Joe Scarborough Really Stretched the Limits of Sanity With This Take on the...
Fiasco: NYC GOP Councilwoman Just Obliterated Mamdani Over the City's Shambolic Winter Sto...
CBS News Peddled Fake News About Bad Bunny and ICE Post-Super Bowl Performance
Yes, This Was the Best Response to John Kasich's Tweet About the Super...
A Bar Patron Had a Total Meltdown During the Super Bowl. The Reason...
Maybe We Should Be Glad Bad Bunny Performed in Spanish
Notice Where This Ex-ESPN Reporter's Attempt to Mock Conservatives Over Bad Bunny Laughabl...
We Must Not Submit to 'Diversity'
A Maryland Squatter Walks Free — and Here's What Her Attorney Had...
AWFUL Who Harassed Yoga Studio Employees Over ICE Earned Herself a Ban
Deadline Tries to Guilt Trip John Lithgow for Starring in HBO's 'Harry Potter'...
Mayor Mamdani Becomes First NYC Leader to Skip Archbishop Installation in Almost a...
When Canadians Were Actually Funny
The Student ICE Walkouts Are a Troubling Reminder of How Revolutionaries Are Made
America’s Security Doesn’t End at the Ice’s Edge
Tipsheet

CNN Shaping The Election: What About Abortion On The Ballot?

In 1984 President Reagan said: "When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing."

You may often hear the liberal argument against professing Christians: We believe in science and you do not. The darkness in this statement can be easily brought to light. First, science tells us NOTHING about morality: whether something is right or wrong, good or evil, ugly or beautiful, loving or unkind, etc. Science provides us with results. After much scrutiny, experimentation, and testing, these results become facts. Now what? Based on liberal argumentation, these facts or results are enough, but they are not.
Advertisement


For example, let's say science could prove--without a doubt--that the Earth was cooling or heating. Now what? Is this good or is it bad? Will life expectancy increase or decrease? Will quality of life improve or diminish. In other words, science is never the proverbial nail in the coffin. But, as we all know, our personal morality determines whether scientific results amount to good or bad moral consequences.

BTW: The most precious things in life can't be scientifically proven. For example, a hug or a kiss can indicate the feeling we call love, but love itself is--in my opinion--God's funny way of showing us that we all believe things that can't be seen or proven to exist. But I digress--kinda.

Unfortunately for pro-abortionists, progress in the scientific world is not producing results that support their morality and values. This is one of the reasons why America has become more pro-life than pro-abortion.

As science proves that the baby feels pain at a younger and younger stage of gestation (which is the course it continues on), the more we see that the pro-choice/pro-abortion supporters do not believe science to be the final arbiter of their decision making--they believe in their own personal, twisted morality. That is why, at the 4:04 mark, we see Terry O'Neill (NOW's--National Org. for Women--pro-abortion advocate) uncomfortably smile when Marjorie Dannenfelser says that the
Advertisement
baby in the womb, like the mother, is a patient too. What else could she do but smile?

As human beings--and especially us political animals--we argue and fight for all kinds of policies, candidates, and obscure issues, but all this would mean nothing if our mothers had decided to abort us. Life is foundational to everything we believe.

HT: VHABEEB.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos