Dr. Peter Kreeft: Pro-Choice People are Insane

This report is about a week old but is certainly worth highlighting.

Dr. Kreeft is one of the pre-eminent Catholic philosophers of our time. I remember being greatly edified with a series of his audio messages just over a year ago. In particular, his message entitled “How to Win the Culture War” seemed so profound yet so Christian in its call to action.

Recently, Dr. Kreeft delivered an address at the Annual Parish Respect Life Coordinator Conference in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Joseph Wemhoff was present and took extensive notes during the talk, summarized in this report.

Jam packed with insight and nuggets galore, Kreeft’s address, "We are living in a spiritual Hiroshima," is challenging for all Christians but will especially appeal to Catholics.

Here’s some reference to Kreeft’s comments about the insanity of “pro-choice” mindset.

Pro-choice people will not-indeed, cannot-listen to reason. Pro-choice people are insane and will not convert to reason-they will attempt to convert reason. Dr. Kreeft cited several cases. In one of his books-which, he bemoaned, are read only by pro-lifers-he made an airtight, logical argument that tolerating abortion is tantamount to tolerating infanticide. Confronted with this logic, pro-choicers said, yes, Dr. Kreeft, you just showed us how infanticide is now OK.

Well worth reading the whole thing.

Preborn Babies Are Like Unfinished Houses Says Abortionist Susan Wicklund

Does worldview make a difference to your outlook on science and morals, e.g. when a new organism comes into being and how it ought to be treated if it’s of the homo sapiens variety?

Read Jill Stanek’s posting on abortionist Susan Wicklund who is promoting her new book, This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor, and see what you think.

Here’s a sample of what Jill says:

She admits in the book "of an abortion she performed for a rape victim, only to find out afterward that the fetus she terminated was conceived earlier than thought and would have been the much-loved child of the woman and her husband," according to SFGate.com.

But nevermind the whoopsies, let's talk logic. To an interviewer's question, "What do you say when people tell you that 'abortion is murder'?" Wicklund appears to first say aborted babies don't look human, so it's not murder to abort them.

Read the full entry here.

A Woman’s Right to Choose: Fact or Fraud?

It has been reported that Confucius was once asked what he would do to set the world right. His reply was, "I would insist on the exact definition of words." What a wise response!

To conform to Confucius’ standard, and to adopt a phrase promoted by Dr. David Reardon of AfterAbortion.org, we will henceforth refer to abortion advocates as “poor-choicers,” rather than “pro-choicers.”

Let the average citizen examine with us the reasons for this.

“But women should have the freedom to choose.”

"Abortion is acceptable because a woman has a right to choose what is right for her and her baby."

"Who are you to say what choices I can and can’t make with my body?"

“It is a woman’s right to choose because women, not men, are the ones who have abortions.”

“Those who oppose a woman’s right to choose must be exposed for who they are… anti-choicers.”

These examples of rhetorical strategy have been very successful in convincing Canadians to believe that abortion is an undeniable right that accompanies a woman’s sexuality and the ownership of her own body. Furthermore, any call for a law banning abortion on moral grounds is considered extreme, restrictive and even a challenge to Canadian freedom.

In reality, these kinds of conclusions pose great dangers to our future, to our human rights and to our freedoms. The general public needs to be reminded that no individual has an unrestricted freedom or right to choose. Consider that the most basic moral premise behind government is to protect human life. The government’s duty to do so is neither subjective nor conditional. When our privacy and our choice bring harm to another individual, our laws quickly bring an end to our right to privacy and our right to choose. Is an innocent human being damaged by a woman's choice to have an abortion? If not, no problem. If so, it is a major problem which government has a moral duty to address.

All laws impose a moral viewpoint and restrict the individual's behavior, as illustrated by laws against murder, rape, child abuse and drunk driving. When the rights of fellow human beings, “significant others,” are at stake and particularly when their very lives are at stake, every just society restricts the individual's freedom of choice. The moral basis for our law is that our personal freedom must never deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

So let us return to the original poor-choice claim and finish the statement: Women should have the right to choose…….what? Poor-choicers would reply: “…the right to choose what is best for her and her baby.” This is a wonderful sounding statement but it craftily avoids the central reality of the choice. In its simplicity the slogan implies that there is no “significant other” in the equation. Its unsubstantiated assumption is that the Unborn is undeserving of such status and can be disregarded—even omitted from the conversation. The “right to choose” slogan muddies the waters and hides from view what’s really there. And presto! The issue is now switched from “Doesn’t abortion take the life of an innocent human being?” to “Can’t a woman choose?”

