Opinion

Louis C.K.: America’s unlikely conscience on abortion?

Comedian Louis C.K. during his “2017” Netflix special. Photo courtesy of Netflix

(RNS) Many comedians imagine themselves as edgy boundary-pushers — cultural critics who can hold up a mirror to society in ways that make us laugh even as they convict us.

But Louis C.K. takes this approach to a whole other level.

As one critic put it, C.K. ignores even the most tightly held cultural norms to “get people into an uncomfortable place where he can use humor to confront difficult topics.”

I think he goes way too far in many circumstances, but at least as often he has thoughtful and important things to say. More important, he says them in ways that can often break through cultural and psychological barriers for those who need to hear them the most.

It was with significant anticipation, then, that I sat down to watch Louie C.K.’s “2017” Netflix special. What cultural norms would he ignore and which issues would he force us to uncomfortably confront?

I got a good idea from his first line, “So, you know, I think abortion…”

This opening was met with a sustained groan, something he no doubt predicted, as he paused for several beats to let the discomfort ripple through his D.C. audience.

Comedian Louis C.K. takes the stage for his “2017” Netflix special. Photo courtesy of Netflix

Here was the perfect C.K. issue, the one that most persistently resists authentic public engagement. Given that I have spent a good chunk of my own career attempting to authentically engage abortion, I was obviously all in.

Would he actually confront our culture on this issue with the same incisive irreverence that he has with other issues?

“I think abortion is exactly like taking a s—,” he said, “100 percent the exact same thing.”

“Or … it isn’t. It is, or it isn’t. It’s either taking a sh– … or … it’s killing a baby,” he said, scrunching up his nose and attempting to feel the uncomfortable truth along with his audience.

“Only one of those two things. It’s no other things. So if you didn’t like to hear it’s like taking a s—, then it’s killing a baby. That’s the only other one you get to have. Which means you should be holding a sign … in front of a place … ”

Yes, he was going there. Trying to engender sympathy for despised pro-life activists.

“People hate abortion protesters. ‘They’re so shrill and awful.’ But they think babies are being murdered. What are they supposed to be (saying)? ‘Well, hmmm … that’s not cool. I don’t wanna be a dick about it, though. I don’t wanna ruin their day as they murder several babies all the time.’

“I don’t think it’s killing a baby, though. I mean, it’s a little like killing a baby. It’s a 100 percent killing a baby. It’s totally killing a whole baby.”

But just when you thought you got where he was going, true to form, C.K. turned the tables.

“But I think women should be allowed to kill babies,” he declared.

At this point a very clear cheer went up from the crowd. And as is his custom, C.K. mocked their reaction: “Wooohooo! We get to kill babies! Let’s do some shots and kill some babies!”

The crowd mocked, he then got down to bioethical business, offering three defenses of his view.

1. Life isn’t “that important.”

2. Women are important evolutionary deciders.

“Abortion,” he claimed, “is the last line of defense against s—-y people in the species.” He noted that other female animals perform this task very late, even after birth.

But given how much he clearly values the lives of his children, and presuming he isn’t for infanticide, these first two reasons were almost certainly a bridge for riffs on other issues rather than expressing an actual view on abortion.

3. If there is someone inside your body, “you get to kill him.”

After all, you can kill an intruder simply because “they’re in your house.”

C.K.’s view here is similar to the most famous pro-choice argument of all time, known by bioethicists the world over as “the violinist” by Judith Jarvis Thomson.

The argument tries to draw an analogy between pregnancy and a thought experiment in which someone has her body attached — against her will — to a famous violinist who requires use of her kidneys for nine months.

Here, Thomson attempts to elicit the intuition that even when we agree that a being is a full and equal person, a woman need not be required to offer the use of her body.

Analogies to a home invasion or to the forced attachment to the violinist invoke the exceptional cases of rape and health of the mother — cases where even clear majorities of pro-lifers have pro-choice views.

But this weakness is not even close to the most important thing about C.K.’s abortion bit.

Despite agreeing with reasonable restrictions on abortion (at least when the questions are asked the right way), many good people (especially if they are young) find the pro-life movement so repugnant they simply cannot take its views seriously.

