this. Similarly a human is a human, regardless of whether it’s in the form of a fetus, baby, toddler, or adolescent.

The only difference between a developed human fetus and a newborn baby is the way each gets its oxygen and nourishment. In the womb it’s via the umbilical cord; out of the womb it’s via the mouth.

To deem a human fetus not to be human is absurd.

Consider another falsehood that likely helped shape general attitudes enabling the acceptance of Planned Parenthood’s heinous practices. Many believe we humans are mere animals that happen to be a little more advanced along the evolutionary scale. For the past several decades a common refrain (to which I subscribed) has been that humans differ from chimpanzees by only 1 percent genetically. Since we’re so similar to other animals, one may reason, how is killing a human so different from killing any other animal?

But research, such as presented in a 2007 Science article titled “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, reveals that we’re much more different biologically from chimps than previously thought. The 1 percent figure doesn’t take into account many sections of DNA that have been inserted or deleted in the respective genomes. Gene duplications and deletions represent a 6.4% difference between chimps and humans, according to researchers. Dr. Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute writes that by one measure, 17.4% of gene regulatory networks in the brain are unique to humans.

And regardless how similar or different we are genetically from chimps and other animals, this much is clear: we’re the only species that has free will, and the ability to reason abstractly. These attributes make all the difference in the world.

So humans are unique, exceptional, and vastly more biologically advanced than any other species after all. We’re far from being just another animal. No fetus of such an extraordinary species merits being aborted, let alone sold for parts.

Now let’s address a third falsehood: it is commonly thought (and I used to think) that population growth is outstripping the carrying capacity of the planet. This prompts academics and many others to champion abortion. One academic paper states, “No nation desirous of reducing its growth rate to 1% or less can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion.”

Just as deer starve when their numbers grow too large for the local environment to support, so can people. But people differ from animals in that the human brain is so advanced that we have the ability to manipulate the Earth’s resources for our sustenance. Unlike all other animals, we can increase the land’s carrying capacity by growing crops, mining raw materials, building factories and transporting goods. Education and free markets greatly facilitate this process. As countries become more adept at carrying out these endeavors and prosperity increases, the environment typically improves (albeit perhaps after some time) even as the population grows.

Even if one thinks the world is overpopulated, the killing of human beings whether born or unborn should not be a population control mechanism. And from abortion, it’s a slippery slope to organ harvesting. And then on to infanticide. And then, genocide?

Three reasons America has sunk so low, therefore, is that so many Americans have become conditioned to believe that human fetuses are not fully human; that humans have no more intrinsic value than any other animal; and/or that abortion should be a means to curb population growth. If aborting pre-born babies is fine, goes the thinking of Planned Parenthood backers, then selling their body parts is fine as well. They’re tragically wrong on all counts.

 

(Originally published in Newsmax.com)

The Economist Eviscerates Roe vs. Wade

The Economist magazine says it favors legal abortion. Yet it excoriates the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all states. It writes that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority that year, citing a right to privacy that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. “In Roe the justices invented the law rather than interpreting it, substituting their preferences for those of voters,” writes The Economist. “Big social controversies are better settled democratically than by judicial fiat.”

That’s yet another compelling reason to revoke Roe vs. Wade.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be easier than overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges, the recent Supreme Court decision that compels all U.S. states to recognize two-person homosexual civil unions as genuine marriages. Nullifying Roe vs. Wade would mean abortion clinics would have to be shut down in states where it’s outlawed, and women no longer would be able to get legal abortions in those states. That would be a relatively simple undertaking compared with the aftermath of nullifying Obergefell vs. Hodges.

The longer the ramifications of Obergefell vs. Hodges percolate into society, the more institutionalized will become the gay union way of life. The political opposition to upending whole family and societal structures based on homosexual unions, and to revoking rights to extensive government benefits and privileges made possible by Obergefell vs. Hodges, would be overwhelming. A future Supreme Court would be highly reluctant to revoke the ruling. Even if it did, Congress would likely restore the law, given popular support for the now-institutionalized way of life.