The tragic, but carefully crafted, result of this distortion is that the general public is unwittingly left to imagine that the Unborn in the womb, if anything, is somehow an entirely different class of being from you or me, and as long as no further discussion or details are forthcoming, the average citizen is too pre-occupied with their own affairs to inquire further.

To further illustrate the point, what would happen if pollsters asked, "Do you favor killing unborn children?" instead of "Do you believe a woman has a right to choose?" The polls would certainly report fewer poor-choicers. Again, how many would support “a woman’s choice or right to hire an abortionist to dismember the Unborn she carries in her womb?"

But poor-choicers know that by using the right words, and using them consistently, the majority of people quickly lose the mental connection between a woman’s “right to choose” and the death of a fellow human being. By consistently labeling themselves as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” they suggest their opposition (!!!) to abortion and their dedication to defending a woman’s right to choose (…to kill her unborn). But in the end, what's the difference? Pro-choice or pro-abortion, the result is the same—dead human beings.

Insisting on the exact, and consistent, definition of the word “pro-choice,” as Confucius indicated, reveals that many pro-lifers are actually and vigorously pro-choice, in the proper sense of the word. We support a woman’s right to choose her own health care provider, to choose her own job, to choose her own religion, and to choose her own career, to name a few. But just as importantly, we support a pregnant woman’s right to make informed choices about the true nature of abortion. She should know of the unrelenting heartache, clinical depression, substance abuse, marriage difficulties, increased risk of breast cancer, infertility, and future birth complications commonly linked to abortion. To help her make the best choice, she ought to also know basic facts about fetal development and fetal pain studies.

Poor-choicers object to helping women make these kinds of informed choices about their pregnancy, which disqualifies them from being truly pro-choice. Their zeal has little to do with choice or women’s heath. Since most women are pressured into abortions by other persons (especially by poor-choice “friends” and “professionals”) and circumstances, how could anyone describe it as a healthy choice which sets women free? The woman’s predicament seems to offer "no choice" but the poor choice of abortion.

A woman’s right to choose is a fraud that must be exposed for the poor-choice reality it truly is.

Abortion Talk: A False Dilemma Exposed

I received the following e-mail commentary today from Pastor Steven W. Cornell, Senior Pastor of Millersville Bible Church, Millersville, PA. It’s also available on Pastor Steve’s blog.

Pastor Cornell, very much like Pastor John Piper, is a shining model of Christian leadership taking a bold, biblical stance in defense of life.

**********

Sanctity of Human Life Sunday

There is a false dilemma at the heart of abortion talk. It goes like this: oppose abortion and you side with politics; support abortion and you side with the health and safety of women. Is it possible that the exact opposite of this is true? Perhaps those who oppose abortion side with the health and safety of women. What do the facts substantiate?

The medical effects of abortion and post-abortion stress disorder clearly indicate that abortion is rarely a good health decision for a woman. In a congressional hearing on the impact of abortion, psychologist Wanda Franz stated, "Women who report negative after-effects from abortion know exactly what their problem is. They report horrible nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood. When they are reminded of the abortion, the women re-experienced it with terrible psychological pain ... They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at the most natural of human activities -- the role of being a mother."

Many women battle long term emotional and psychological damage because of profound regret about their abortion. Abortion proponents, who attribute these effects to induced guilt from religion and pro-life activists, trivialize the actual trauma these women endure. As a result, it is not surprising that the greatest measures of support for women facing post abortion stress disorder comes from pro-life ministries. These ministries treat seriously the feelings of women rather than trivializing them.

How long will we be duped by politically motivated deceptions? Protecting abortion is not about protecting a women’s health. Should it bother us when an organization like Planned Parenthood (while prospering on the abortion industry) intentionally deceives people about the traumatic effects of abortion? The irrefutable fact stands that abortion, as a procedure, and in its after effects, is not about the health and safety of women. It’s more about a culture of convenience, self-absorption and money.

It is frightening that a person's “being wanted or planned” is the criterion of her right to life. Yet here is another source of blatant deception. Is the life of the fetus no more than a product of conception? When a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy is she actually terminating the life of her baby? Why do we have laws related to fetal homicide? Why do Doctor’s perform fetal surgery on a baby in the womb? Consider the following facts:

“Scientifically we are human beings by virtue of our genetic makeup. The human code in the chromosomes is there from the start. We are utterly different from monkeys or rats or elephants as soon as the chromosomes of egg and sperm meet.”

“At eight weeks, all the organs are present - brain functioning, heart pumping, liver making blood cells, kidney cleaning the fluids, fingerprints formed, etc. Yet almost all abortions happen later than this date.”

“Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking a thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. We can see the amazing pictures in Life Magazine or various books or Web pages.”

“There is a principle of justice that, when two legitimate rights conflict - say the woman's right not to be pregnant, and the baby's right not to be killed - the right that should be limited is the one that would do the most harm.” (Above facts from John Piper)

It’s time to enact laws that would compassionately protect both the women facing unplanned pregnancies and their babies. But until we accept the truth that induced abortion is detrimental to the physical, emotional and psychological health of women and the deliberate destruction of an unborn child, such laws will be considered extremist.

Right To Know Must Trump Right To Choose

Let’s face it, when we are making important decisions—crucial, life-changing decisions—what is it that we most desperately look for? Isn’t it everyday common-sense that we search out facts and information in order to make the best choice?

So let’s glance back at what we just said: A good choice is preceded by good information. What’s so difficult about such a concept?

The New Jersey Supreme Court this past week tried to debunk this common sense concept. Recent posts on this blog called their decision cowardly.

Richard Collier, Princeton lawyer, weighs in with his claim that the Court’s action was profoundly anti-woman and anti-choice.

His article further exposes the ideological agenda of baby-killers, its pervasive influence and the shocking levels of society where it rules.

**********

Depriving women of their right to know

LAST WEEK, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that patients are not entitled to truthful answers when they ask doctors direct questions about medical procedures.

When Rosa Acuna learned she was six weeks to eight weeks pregnant, she asked if she was carrying a baby at that stage. Her doctor replied that her fetus was "not a living human being," but rather "just tissue at this time." As a result, Rosa agreed to an abortion.

She suffered emotional distress upon discovering later that the abortion had indeed killed an existing human being. While expressing sympathy for Rosa's "deep pain," the court dismissed her claim against the doctor.

The court conceded that doctors must disclose all information that a reasonably prudent patient would find material before deciding to undergo a medical procedure. What could be more material than the one direct question the patient finds important enough to ask?

But according to the court, Rosa's doctor did not have to answer truthfully because "there is no consensus in the medical community" that embryos are living human beings at six weeks to eight weeks of age.

This assertion is simply false.

As any basic biology textbook would show, human life is a continuum and the embryo is an independent, living human being from the instant of fertilization. But instead of consulting modern scientific texts, the court relied on the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade to cast doubt on when human life begins.

Maybe the justices have not noticed, but science has advanced since 1973. That embryos are living human beings is no longer in doubt within the scientific community.

It is precisely for this reason that researchers demand stem cells be taken from embryos and not from laboratory rats. And even the U.S. Supreme Court now refers to the unborn being as "human life," as we saw in the partial-birth abortion decision five months ago. Arguments still rage over whether and when embryos can be killed, but these moral, philosophical and religious arguments presuppose the settled biological fact that embryos are living human beings.

And since when has an alleged lack of consensus in the medical community ever stopped a malpractice claim? Rare indeed is the malpractice case without opposing experts clashing on medical standards and medical facts. But such cases are submitted to juries every day. Why is Rosa's claim different?

Are abortionists exempt from malpractice claims? No.

As the Supreme Court recently stated, "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community." Is medical consensus necessary before the law can take sides? No. The Supreme Court stated in April that "state and federal legislatures [have] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty. . . . Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts."

Maybe emotional distress claims are suspect? No.

Again, the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated: "Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. . . . [It] seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."

