If only the world were so simple that all arguments could be distilled to such simplistic choices, Up or down, left or right; black or white. I respect your opinion and the fact that you have the tenacity to lay it out with no sugar coating. I dont agree with how you black and white you frame the argument. Its all in where you draw the starting line. You draw it the moment a sperm penetrates an egg. I draw it at the time where a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb which I believe is around the 26th week of pregnancy. There may be a few instances earlier, but remotely few. After that line, your argument is nearly irrefutable. Up until that point the fetus, the baby, has a 99.99% mortality rate. It cannot survive without the mother. It is wholly dependent on her choices, what she eats, what she drinks, the environment she lives in. When you draw the line at the moment of conception you are placing all the authority for her choices from that moment in the hands of society. Her rights are suspended for 9 months until she gives birth. In your argument the rights of the unborn child supersede the mother, she is a human incubator. Her citizenship is devolved to the state. This is tantamount to slavery. Life begins when it can sustain itself. There are numerous other issues to consider. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution cling to absolutes. They are both written with compromise as one of their tenets. Compromise is where we draw the line.
The GOP pays lip service. That's why it's going on 40 years since Roe put this country on the Highway to Hell.
Zo really gets to the crux of abortion as a choice, err, right to choose, women's health, or whatever the mass murdering abortion industry--D Party--is calling killing babies these days. Obumbo is depending on women to elect him this Nov. 6th. Women will be the deciding voters this Nov. of America's future.
Zo is right on target here.
If you get the chance, read Cal Thomas's great chapter on Abortion and it's similarity to the Slavery issue in the late 1800's, in his outstanding book, "The Things That Matter Most".
His talking points in that chapter are the best argument I have ever heard to use with persuadable folks on this issue.
It's an older book and they are practically giving it away on Amazon.
It all comes down to the basic rule , its a fetus if you don't want it and its a baby if you do. Abortion has turned into more about "feelings" and "convience" rather than the actual basis of why it was legalized in the first place. I believe it was Ginsberg who recently explained that abortion was legalized as a way to control the population of the "undesirables"
Zo's premise is that the "right to life" begins when a zygote forms, because the zygote is the alleged point at which "life is created".... even though the sperm and egg are very much alive in the first place. The problem with Zo's premise is that the right to life is an INDIVIDUAL right; it belongs to individuals ONLY. There is no justification for calling a zygote an individual; it is a 100% non-separate entity; it cannot exist separately; it is incapable of existing as an individual.
If you want to argue against that, then you have to make the case that being a separate entity is NOT inherent to begin an individual - which would be an absurd case for you to make.
Dear Alphonso Rachel, once again a perfect presentation: empirical, moral, Constitutional and true. As per always. Excellent. No, really.
This ad is great and the Republicans need to start talking about it and explaining it just like Zo has said in this ad.
Until we overturn Roe v Wade, we are going to have abortions. Right now the fight is to overturn Obamacare. I don't believe in abortion, and I sure as heck don't want to pay for it. We need to abolish late term abortion first then go from there.
This all started to save the mother's life, as the Catholics believed that the rights of the baby were somehow presumed to be more important than the mothers. Now we have anytime you don't like the sex, it has an illness, Oh, now I have decided I just don't want this baby, they kill it with the presumption of saving the mother's life.
The progressives thought this was good when it started but as usual they have gone overboard, kill the baby for any damn reason. As usual, if you talk to anyone of the younger generation who has gone to a public school they have been brainwashed to believe in abortion. This country is so screwed on so many things it is going to take this generation and the next to turn this great country around.
I thank God, that everyday more and more people are awakening to what has really been happening to this great country of ours....We just need to continue to fight the fight!
That's why many conservatives think that the Republicans should focus on the economy--the important issue.
Very well said... I couldn't agree more. The analogy of snot, while gross, is spot on.
This was simply awesome!
Killing a sweet beautiful child can never be right. The suffering of
children being brutally dismembered as they are being born is the
worst atrocity I can imagine. Yet it is legal.
Opposing this atrocity is considered extreme. Our world has gone crazy.
Thank you Zo!!
Anyone on the fence needs to watch this film, it comes with a warning because it's real. http://herestheblood.com/
It should be required viewing for all politicians.
Would someone please send this video to the mormons at the LDS because their "church" SUPPORTS abortion for rape and incest. What kind of "church" is that? http://mormon.lds.net/mormon-beliefs/abortion
Then we have Mitt and Ann who had the perfect opportunity to express regret for contributing to Planned Parenthood when they were recently interviewed by Chris Wallace, but they DID NOT. The couple left the subject open as to whether Ann is still pro-choice or not. This was clearly an attempted wink-wink to Democrat women. Mitt went on to defend Romneycare that Romneycare is a good way to take care of women; more pandering.
It's clear to me that Mitt won the primaries with a load of money and his false pretense that he's pro-life. His definition of pro-life reminds me of Bill Clinton's definition of "is." Mitt knows full well that he deceived voters by being vague. (Remind us of someone? Current Prez?) He got the nomination NEVER having to explain WITH WHAT he'll "replace" Obamacare.