With Obergefell vs. Hodges the law of the land, now it’s a matter of time until unions of three-or-more persons will be recognized by states as genuine marriages. In that scenario, millions of men won’t be able to find a mate, because other men will have multiple wives. A bleak future indeed.

 

Steve Jobs a Hero for Integrity? Pick Another Virtue

20150429_141409_Beech_Down_Dr[1]At South Arbor Charter Academy, an elementary and middle school in Michigan, there’s a corridor called Heroes Hall. It featured murals depicting such personages Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Betsy Ross, Gandhi, and Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. It made news last fall when those murals reportedly got replaced with paintings of President Obama, J.K. Rowling, Oprah, Steve Jobs, and others. Parents were outraged. “This is no longer a hall of heroes,” a parent told Fox News. “Now we have a hall of celebrities.”

I want to zero in on Steve Jobs. School spokesperson Christina Hoff said he’s depicted because he shows the children integrity.

Steve Jobs had a lot of admirable qualities. Brilliance. Dedication. Perseverance. Perfectionism. Creativity. Foresight. Technical smarts. Marketing smarts. Negotiating smarts. A zest for life. A relatively modest lifestyle considering his billions.

But integrity? From reading Walter Isaacson’s biography Steve Jobs, I didn’t get the impression that he was a model of integrity. He was notorious for putting others down – cussing and swearing at people, and being callous to them to the point that they feared his presence. And demonstrating a distinct lack of integrity as a senior in high school was the Blue Box escapade. He and Steve Wozniak constructed a Blue Box that enabled them to make free long-distance phone calls, thus depriving AT&T of revenue; essentially stealing. At first they used the Blue Box for themselves. Then, ever the entrepreneur, Jobs decided to build and sell them at $150 a pop. Over a hundred were sold.

It was the worst kind of greed – making money by selling a device that enables people to steal. The episode finally came to an end when Jobs showed the Blue Box to a gentlemen who was so interested that he pulled a gun on Jobs and told him to hand it over.

Said Jobs, “If it hadn’t been for the Blue Boxes, there wouldn’t have been an Apple.” So in other words, Apple’s origin was based on an episode that exemplified the opposite of integrity. No word on whether Jobs later in life ever offered to pay AT&T back.

Another example of lack of integrity: Jobs evidently wanted to abort his child.

When at age 23 he got his girlfriend pregnant, Jobs didn’t want to be a parent. He told Isaacson, “I was all in favor of her getting an abortion, but she didn’t know what to do.”

(Update, 10-4-15: Lisa Brennan writes, “I know it’s widely believed that Steve asked me to have an abortion. And Steve, himself, has apparently been quoted as saying so. He even actively led people to believe that I slept around. But none of this was true.”)

Chrisann Brennan had the child, Lisa Nicole Brennan. After the baby was born, Jobs skedaddled, as Chrisann went on welfare. “He didn’t want to have anything to do with her or with me,” said Chrisann Brennan. He even refused to pay child support. It wasn’t until years later that Jobs reconnected with Lisa.

Rubbing salt in her wounds, when the county sued Jobs for child support, Jobs and his lawyers tried to line up evidence that Brennan had been promiscuous – thus harming her reputation – in a failed effort to prove that he wasn’t the father.

A year after Lisa was born, Jobs agreed to take a paternity test. But that appeared to be based on self-centered motives. “Jobs knew that Apple would soon be going public and he decided it was best to get the issue resolved,” writes Isaacson. With the test being positive, Jobs finally started helping Chrisann and Lisa financially.

Jobs said that when he met his biological mother, Joann Simpson, he thanked her – apparently for not aborting him. “I wanted to meet my biological mother mostly to see if she was okay and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion.”

Was Jobs glad that he wasn’t aborted at the same time that he allegedly wanted Lisa aborted? If so, then that’s even more shameful.

So again, for all of Steve Jobs’ virtues, integrity didn’t seem to be among them – at least as a young adult. Well, at least he expressed regrets. Reveals Isaacson, “Years later Jobs was remorseful for the way he behaved, one of the few times in his life he admitted as much.”