Emotional consequences

Thus, even the Supreme Court recognizes the abortion decision is "so fraught with emotional consequences" that "[t]he State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed."

So what is really going on in last week's New Jersey decision? The tragic truth is that, once again, the ideology of abortion has trumped all other considerations, including biological fact and a patient's right to informed consent. The well-known "abortion distortion factor" exalts abortion above all other rights and nullifies any fact or law that gets in the way of unlimited abortions.

But in its misguided desperation to circle the wagons around the so-called right to choose abortion, the state Supreme Court has deprived women of their right to know what they are choosing -- even if they specifically ask.

No matter how you dress it up, last week's decision is anti-choice and anti-woman. The good news is that its blatant intellectual dishonesty will have the ironic effect of hastening the imminent and inevitable day when Roe is consigned to the ash heap of history.

One final observation: In perhaps its most laughable line, the court stated: "On the profound issue of when life begins, this court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction . . . when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide."

Editorial writers for The Record and elsewhere praised the court for its "wise judicial restraint." This is sheer nonsense. The same court has shown no restraint whatsoever in driving public policy on countless profound issues on which citizens are deeply divided, imposing its own agenda on same-sex marriage, school financing, zoning law, etc.

Judicial restraint is an alien notion in New Jersey; the courts routinely and aggressively arrogate unto themselves increasing control over the definition, direction and details of fundamental public policy. Whether the issue -- or the excuse -- is constitutional, common law, or statutory construction, the norm for the state judiciary is pure activism in aid of its own agenda.

Last week's decision is no exception.

Richard F. Collier Jr. practices law in Princeton and is president of the Legal Center for the Defense of Life, a public interest law firm with offices in Morristown.

[Source]

The Rosa Acunas Of The World Deserve Better. They Deserve All The Information

In yesterday’s edition of The Bulletin, Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper, columnist Frank Diamond writes a piece entitled “N.J. Supremes Issue Flawed Abortion Ruling.”

I covered the news about this NJ Supreme Court ruling just a couple days ago, making special reference to the one question that must always be asked in discussions about the entity growing within the body of a pregnant woman.

Then yesterday I blogged about the upcoming art exhibit crafted by Naomi Kasumi, a Japanese woman whose experience with abortion is partly summed up in these words of hers:

Since 1998, I have been making hand-made objects spontaneously, and obsessively, as a therapeutic, redemptive action, as a way to atone for my sin. The loss of this tiny life has led me to create repetitive objects, re-creating the same object and same action over and over, day and night. This ritual seems timeless. Sharing the truth of my experience with others publicly is my catharsis and part of my healing process.

Columnist Frank Diamond draws many of the elements of these stories together when he tells the story of George Zallie.

Last week's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the abortion case Acuna v. Turkish hit so close to home for George Zallie that he can't even speak about it. Zallie is a Cherry Hill resident whose daughter, Stacy, committed suicide in 2002. He learned afterwards that Stacy had been suffering from depression because of an abortion she'd had. Zallie believes that the medical community let his daughter down by not warning her of the possible psychiatric ramifications of terminating a pregnancy, and he's turned that belief into a crusade.

His Stacy Zallie Foundation offers counseling for post-abortive women suffering from depression. He's also lobbying the American Psychiatric Association to provide better information about the risk of abortion but, so far, has gotten no response.

That's because the entire counseling profession - psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers - is so infected with political correctness that it refuses to concede that abortion can be anything other than a liberating experience. After all, if a woman could be psychically scarred by abortion, might that not imply that the procedure isn't simply a routine affair, like having wisdom teeth pulled?

Diamond gives little evidence of being a principled “pro-lifer” but much evidence of being a true human being and poses very reasonable questions about the convoluted and bizarre status quo of legalized child killing.

What can we do to get more people making these observations and asking these sort of questions?

His article appears below.

**********

N.J. Supremes Issue Flawed Abortion Ruling

Last week's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the abortion case Acuna v. Turkish hit so close to home for George Zallie that he can't even speak about it. Zallie is a Cherry Hill resident whose daughter, Stacy, committed suicide in 2002. He learned afterwards that Stacy had been suffering from depression because of an abortion she'd had. Zallie believes that the medical community let his daughter down by not warning her of the possible psychiatric ramifications of terminating a pregnancy, and he's turned that belief into a crusade.