And it's like when a spouse cheats on the other, often the most destructive aspect is the the deception that took place more than the act itself. If pro-life voters were told clearly that Mitt was going to "change" the platform to represent the values of Meghan McCain more than the values of Ronald Reagan, then they could have made their decision based on facts, but it turns out to be EtchaSketch who we'll see shake off what little conservatism he had for the New Corrupt GOP that he represents.
I continue to support Sarah Palin who's been fighting against Obama for 4 years now. She's never ashamed to defend innocent life and she understands what it's going to take to get America back on track and back to Constitutional Conservative Principles. It's because she's willing and has a track record of taking on BOTH parties that she's been dissed by the GOP establishment who's desperate to protect their crony Congress. It's going to take a very enthusiastic grassroots rally to make enough noise to drowned out the Lame Stream Media in order to get the Marxists out of the White House.
Everyone should read "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=throw+them+all+out+by+peter+schweizer&sprefix=throw+them+all+out%2Cstripbooks%2C307
And "Ameritopia" by Mark Levin http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=ameritopia+mark+levin&sprefix=ameritopia%2Cstripbooks%2C309&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aameritopia+mark+levin
the following article will really make your blood boil. Neither party want us to have a choice - it's either their guys or none at all.
RICHMOND, Va. --
The Republican Party of Virginia is challenging the ballot qualifications of the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party nominees for president, marking the latest twist in the high-stakes battle for Virginia's 13 electoral votes.
The State Board of Elections, meeting this morning, is scheduled to announce which presidential candidates qualified in Virginia for the Nov. 6 election and to determine the ballot order.
The meeting likely will take on a dramatic tone with former Virginia Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., the Constitution Party nominee, planning to appear in person to rebut the Republicans' claims.
"We believe the Republicans, in particular, are worried about this state and anything that would affect the balance in this state," said Mitch Turner, chairman of the Constitution Party of Virginia.
Turner said the Republicans "probably rightly believe" that Goode would take more votes from Republicans than from Democrats, though Turner believes the Constitution Party also has appeal for Democratic voters.
A spokesman for the state GOP was not immediately available to respond to Turner's comments.
In order to qualify for the presidential ballot in Virginia, a candidate must amass at least 10,000 valid signatures, including at least 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts.
On behalf of the state Republican Party, Christopher R. Nolen, a lawyer for McGuireWoods, sent a 28-page document, dated Thursday, to Charles Judd, chairman of the State Board of Elections, challenging Goode's ballot qualifications.
"The VRP's review shows that Goode has not submitted a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify for the ballot in Virginia," Nolen's letter says. He says that although "Goode submitted approximately 19,981 raw signatures, approximately 36 percent of the signatures have material errors or omissions and cannot be counted."
Goode, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, a former two-term governor of New Mexico, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, a medical doctor, submitted signatures by the Aug. 24 deadline in an effort to qualify for the Virginia ballot.
The Green Party claimed to have submitted 13,000 signatures, according to officials. The Libertarian Party says it submitted more than 16,000 signatures.
Laura Delhomme, communications director for the Libertarian Party of Virginia, said Monday, "When the Republican Party casts aspersions on the integrity of the Libertarian Party activists who collect petition signatures, it is also calling into question the integrity of the local electoral boards and general registrars whose responsibility it is to verify the signatures."
Goode, who represented Southside Virginia in Congress as a Democrat, Republican and independent between 1997 and 2009, said his campaign submitted more than 20,000 signatures.
In a letter Monday to Judd, the elections board chairman, Goode says his signatures "have now undergone two exhaustive reviews," one by the elections board and voter registrars, the other by the state Republican Party.
"Realizing that the petition effort cannot be challenged with hard evidence," the state GOP "has asked (the State Board of Elections) to invalidate all of the petitions due to alleged fraud by petitioners," Goode writes.
Goode charges that the Republican Party of Virginia never devoted such scrutiny to Constitution Party petitions until "this year, when Virginia is widely recognized as a critical state for both the Republican and Democratic candidates."
Justin Riemer, deputy secretary of the State Board of Elections, said the board's staff has reviewed the documents, but the three members of the elections board will determine who qualifies for the ballot.
Look no matter what we think about abortion it is legal. Planned Parenthood has a right to exist if they can make it without government funding. Now the way to win this issue is to stop federal funding of abortion and as Christians we need to offer alternatives in every community in America. This would include free sex education with emphasize on abstaining all the way to providing support through pregnancy whether adoption is the choice or not. We cannot just be against abortion we must be for life and support life with our time and money.
Does 'Planned Parenthood' really have a right to exist (when it comes to abortion)? Did the Nazis have the right to have their ovens and to gas people to death in chambers with supposed showers, so long as it was legal and they could have done it without government funding?
But parents do need to teach their children to abstain from sex until they are married and we do need to support life.
I love the idea of pro-life clinics that have popped up right next to 'Planned Parenthood' clinics!