Attention administrators of South Arbor Charter Academy: Steve Jobs may deserve a spot in the Heroes Hall for a variety of reasons. But I don’t think that, among the heroes, he should be the one to represent integrity.

Had Abortion Been Legal in 1950s, Maybe No iPhone for You

20150429_161819_Beech_Down_Dr[1]In his biography Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson tells the story of Jobs’ biological single mother being pregnant with him in 1954, apparently an unwanted pregnancy.

He writes, “Nor was abortion an easy option in a small Catholic community. So in early 1955, Joanne traveled to San Francisco, where she was taken into the care of a kindly doctor who sheltered unwed mothers, delivered their babies, and quietly arranged closed adoptions.”

Isaacson implies that, were it not for that small Catholic community – in addition to the fact that abortion was illegal at that time – Steve Jobs could have been aborted.

In other words, had abortion been legal in 1954, that iPhone, iPad and Mac of yours may never have existed.

Jobs was glad he wasn’t aborted as well. “I wanted to meet my biological mother mostly to see if she was okay and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion,” he told Isaacson.

Imagine the wonderful things that don’t exist because, after abortion was legalized in 1973, all those would-be Steve Jobs got aborted.

Taking Abortion to its Logical Conclusion

1984There is an additional reason why legalized abortion is such a horrifying phenomenon. It’s not just a matter involving unborn humans, although that’s horrifying enough. It’s the foundation of a slippery slope that is being used to justify the killing of born humans. Someday, somewhere in the world, it could be used to justify genocide.

A line got crossed in 2012 when an academic journal published a paper saying that if abortion is permissible, then killing healthy newborns should be permissible as well. And just last week, The College Fix reported that U.S. college students are increasingly accepting of “post-birth abortion”, i.e. the killing of babies. Even more outrageous, some students reportedly even would accept the killing of children up to 4 or 5 years old, on the grounds they are not yet “self-aware.”

That’s the logic of a materialist, atheistic worldview that sees humans nothing more than molecules that, way back in our evolutionary history, came together by mere chance. The value of a human life is no higher than that of an insect or an amoeba, based on this worldview.

It is chilling to read the dry, matter-of-fact summary of the 2012 paper, written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published in the U.K.’s Journal of Medical Ethics:

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

With those 90 words, infanticide is given credence, legitimacy and affirmation in polite society.

Princeton professor Peter Singer is infamous for his writings on infanticide, mainly in cases where the infant is disabled. “Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness make a difference,” writes Singer. “Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings.”

Giubilini and Minerva go a step further, saying it is okay to kill healthy babies in addition to disabled ones.

Why not give the baby up for adoption? Because doing so may bring the mother psychological distress, they explain. They cite a source that states “Natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss….” The authors’ solution? Kill the baby.

No, this isn’t satire, science fiction, or excerpts from treatises of some past totalitarian regime. It’s what today’s culture of abortion has wrought. And it’s much more than the theoretical musings of the youthful Giubilini and Minerva. That a well-established peer-reviewed journal, whose editor hails from the Oxford University philosophy department, and whose editorship and board consist of numerous academics from Europe, the United States and elsewhere, would publish such a paper speaks volumes of the degeneration that is pervading aspects of Western academia.

The irony that the paper was written by “ethicists” and accepted by a publication called the Journal of Medical Ethics seems right out of the novel 1984.

The authors simply are taking abortion to its logical conclusion. Apart from the manner in which a newborn gets its oxygen and nourishment, there’s little biological difference between it and a developed fetus.

As the idea of infanticide gains greater acceptance in social and academic circles, it could gain greater acceptance in legal circles as well. A lawyer could argue that a newborn infant differs little from an infant still in the womb, and therefore if abortion is permissible, then infanticide should be permissible.

Once they’ve opened the Pandora’s box by declaring that birth is no longer the dividing line between personhood and non-personhood, then their logic can be applied to anyone. Killing a human of any age is consistent with legalized abortion.