But C.K. somehow found a way to get his young D.C. audience to a place where he could confront (and even mock) people’s problematic views. And do it in a way that preserved a relationship of goodwill.

In our current political climate, this is an absolutely astonishing achievement.

The Atlantic recently described C.K. as “America’s unlikely conscience.” For pro-lifers frustrated by the movement’s inability to reach those who do not think like us with even our most basic premises, we can only hope he will continue in this unlikely role for many years to come.

(Charles C. Camosy is associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University and author of “Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation”)

About the author

Charles C. Camosy

52 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • If there is someone inside your body, “you get to kill him.”

    Actually the best argument available, albeit crudely put. Since a woman is not chattel property of an uppity narcissistic guy like any anti-abortion pundit, she has the final say as to what goes on in her body. Anything to the contrary simply removes a woman’s personhood and pretends that they are answerable for all personal decisions to others. Essentially stating that women have no business making decisions they don’t like. Very self-centered and sociopathic in nature on the part of the anti-abortion crowd.

    “Analogies to a home invasion or to the forced attachment to the violinist invoke the exceptional cases of rape and health of the mother”

    Actually they don’t. They invoke the basic fundamental rights propounded by Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. That a born woman, has total discretion as to what happens in her body. As a person with her own rights, they are greater than the ones the author may claim to assert for a fetus, by virtue of its dependence on her body and will to survive until birth.

    Btw anti-abortion pundits don’t want reasonable limits to abortion, they simply want any possible limits (by fair means or foul) or backdoor bans. Reason, accommodation and sensibility have nothing to do with it.

  • Okay no more comedy for you.

    Take a sh- or kill it was about abortion views pick one, not abortion comedy reviews, take a sh- or kill it, pick one. 🙂

  • Lighten up Francis. 🙂

    Is there a way forward for the senseable out there who have a real conviction about life beginning at conception and a real grasp of the reality that abortion is not going anywhere? They are out there, I know many.

  • What he should have said:

    Take your Pills ladies, wear your condoms guys and save yourself a lot of money and grief and also thereby sending abortion doctors to the poor house.

    It is very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fertilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and insect species but give no legal protection to our own growing young ones.

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : The failures of the widely used birth “control” methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male condom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and STDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and STDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute. Unfortunately, they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    Putting some numbers into the discussion about those who do not practice safe sex.
    The CDC estimates there are on average 19 million cases of STDs in the USA every year. That is 190 million cases in ten years and 380 million cases in 20 years showing that either many citizens get more than one STD infection or that almost every citizen has had one STD infection in their life as the USA population is ~320 million. And in most cases such infections could have been prevented by the proper use of a 50 cent condom. And of course those same condoms could have prevented most of the unplanned pregnancies many of which resulted in abortions. (Of course, there is always masturbation or abstinence as other means to reduce the number of STD infections and abortions.)

  • Very interesting. But the measure of good comedy is it makes people think.
    The author, Louis C.K. Himself, and the media all, however, seldom make the distinction between arguing the rightness or wrongness of abortion and the entirely separate issue of how government should respond. If you don’t believe in abortion, then, don’t have one. Case closed.

  • The 2 best protection methods ever.

    1. Use those stats for a pickup line.
    2. Answer a pickup line with those stats.

  • The author lost me at: “Many comedians imagine themselves as edgy boundary-pushers”.

  • How far do you push that argument? “If you don’t believe in x, then don’t participate in x.” Does government have any right to regulate human behavior? It seems to me that one of the core functions of even an extremely limited government is to defend the rights of people to life, liberty, and property from being subverted by someone else. Then the question becomes, Is the baby inside the womb a person with rights or not? Are its rights then to be ignored because it is wholly dependent on its mother (who is usually willingly involved it its creation)?

  • No doubt there are limits to the argument. Since a fetus possesses no rights, no limitation on the rights of the woman to obtain an abortion is reasonable.

  • “No limitation on the rights of a woman to obtain an abortion is reasonable,” says _______? You must be one of the 20% of Americans who according to Gallup believes that abortion should *not* be illegal in the third trimester. It’s true that polling data does not make an action moral or immoral. Or do you disagree with that assertion? Perhaps you do, because only then could you accept your other assertion that “a fetus possesses no rights.” “Rights” according to whom? You? A court? A legislative body? Can another person or group determine if you, Kangaroo52, or any class of human beings has rights? You might say that if a court or legislative body says the preborn have no rights, then they have no rights. Okay. But then what would you say about the legal status of African Americans in this country during certain unseemly periods in our history? They had no rights then, but they do now? Perhaps you would.

