This story is unavailable.

Dred Scott was decided before the total abolition of slavery. It was “settled law”. It is my life’s work to end all violence against human being: ALL human beings. I don’t discriminate based on arbitrary factors like size, location, dependence, race, sex, socioeconomic status, usefulness, or innocence. I say every human being, by virtue of their being human, deserves to live a life free from all aggressive violence. I really don’t understand why this is controversial, unless of course you support discrimination against certain humans based on totally arbitrary circumstances…

“The only reason we made abortion legal is that the alternative was worse.” This is also false. Have you read Roe? The reasoning of the court was that they “didn’t know when life begins,” and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt since maybe science was not as advanced then: however, now with our medical advances, embryology unequivocally tells us that a new human being’s life begins at the moment of fertilization. This isn’t a point up for debate.

I’ll say what I said earlier in response to another reader: bodily autonomy rights are not absolute. My right to swing my fist however I want ends at another person’s face; likewise, a person’s right to do whatever they want with their body does not include doing violence to another human being. And as science easily establishes, abortion kills a living, unique, whole, and differentiated human being. So abortion is categorically off the table.

My faith has zero to do with my being pro-life. I was an atheist when I became pro-life, and I am pro-life for secular reasons. Thanks for the ad hominem, though.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.