THE WINNING ARGUMENT

     Recently both Bam-Bam and Notre Dame engaged in a mutual disgracing ceremony.  While there he spoke on his love of child killing, and, as always, the key point---the essential element---was overlooked by all, except me. 

    Somewhere in his speech he said, as pro-abortionists like to do, that this decision is “heart wrenching.”  Really?  If the child is recognized as a chld then the decision is murderous, but not necessarily upsetting (if one likes to have more dead children).  If there is no child then the decision is as upsetting as having a minor cyst removed.  But the only way that the decision can be serious enough to wrench a heart is if the result were serious, because the result is serious, because the substance is serious. 

     In other words, the entire matter is actually based upon one universally accepted premise.  This is namely, that the child is there and alive, and the decision IS serious, because it is murder.  Yet not one of the idiot “pro-lifers” ever ask their opponents why they consider the decision to be serious, heart wrenching, etc. 

     And it can NOT be that the act of abortion prevents a child from coming into the world, who might otherwise have done so.  The pro-death people are not bothered by this.  They advocate all forms of contraception with the ease that they advocate increased literacy.  They, officially, want children if and only if they are wanted and healthy.  To them, officially, abortion IS contraception. 

     The facts are quite simple.  The argument is already won.  However, it gains the pro-life side nothing.  Even though the evil side can be destroyed instantly, the stupid side refuses to follow my lead. 

    

Comments

[Vincent A. Lewis]

Your argument assumes that the culture of death does not stand on rationalization and justification for their disordered lives. They focus on the woman having a choice and not on the child. Pro-lifers are not idiots and they have used your argument. I had not heard pro-aborts regularly make the statement that Obama made. His remarks were an attempt to stop debate. They focus on the woman's right to choose. Even if you point out that the woman had a choice not to have sex they ignore the argument. You are also counting on politicians and nine judges to agree with your argument, when they may have a vested interest in keeping abortion legal.