I would really like Dinesh Dsouza's next movie to be exposing what an actual partial birth and late term abortion is.., because the people here excusing it are as close to murderers as you can come..You can't say we voted for it, and when it started, late term was against the law..What kind of doctors , who take an oath to first do no harm are good with this..they have to be the same type that tortured people during the holocaust. Have you ever had a child kicking inside of you..you can't possibly say it's not a life.. What kind of people can't defend a baby about to take it's first breathe, What did it ever do to get the death penelty? Oh Dinesh could you also add euthanasia, into the movie because the platform of these people is death and it's really not a testament to life.??
The holocaust against the unborn is the greatest sin they could ever do or even participate in...Norma McCorvey..
The advocates of abortion on demand falsely assume two things..that women must suffer if the lives of unborn children are legally protected ..and that women can only attain equality by having the legal option of destroying their innocent offspring in the womb.. Robert Casey..
How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers. Mother Teresa
Very good points. I just don't think our logic against abortion should be based on emotions and imagery. It should be based on brute logic. If we start using imagery to prove our argument, than the liberals will do a better job. The battlefield is also a very ugly place but that doesn't make it wrong. Killing children is wrong plain and simple. The ugliness of it doesn't make it more or less wrong. I think a lot of the arguments on the right would shine bright if they were only made and presented to the people. I was in a cab today in NYC. The driver was a Guatemalan. I decided to strike up a conversation about politics. Almost every conservative argument I made he totally agreed and understood the folly of the liberals promising everything with everyone else's money. He said he would vote republican. I'm not sure if he would have voted or not. But I definitely opened his eyes on several subjects. I think it is important for every person to talk to people in their office or place of work and tell them why its important to vote. It could make a difference. In most states you have 30 days before election to register to vote.
Everything you say makes total sense to you and me but we are living with a generation that believes that it's ok to kill their flesh and blood...what you said about people that come here from other countries is true...they came here to get away from the very thing this President is trying to turn this country into..I would like to know when he thinks a baby is alive if he's the only one who thinks they aren't even if they miraculously make it here..so nine months..how about we just let the mother decide..because that's pretty much what's happening right now daily, mother's killing their born babies..we are losing our mother instinct..
Bravo! Couldn't have said it any better. The issue concerning abortion is about killing the innocent unborn baby in how wrong it is. Not "women's rights".
that's right ! Women have LOTS of choices, but their choices should end when life begins! The question/debate should really be "when does life begin?"
The democrats in particular and the pro-choicers specifically do not want to be held to the proposition that our Declaration of Independence is even minutely influenced by Providence. Accepting the proper relationship between us creatures and our Creator would be antithetical to so many of their positions that no matter how well our arguments are made they have to ignore them. Theirs is the tent so diverse, so tolerant, so all encompassing the truth has no room to grow.
Zo always cuts through the clutter of gibberish and gets right to the point. I always love his commentary.
I hate the way "conservative" politicians will put out a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for any cause except on the topic of abortion. As I recall when SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade, there was a footnote that clearly stated that those arguing to eliminate abortions had not proven when life begins. But also said if it was ever proven that life begins at conception, R v. W would be null. That, my friends is the way to fix the abortion problem. From time of conception the right to life would apply.
Well said Maxine. Many people don't even know about that Roe vs Wade footnote by the Justices and many that do just ignore it.
Also, 'Jane Roe' herself (Norman McCorvey) actually never had an abortion. She had her child and in 1995, actually became a pro-life advocate. The sham of the so-called “women’s rights” groups is you have rights as long as, ideologically, you agree with NOW, NARAL, or Planned Parenthood. Otherwise, you're just a religious zealot to them.
Phenomenal point made by Zo in that the founders stated that all men are CREATED equal, not that all men are equal, or are even born equal, but CREATED.
Also to the point that people who are "pro-choice" say they don't support abortion exactly but support a woman's choice for HER to choose abortion. So you're not for abortion but you're for another woman to choose abortion. If you support the choice then why don't you support the procedure?
Another great point made when he stated that if you don't support life from the moment of creation, then how can you truly support the following rights endowed by the Creator of liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Can't wait to see what hacks the DNC brings out at the convention to support abortion and push it as a "health-care" issue. And actually push that somehow killing a child in the womb is part of your "health-care", besides who wants a burden like a baby right Mr President? I suppose he missed the the day in Rev Wrights church when they talked about children being a gift from God. Oops.
remind me to take my blood pressure meds. and anti-acid. my brain is already in knot just nightmaring about what the D.N.C. will present
And let's not forget when Obama said if one of his daughters were to get pregnant, he wouldn't PUNISH her by having the child. That was so typical of him, a hate filled human being.
We are all created equal speaks to exactly where our true equality lies......
It has nothing to do with how or where you were born.
Excellent, Zo. Thank you. You hit it out of the park day after day.
Zo tackles the issue of abortion and why Republicans need to get better at defending it:
Oops Scoop, I think you meant defending Pro-life not defending abortion.
"I always feel sorry for people that can spell things only one way. They lack imagination."
- Mark Twain
In case you missed it..... it wasn't a spelling issue. I never correct people's spelling as I'm not always perfect when I bang away at my keyboard. Now, back to the topic at hand.
Maxine, I think you overlooked a key word in Scoop's commentary;
Republicans need to get better at defending against it:
I do it myself on occasion, which is why I try to read every twice, then once more with my "cheater" spectacles on. ;)