His Stacy Zallie Foundation offers counseling for post-abortive women suffering from depression. He's also lobbying the American Psychiatric Association to provide better information about the risk of abortion but, so far, has gotten no response.

That's because the entire counseling profession - psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers - is so infected with political correctness that it refuses to concede that abortion can be anything other than a liberating experience. After all, if a woman could be psychically scarred by abortion, might that not imply that the procedure isn't simply a routine affair, like having wisdom teeth pulled?

Zallie is engaged in a public effort to help an at-risk group. He's also fighting a personal battle. He couldn't comment on Acuna v. Turkish because he's suing Stacy's psychiatrist. Still, the case resonates with him because it deals with just what a physician needs to tell a patient who is weighing whether to have an abortion.

In 1996, Rosa Acuna discovered that she was six to eight weeks pregnant. When she asked her gynecologist, Dr. Sheldon Turkish, if there was a baby inside her, she says that he responded, "Don't be stupid; it's only blood," according to the New Jersey Supreme Court decision. Turkish doesn't remember exactly what he said, but he believes that he probably told Acuna that what was inside her "is just tissue at this time." Acuna signed a consent form acknowledging that "the doctor had explained all the risks and complications to her."

There is no mention in the court decision that Acuna was given any information regarding what to do in case she felt depressed after the abortion. Zallie contends that few women are given such guidance.

Acuna had the abortion, and it might have ended there except that something had gone terribly wrong. In the following weeks, she experienced bleeding. Finally, after about a month, she was admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, where she was diagnosed with an "incomplete abortion." An additional procedure was performed.

"What happened?" a recovering Acuna asked a nurse. According to court documents, "The nurse replied that 'the doctor left parts of the baby inside of you.'" The realization that it had been more than just "blood" or "tissue" sent Acuna into emotional distress until she was finally diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

What the New Jersey Supreme Court last week found important was that "she understood that without some intervening circumstance or medical procedure, a child would be born, but what she needed to hear on the day of her visit to [Turkish's] office was that she was carrying 'an existing living human being.'"

Well, the court ruled, maybe Acuna needed to hear that, but Turkish was under no obligation to say that "an abortion results in the killing of a family member." What Acuna expected from her doctor, the court decided, cuts to the core of an issue that theologians, physicians, and philosophers have been unable to resolve: When does life begin?

"We are not unmindful of the raging debate that has roiled the nation and of the sincerely and passionately held beliefs by those on opposite sides of the debate."

The court added that "Acuna must demonstrate that Dr. Turkish withheld medical information that a reasonably prudent pregnant woman in like circumstances would have considered material before consenting to the abortion."

Yet, wouldn't a "reasonably prudent pregnant woman" want to know that having an abortion might result in depression or post-traumatic stress disorder? Zallie argues that people on both sides of the abortion debate - those who claim to care only about the mother's welfare as well as those who say they're looking out for the baby - should be able to reach some sort of agreement about providing post-abortive counseling.

You would think that pro-choicers would be OK with a doctor or psychiatrist saying something like this: "Be mindful that some women - not all or even most, but some - do experience acute depression after having an abortion. It may well be because the crazy pro-lifers insist on saying that abortion is murder and try to make you feel guilty. Regardless of why you may be feeling depressed or anxious, just remember not to hesitate to come to me for help. I can get you counseling."

This is the least that should be done. Think of all the outreach programs for women suffering from post-partum depression. Think of all the segments on television news magazines that have focused on that very real problem. Now, do you remember ever seeing post-abortive syndrome featured on a talk show?

The pro-choice side claims that there's not enough evidence to suggest that post-abortive syndrome exists. Then, because it controls the universities and organizations such as the APA, it stymies any attempt to study the issue. Meanwhile, the thousands of stories about post-abortive syndrome are derided as being merely anecdotal.

The result: psychiatrists in lockstep interpret that ancient tenet of healing, "First, do no harm," as meaning, "Do nothing." Meanwhile, thousands of post-abortive women suffer in isolation. The Rosa Acunas of the world deserve better. They deserve all the information.