That’s one of the reasons why abortion is so repugnant. Lack of sanctity for unborn human life spills over into lack of sanctity for all human life. Such ideas could help beget a colder, more callous world among ordinary persons, and more violent crime among the amoral. “Let’s go out and perform an after-birth abortion,” a criminal may say.

Another frightening potential application of this mindset involves governments. In the past, National Socialist and Communist governments justified their genocides using arguments by racist and Marxist scholars. In the future, governments of certain countries could engage in forced infanticide, selective homicide, or even genocide using scholarly arguments from publications such as that cited above, arguing that killing (born) humans is no different from abortion.

Typically, in the modern Western world, whenever someone uses media outlets to incite the killing of innocents, they’re quickly relegated to the ash heap of polite society. But that’s not happening with the pro-abortion/infanticide academics of today. Their ideas are gaining momentum.

Now’s the time to bring the issue of abortion to center stage, this time making clear that the stakes don’t involve just pre-born humans, but all of humanity as well.

Legal, But Neither Safe Nor Rare

Jaw-dropping and chilling video, by way of The Daily Caller, of a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas advising the undercover patient on how to get an abortion because the baby would be a girl.

It’s well established that sex-selective abortions in Asia result in skewed sex ratios there. One would be naive to think that all Asian immigrants to the U.S. leave those cultural attitudes behind. Sex-selective abortion, distressingly, is practiced in the United States as well, mainly by those of Asian descent (and one hopes it’s just a tiny minority of them). It’s most apparent when looking at the statistics of third births. Following is excerpted from a study at the University of Connecticut Health Center:

Results: The male to female sex ratio from 1975 to 2002 was 1.053 for Whites, 1.030 (p < 0.01) for Blacks, 1.074 (p < 0.01) for Chinese and 1.073 (p < 0.01) for Filipinos. From 1991 to 2002, the sex ratio increased from 1.071 to 1.086 for Chinese, 1.060 to 1.074 for Filipinos, 1.043 to 1.087 for Asian Indians and 1.069 to 1.088 for Koreans. The highest sex ratios were seen for third+ births to Asian Indians (1.126), Chinese (1.111) and Koreans (1.109).

Conclusion: The male to female livebirth sex ratio in the United States exceeded expected biological variation for third+ births to Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans strongly suggesting prenatal sex selection.

The above-mentioned video refers to an Economist cover story from two years ago that laments the abortion-induced gender imbalance in Asia.

Two thing about that article. On the plus side, give The Economist credit for presenting a topic that you would rarely or never see presented by another publication or news outlet comprised of (presumably) mainly pro-legalized-abortion reporters and editors.

On the minus side, The Economist flatly states in the article, “For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase)….”

But that’s a contradiction in terms. You’d think that editors, of all people, would recognize and avoid such oxymorons. If you think abortion should be legal, then you can’t expect that it will be rare – just as if you raise the speed limit to 75 mph you can’t expect that people won’t drive that fast. Before 1973, most unwanted children were given up for adoption, which is why one meets a lot more adopted children who were born in America before 1973 than after. After 1973, most unwanted children have been, to use the euphemism, terminated.

The Economist – and Bill Clinton – must think abortion is reprehensible if they think it should be rare. But if they really want it to be rare then they have to support making it illegal. I guess wanting to have it both ways fools themselves into helping them sleep better at night.

As for wanting abortion to be safe, by definition it’s not safe. That’s like saying killing should be safe. Oh sure, legalized abortion may make things safer for the mother who wants to carry out the killing, but as noted above, when you legalize abortion, you make the practice much more common. That means far more human lives are subject to terribly unsafe living conditions when the abortion doctor comes ‘a calling.

Dr. Madeleine Albright’s Warning Sign

Well, so much for aging with grace and dignity.

In an appeal for donations of $3 or more, seventy-four-year-old former secretary of state Madeleine Albright described those opposed to the legalized killing of human fetuses and those who oppose socialized contraception with such respectful language as “extremists“, “attackers on women’s rights” and purveyors of “vicious misogyny”.