  • Equating a fetus with a baby undercuts your notion of rights. A baby is born. At no point does its existence affect the rights of another person. As a fetus is physically attached and dependent on only its mother to exist, one cannot talk of a fetus having rights without stripping those of its mother.

  • Silly analogy. There is no equivalence between those born and a fetus. A fetus can only exist at the will of its mother and is inseparable from her prior to birth. No baby, child or adult has such a situation. Any other human being besides its mother can take care of the born.

    Talk of “responsibility” or “convenience” merely means that you want to interject your opinion into the personal lives of others where it is not required nor asked for. Mistaking having an opinion with having a say in the matter.

  • Take those stats on the wide circuit because 45’s administration just cut $214 Million, 2 yrs early, for teenage sex/sexual education affecting, for the most part, Native Americas, low income, inner city, rural & underserved areas.

  • The fetus does not have rights, that is absolutely a correct legal argument. That itself does not mean there can be no legal limits on abortion.

  • Let me get this straight, condoms fail all the time, people are stupid for using them, but they can prevent most unplanned pregnancies?

  • I resent the author’s implication that “cool people” like Louis C.K. admit that a fetus is “a baby,” so the elites and urbanites have to agree too. I recently watched one of his Saturday Night Live host monologues where he did some of his standup. His bits were (a) he admitted he was “slightly racist” because he had to tell himself “Everything’s fine!” when he saw a young black man in a hoodie, (b) comparing his fighting children to Israel and Palestine, and (c) pointing out that child m&lestation must feel really good, because why else would the abuser risk jail time and public disapproval? He killed, it was hilarious. Anyone who can do 10 minutes on racism, Israel/Palestine and child abuse and have the crowd love it you have to respect as a comedian. But I don’t have to agree with him to appreciate his humor.

  • Guttmacher considers a condom failure as being one where the irresponsible male has a condom in his pocket but does not use it. Guttmacher stats are on-line. Recommend that you peruse them.

  • But they do require some kind of good faith justification and some compelling interests beyond what is given by the typical anti-abortion crowd such as viability and legitimate medical considerations.

  • How much time does it take to educate someone on how babies are made and how to protect yourself from a STD? 10 minutes or less. How much does a condom cost? 50 cents each on average. See Amazon for a cost comparison.

  • Third trimester abortions are rare and never done except in cases of medical necessity.

    Your post lacks congruence. You have a lot of questions which are a technique resembling “throw everything but the kitchen sink and see what sticks.” The answer is none of it does. The fact is never in the history of jurisprudence has a fetus ever been considered to possess any rights. The attempt to try to link it to racial civil rights always fails because the slaves and freemen were born persons. Plus those who favor some specious fetal rights argument tend to oppose civil rights in general.

    One question I can answer is this: “Can another person or group determine if you, Kangaroo52, or any class of human beings has rights?” Of course that has always been the case. Have you ever heard of Louis XIV? Caesar? The Pope? Asked and answered.

  • If all of the Time, energy, and money put into changing abortion law by the religious right had been directed at providing alternatives to abortion, such as responsible birth control, sex education, family planning, and support for adoption– as opposed to fighting easy access to birth control, just say no, ignoring planning, fighting sex education, and anti gay adoption laws…

    One has to wonder if abortion would be much of an issue.

    But it wasn’t.

    One has to wonder if the actual goals of the antiabortion movement, like the actual goals of the antigay movement, were more about power, money, dominion, power, money, control, power, and money–did I mention power and money?– more than anything else.

    Well, I don’t wonder, but I’m a bit cynical when religion wants to use government to force its purely theological obsessions about sex onto others.

  • If this is what passes for humor at the table of comedy, I’m not having any.

  • All the talk of rights and ethics side step the most important point of abortion.
    It is a cold hearted and cruel act against the most defenseless of human lives.