Unborn Humans Are Victims of Size Discrimination

Size is all about physics isn’t it? According to Merriam-Webster, physics is the physical properties and composition of something. That would obviously include appearance factors as well.

Imagine then that the physics of your "being" was used as a reason to eliminate you. For example, suppose you were seriously overweight, a not so uncommon occurrence these days. Now further imagine that a movement of people advocated for your death because of your abnormal or unusual size. Take it a step further and imagine if these people insisted that the only argument they needed for your death was your size and that your death would certainly contribute to the future well-being of the world. Suppose this movement was gaining a strong following and that in some places in the world overweight people were already paying with their lives.

Stupid and unbelievable! you might say. There’s no way something like that could happen.

Here’s news for you. Something like that is already happening.

To the unborn.

The following offers some proof for my claim.

According to the SLED test developed by Stephen Schwarz in "The Moral Question of Abortion", size is one of four determinants that are used against the unborn as an excuse to kill them. Each one of these determinants is used as grounds to discriminate against the unborn and treat them in any way that suits the purposes of the rest of humankind.

These purposes range from the simple inconvenience of abortion to the profit motives of the abortion business to the “ethics” of embryonic stem cell research, etc. etc.

Just last week a remarkable story impacted people’s attention worldwide. In some countries it has made a real splash and caused a stir. I blogged about the story in a rather facetious manner. In Canada, the story didn’t really seem to stick.

And now here's ABC News with the admission that the birth of a very tiny baby creates a very big problem for pro-abortion folks. Very interesting reading.

Why should that be a problem?

Seems like many in our culture can’t seem to see past the size factor, even in life and death scenarios. How shallow is that? Until a little baby appears before their eyes, miraculously converted into a child from the mere unknown and uncertain status of a fetus, they can’t envision the unborn as anything more than a “dot” or a “clump of cells.”

The report says

The fact that she has survived and grown to more than four pounds, and is about to go home, is a miracle, yes, but a miracle that may have an effect on the debate over abortion. And it may change what people think about life.

Also included is the comment from one reporter:

Bio-ethicists we spoke with today argue that Amillia is a miracle baby, and that it's unwise to change public policy based on miracles.

Right. I guess now all those doctors and bio-ethicists believe in miracles. Not.

Ok, so we won't be fooled into thinking little Amillia is going to revolutionize the way Canadians [or others] view the issue of abortion, but she has helped to focus attention and generate discussion. That in itself is a good thing for the unborn, because truth is always on the side of justice and that means justice is one step closer for these who are discriminated against and killed because of their size.

And in case you think my earlier analogy [of the overweight being killed on the basis only of their size with no other argument advanced] is silly, you need to read this story, about the Des Moines Register Editorial Board who recently issued a disastrous editorial on legislation to legalize human cloning for research in Iowa.

If you can believe it [more silliness], here’s their best argument for killing human beings when they are at their smallest and in their earliest stage of development:

There are some lawmakers who believe destroying a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is analogous to taking a human life. We have no argument to persuade the people who believe that.

Seems like their best argument is no argument at all! ProLifeBlogs notes the following about the newspaper’s empty and insistent discrimination:

They have no arguments to disprove that human embryos are living human beings.

Exactly.

Why not? Because it's true, perhaps? Because embryology clearly shows that human embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development?

At least the editorial staff of the Des Moines Register can acknowledge they are entirely bereft of anything resembling an argument. What's amazing is their arrogance to continue to assert their completely untenable and unargued for position.

Not satisfied with "amazing" arrogance, the Register astounds with their insistent bigotry,

We can only remind Iowans that what we're talking about here are microscopic masses of cells. Destroying them isn't the same as destroying a human life. Holding back this research, though, could prevent saving and improving lives.

They can only point out that human embryos are small and then assert that somehow because human embryos are small they are not human life.

Same old argument that’s been used literally millions of times to kill innocent unborn humans in Canada. We feel much better about killing them the smaller they are. When they are as small as the dots on a page we don’t even need an argument. Simply insisting on it is sufficient for the social and moral engineers, while the rest of the population nods and says, “It must be so.”

Is the truth no longer important to Canadians?

Who then will stand up for the truth?