A genteel and above-the-fray elder stateswoman she is not.

Another term she used was “radical Republicans”. Why thank you Dr. Albright. Little do you realize it but that’s actually a compliment. Those up on their history know that the famous Radical Republicans were the ones who pushed for unconditional abolition of slavery before and during the Civil War, and civil rights for former slaves after the war.

Madeleine Albright being in the news again brings to mind an amusing incident described in Walter Isaacson’s recent biography of Steve Jobs. Former Apple CEO Gil Amelio, who presided over the company when it was hemorrhaging massive amounts of cash, is described in an unflattering light. “He was just such a buffoon, and he took himself so seriously,” recalled Jobs. “He insisted that everyone call him Dr. Amelio. That’s always a warning sign.”

(Note: Jobs was notorious for his insults and intolerance for folks who don’t think like him, so I’m sure Dr. Amelio didn’t deserve such harsh language from Jobs.)

Yes, insisting that everyone call you doctor-so-and-so just because you spent an additional two or three years studying at a university, can be a warning sign. I remember reading a news article back when Dr. Albright was secretary of state, describing an incident where she insisted that everyone call her “Dr. Albright”, especially since people addressed one of her predecessors as Dr. Kissinger.

Yep, that was a warning sign all right.

 

***

Update: a few months later. I listen to a C-Span radio interview with Dr. Albright on a recent book of hers about her family’s experiences in Czechoslovakia during the Nazi and Soviet eras, and she was wonderful to listen to. Elder-stateswomanly-like. Too bad she has to go and sign her name to some crass political mailing which someone else probably wrote.

It’s Harder to Kill When You Can See Your Victim

It’s a lot easier to kill people from a bomber aircraft 30,000 feet up, where you can’t see the victims, than it is for a soldier on the ground to kill someone at point-blank range. In the former situation, the victim isn’t humanized. In the latter, he or she is.

In the same way, it’s a lot easier to kill a baby when it’s inside the womb, where you can’t see it, than it is to kill a baby outside of the womb, where you can see it.

That’s the nature of abortion. You can’t see the victim, so he or she isn’t humanized in the minds of the those desirous of the killing. So abortion has been legalized and condoned by the state.

Whether it’s the the victim of a bomb dropped from 30,000 feet or the victim of a bullet shot from 30 feet, both victims are as human as human can be.

The same is true with babies within the womb and babies outside of the womb. Both are 100 percent human.

A Virginia senate bill seeks to humanize unborn babies in the eyes of their mothers by requiring women seeking abortions to get an ultrasound, and give them a chance to view the image while the baby is still alive. An Illinois bill seeks to do the same thing.

It is an attempt to make the mother less like a bomber pilot, who can’t see the victim, and more like a soldier on the ground, who can.

It just might make some of those mothers a little more hesitant to pull the trigger.

The New “Extreme”: To Let Live, Instead of to Let Kill

What would you call extreme: killing a human life, or letting it live?

The dictionary defines extreme as the farthest possible point from something. In the political arena, it means using violence to achieve one’s ends.

But the term is often misused and demagogued. One of them most egregious misuses of the term is when advocates of legalized abortion call opponents of abortion “extremists.”

Killing a life is the most extreme thing one can do, especially when it’s an innocent pre-born human life.

A letter to Congress co-signed by more than 30 pro-abortion groups stated a pro-life measure by a congressman (banning abortions motivated by the race or gender of the fetus) was “simply more of the same from the anti-choice extremists in the House.”

The irony is breathtaking.

It’s like as if Peter Singer, who advocates the legalized killing of already-born human babies – one of the most extreme things one could ever do – were to call opponents of that practice “extremists”.

It’s like Macbeth, where fair is foul and foul is fair. It’s like Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Love, Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Plenty were responsible for doing the very opposite of what their names suggested.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words,” says a character in 1984. People in the pro-legalized-abortion lobby could be thinking the same thing.