    We can come up with all kinds of philosophical and rational arguments if we want, but it is a sad day when we no longer stand up for those who can’t defend themselves, and it makes us all less humane.

  • Don’t you think objective criticism is hitting just a little below the belt?

    I pretty much have to agree with everything you say here. Pro life supporters usually have a common shared belief that life starts at conception and their views on abortion are built on that belief. I don’t hear you condemning the foundation of their abortion views and I appreciate that. I know plenty of people who feel this way about abortion but are just as frustrated, maybe more frustrated, than the people who support choice are about the things you mentioned.

    I’m pro life, if you’re pro choice then I’m “pro wanted pregnancy”. There is my personal view and there is the reality of the opposing view. Pro lifers have been sold this bill of goods that their fight is against the people and policies that support abortion. The fight should just be about a number, make the abortion numbers go down save lives. Save lives, then be willing to invest in the lives saved that will need some help to have the opportunity to thrive.

    There are pro lifers out there with that mindset, and I will argue all day long for the respect of their views. Then there are the pro lifers out there who don’t understand that if they had their way starting tomorrow that the devil is in the details…you know, when that’s all you stand for it’s a sure way to finally lose your money and power. Sure you don’t want to flip flop on the issue? ; )

  • Along the same lines, how much does it cost to tell someone to not have sex? I’m not sure, but proposing to add $277 million purely to fund a method that has been scientifically proven to be the least effective of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs seems even more inane.

  • Amen, but keep in mind a condom is the only protection against the transfer of STDs for the sexually active other than masturbation.

    And on the subject, some info from the Gates Foundation:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/health/bill-gates-condom-challenge

    “Bill Gates is putting out a call to inventors, but he’s not looking for software, or
    the latest high-tech gadget. This time he’s in search of a better condom.

    On its Grand Challenges website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is offering a $100,000 startup grant to the person who designs “the next generation condom that significantly preserves or enhances pleasure” and promotes”regular use.”

    It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While
    researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of HIV, the
    virus that causes AIDS, getting people to use them is another story.”

  • And why are there ~ one million abortions every year in the USA?

    The failure rate of unprotected sex in preventing a pregnancy? As per Guttmacher, 85%,

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by “Perfect use” http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)


    (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed
    by: (the two most widely used forms of contraception)

    The Pill, at 0.3 percent) (33,000 unplanned pregnancies)

    Male condom at 2.0 percent (138,000 unplanned
    pregnancies)

    So where is the problem?

    ACTUAL FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES – Guttmacher Institute

    Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy

    Method……………..Typical

    Pill………
    8.7 (resulting in ~one million unplanned pregnancies- the Pill was not taken
    daily was the major reason for the high failure rate)

    Male condom ……….17.4 (resulting in another ~one million unplanned pregnancies- the condom was available but was not used is the major reason for the high failure rate)

    All the numbers are posted on line by Guttmacher if you want to run the
    calculations.

    So again we see the BRUTAL EFFECTS OF STUPIDITY!!!!

  • I like your last paragraph it points out the flaws of forced conformity through government and religion. The logic behind the paragraph is a great summary to your point. The problem I see with your reply is I doubt you had any influence on the person you responded to. He is bringing up some abortion objections that are coming from a place of passion more than a place of good logic. Your reply was heavy on logic and low on passion. He misses making a point with you because he assumes your opinion is based on passion and you with him for the same reason with logic. Next time a story on abortion comes out everyone will trot back out their same old arguements. Solutions need to address passions compassions and logic, good arguements will bring those things out but bad arguements will ignore them.
    Bad leaders know how to manipulate passions. Good leaders know when passions have been manipulated. That last paragraph you wrote was great if I failed to mention that. Can you follow up on it?

  • If something is living off your body you will generally see it as a medical problem. The exception is the fetus. It lives off your body, but it has the potential to emerge as human being, which it is not yet. Hence abortion is morally allowable because the fetus is not yet a human being.

    Then there’s the dilemma of when does a fetus become a human being. In countries like the United Kingdom secularists are concerned that it is possible that the fetus becomes a human being towards the end of the first trimester, when brain waves appear. Hence abortion in general is restricted to the first 22 weeks. But abortion is still allowed afterwards if a doctor deems it necessary or advisable. Nonetheless the main effort is first to prevent unwanted abortion by making contraceptives widely available and free. The second effort is to provide free health care so that almost all abortions are performed as early as possible. Religious groups like the Catholic church are rigidly opposed to the efforts to prevent unwanted fetuses through the use of contraceptives.

    When you throw in purely philosophic religious considerations, you have political players like the Catholic church claim that the union of the egg and the sperm instantly crates a human being. You even have uber Catholic claim that all eggs are really human beings (but not all sperm, because even they know that most sperm are killed off in the mad dash to fertilize an egg).

  • Your assertion that the fetus is a human life is debatable. It is not a medial or biological certainty. Hence many secularists have decided that the best thing to do is to make a medically and biologically probable decision that the human life of the fetus begins with the appearance of brain waves (towrds the end of the first trimester in mst cases). But many of the religious cannot accept since they do not use biology or medical concerns in their opposition to all abortions, at any time. In addition many are determined to prevent unwanted pregnancies through the use of contraceptives, again using only philosophy and not biology or medicine in their logic.

    Logic always starts with a given, a premise, either sheerly speculative or proven as fact. The assertion that the fetus is a human being the minute a sperm enters an egg is sheerly philosophic and speculative.

  • I know. FActs. you can prove anything with facts!

    Nearly Fifty years ago, I was involved in the fight for abortion rights in Hawaii. At that point, I was fairly naive, and had no idea there was such a thing as abortion, or that so many women sought it. My favorite professor asked me to help her in her work, and that was where I ended up, doing a lot of research and statistics.

    There were a few things I noticed. One was the sheer number of women dying or permanently injured from botched back alley or self induced abortions. Another was the sheer lack of concern about that, coupled with a desire to punish them, that I saw coming from the antiabortion crowd. And another was the extreme ugliness coming from the antiabortion side, coupled with a sincere lack of desire to do anything about abortion other than to ban it. And the last thing was the volume of basically anti-sex positions of the anti abortion side. How dare anyone have sex without asking hyper Christians for permission? How dare anyone make decisions for their own family health without asking god if it was ok?

    Baby killers! genocide! Moloch and Baal and the worst idol of all, Hyperbole! But absolutely nothing about getting at the root causes of abortion, and what could be done to prevent it. And a lot of ugliness.

    I’m not a fan of abortion, but I am even less of a fan of that methodology and ideology and ugliness. I can understand the belief that life begins at conception; I don’t share it. But refusing to take the obvious practical measures to deal with ittells me that it is about something else– and that would be power, money, and dominion.

    You would think that the antiabortion warriors would notice that they have been taken for a ride since roe v. Wade. But as you note, the devil is in the details.

  • Is it alive/ is it life? Yes it is living tissue.
    Is it human? If it is not human, what species of life is it?
    All the rest is unknown. You error on the side of hoping it’s not a human life. You draw arbitrary distinctions based on guesswork and convenience. Some are willing to go far past the presence of brainwaves based on similar arbitrary conjectures.
    I don’t need a lecture on science, logic or philosophy. My point is much simpler.
    It is a cold an cruel assault on a defenseless life.

  • Hard to believe accusing someone of murdering a baby didn’t win the hearts and minds of men and women.

    Passion without compassion is probably self interest. Somebody has probably already claimed that line somewhere.

  • I might look more favourably upon “pro life” campaigneers, if they showed the slightest consideration to the child after it is born. Much is argued about the “rights of the fetus”, but those arguements all too often fall short when it comes to aftermath, of the resultant birth. What support is offered to women whose children are, rape children? What support is offered to women whose child is suffering serve life challenging complications and is consequently born with the tag “pre-existing condition” (A great bonus to an already challenging and painful life). Abortion is a horific topic, but it isn’t a simple one. Most easily should a rape victim, have to bear her rapist’s child? (and yes. Despite expert testimony from renowned leading politicians, self taught in medical science, rape (legitimate or sorry I cannot say that) can quite easily lead to pregnancy.) Should an incestous rape victim, also be so easily dismissed? These are only the “simple” potential ethical cases…

    The flip side is legal or not, abortion will occur. We know from recent history, the horror show that is. Coat hangers, bleach and other such wonders are involved. Then again should those women matter, after all they will be criminals? But this could be your daughter, sister, cousin or life long friend. Issues like this are all too often talked about from diametrically opposed positions, with little if any nuance in either sides arguements. I think one might guess, I have a pro choice bias. But it isn’t because abortion is an easy solution, it isn’t and I acknowledge it isn’t the “right” solution for many, but do your opinions overide the health, both physical and mental of another?

    The thing is my right to anger ends, well before your nose starts? That is something we can reasonably agree upon, yes? Should not you afford that self same courtesy to those who choose a path you yourself, find challenging? Some (not all or many) on the “pro-life” side, have choosen the path of violence because they feel their voices are not heard. How is that different from the Jihadist, whose actions kill or maim in a terrorist act? Other than they are acting on behalf of the “right”, god? Again a god who is all knowing and powerful, yet we all too often feel the need to act on her behalf…

  • Its impossible to make a good faith argument concerning the rights of a fetus without addressing how it is by the same measure automatically an attack on the rights of its mother.

    By framing the argument in such a way, you deliberately and dishonesty omit the material moral, ethical and legal element to the discussion.

    By blubbering about protecting the unborn, you are also demanding legalized attacks upon the rights and lives of women.

  • Don’t have to care. The real issue has always been, how does it survive.

    Can you assert a right for a fetus without taking those away from its mother, no.

    Can a fetus survive without its mothers biological systems to support it? No.

    Can any human being besides its mother sustain the life of a fetus? No.

    It is not whether a fetus is a human being, it’s whether a fetus is a person with an individual autonomous existence. It isn’t. Don’t have to care much beyond that.

  • Not a bad line at all. And that self interest certainly comes under the heading of power,money, and dominion.

  • Sex education starting 7th grade. Open contraception without parental permission at drug stores.

  • Only if parents fail to educate their 7th graders as to the birds and bees. And how are seventh graders going to afford doctors appointments and resulting prescriptions?

  • You’ll know the parent(s) failed when the kids have STD’s or/& pregnant. Medicare for all would work.

  • “Don’t have to care”. In those words you proved my point; you are cold hearted and cruel. Laws and rights and rational arguments are wonderful things but they don’t make you human. Your humanity depends on more than that, I hope someday when you’re in need, someone has more of what it means to be human than you do.

  • Not at all. I am not the one deliberately omitting and avoiding discussions of women in their pregnancy.

    Your attempt to take a high and mighty attitude is complete and utter BS. In your nonsense about the alleged rights of a fetus, you deliberately attack the rights of the born. People in being.

    I don’t have to care because your argument is dishonest garbage by material omission. Deliberately false concern doesn’t make you human nor demonstrate the compassion you are claiming. Far from it. You are demonstrating narcissism, cruel indifference and hypocrisy.

  • I watched the show last night. Louis CK is one of my favorite comedians. His skit on abortion shows why he’s so brilliant. I’ve always felt that changing laws and forcing anyone to do anything will never change the hearts and minds of pro-choicers. It’s a long process and Louis CK is certainly helping to bridge the gap of understanding.

  • I’m always surprised at the shortage of action and reaction analysis in the pro-choice argument. They only seem to reference rape and health of the mother, which are 1 percent, at most, of the abortions performed. As a pro-lifer, I’m willing to set that aside and address the other 99% alone.
    It’s all how we regard the life of the unborn child. And Louis CK did an amazing job of bringing that to the table with humor. (did I mention he’s one of my favorite comedians) Let’s forget about what we do with ‘it’. Let’s first talk about what ‘it’ is. Once we do that, then we can talk about what should be done. I watched the show and thought it was brilliant.

  • You are not a pro-lifer. You do not want to address the life of those already born and you seem to want to avoid all discussion of the mother altogether. You are trying to impute a POV of me which does not come from my prior posts and create strawman arguments.

    It makes no difference how you regard the life of a fetus if you have no regard for the mother whose will keeps it alive. Otherwise you are just pretending a fetus is a person and its mother is not ( both of which are entirely untrue).

    Nobody has to justify why abortions are done to you. Your input is not sought nor necessary to such things. You may have an opinion on the subject and of the people who do. But that is not the same as having a rightful say in such things.

ADVERTISEMENTs