Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

September 30, 2008

The faulty logic of the abortion movement

I’m going to sidetrack a bit today from the bailout stuff, to gripe about “mommy lit.” 

Last winter, I ran across an ad for a publication called “Brain, Child–the Magazine for Thinking Mothers.”  Looking for something like this, and tired of all the fluff found in traditional “mom” publications, I decided to try it out for a year.  It’s not all bad–some of it is quite good.  It’s basically a selection of essays written by women across the country relating to such issues as simple as potty-training, to more complicated issues as being parents of adopted transracial children.  Of course, sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not, but that is true of any magazine.  But, I’ve generally found that such “intellectual” publications generally take a very cynical view, and feel that in order to be “intellectual,” one must blindly admit to being pro-abortion, no matter what.  It’s ironic to me, in that these “intellectual moms” writing for mothering and mom-centered magazines, seem to be at war with their unborn offspring.

Along this line, an article in the latest publication literally sickened me.  The article, titled “Somewhere Near the Bottom,” was written by a woman named Elana Sigall, and it detailed the series of events that led her to abort her third child.  The intro stated, “What are the ‘good’ reasons for having a baby?  What are the ‘good’ reasons to have an abortion?”  At one point in the article, she almost rejoiced that the level of her Hcg (the pregnancy hormone) was abnormally high, because this would have ended her “dilemma”:  It would have meant a definite abortion, as high levels of Hcg “sometimes” indicate birth defects such as Down Syndrome.  I’m not joking:  it was that callous.  She lamented that she felt she was having to make a choice between “this new baby and me.”  If she had this baby, she would have nothing to show for turning forty “except three children in diapers and a one-night-a-week job.”  She “agonized” for weeks over her decision.  She was happily married, and her husband, Michael, “wanted the baby very, very much–” the only item under her “cons” list.  She went to the abortion clinic the first time, and they did the ultrasound, only pointed it away from her (a common practice; for the mother to see the baby almost always means she will not go through with the abortion.)  Michael could see the ultrasound, and she could see his tears as he looked at his small son or daughter.  She didn’t go through it at that point.

She debated for a long time.  She lamented the fact that her middle child would have to move in with the oldest, and that the new baby’s room would have holes in the wall from his stuff.  She went to the abortion clinic four times in all, and backed out the first three.  On the third visit, they are on the elevator, and Michael is crying.  Here is their conversation on the elevator:

“I just keep thinking about the baby.  But I know that I have to think of you.  That’s my priority.  You have to be there for Talia and for Julian.”

She said, “The baby has gotten off to such a bad start.”

He replied, “Really?  I was thinking just the opposite.  That baby’s a fighter.  Been here three times already and still around.  I love that baby.  I can’t wait to hold that baby.”

They leave, go out to dinner, and then it was decided that she go back, without Michael, as “she had to do it alone.” 

She goes through with the abortion.  They had to administer general anesthesia, because she was so far along.  She woke up sobbing uncontrollably.  She said, “The grief found me quickly.  I was one hundred percent sure I had done the wrong thing.  All of my reasons for feeling hesitant seemed trivial and surmountable, especially compared to these new horrible feelings. Once the pregnancy was over, I could conjure up again all of the reasons that I loved having children.  That was, in an odd way, a relief.”

Contrary to what one might think, she ends the essay by chastizing women who “shrink from acknowledging their own abortions.”  She quotes feminist political activist Barbara Ehrenreich:  “You can blame a lot of folks, from media bigwigs to bishops, if we lose our reproductive rights, but it’s the women who shrink from acknowledging their own abortions who really irk me…The freedoms that we exercise but do not acknowledge are easily taken away.”

In other words, let’s advocate and push on women a practice that truly harms them–both physically and psychologically–and then throw them under the bus when they are broken about it afterwards.  That doesn’t sound like genuine “feminist” concern for women.  It sounds like blind political ideology to me.  And incredibly evil. 

The whole essay indicated to me the faulty logic of the abortion movement; a movement that continually fails to acknowledge a great Truth: all life is precious, no matter what the circumstances.   To argue that “all babies deserve to be wanted” is to gloss over the fact that “all babies should deserve to be granted a chance at life,” and deserve to NOT be torn apart limb from limb in their mother’s womb.

Sigall concludes, “In the hierarchy of abortions, mine must be somewhere near the bottom–under women with no job and no education and no husband and no money and under women with the education and money and desire to find out that a fetus has birth defects.”  She goes on, (unbelievably), “But the right to choose cannot be measured against an objective set of ‘good reasons;’ we cannot embrace any argument that ranks some choices as less ‘sketchy’ than others.  Would we rank the reasons for wanting children–what about ego satisfaction, loneliness, wealth transfer, extra help at home, boredom?”   In other words, for Sigall, there cannot ever be any solid moral ground when it comes to abortion.  Any reason is a good reason to have an abortion–no matter how trivial. 

The entire essay was made more horrific by the continued acknowledgment–by Sigall and her husband–that the “baby” was just that–a “baby.”  A living, breathing, separate, unique human being with its own soul apart theirs.  They were entirely aware of this:  it wasn’t just a “mass of tissue” to them, which somehow makes the idea behind the abortion movement a little more palatable.  If pro-abortion people truly thought that a baby was just a “mass of tissue,” then one could perhaps understand their point of view a bit more. (Not make it right, though.)  But technology has made it impossible for even the most pro-abortion among us to persist in this faulty belief.  And that’s what makes today’s abortion movement so utterly despicable.

In the afterword of the article, Sigall states that the essay is “a celebration of the children I have.  For me, it is a kind of love letter to them.  It is about how much I needed to want each of them, and how much I do.”  So, I suppose that it might also be called an anti-love letter to the child she aborted.  Apparently, for Sigall, the decision to end a child’s life in the womb should be solely dependent on the passing whims of the mother who carries that life–and nothing else.  Perhaps Sigall shouldn’t be surprised if, one day, her own children deem her as too much of an inconvenience to support in her old age, and to end her life in response to their own whims.   

I feel sorry for Sigall.  The child whose life she ended will haunt her for the rest of her “enlightened” life.



  1. The woman’s movement has become an ideological arm of the far left. No longer are “women”, per se, what matters to these groups: irrespective of what many may like to think, abortion remains central/primary to the mission of these groups. Never mind the progresses that women have experienced…all that matters is the ambiguous “womens health” phrase (which as a cause for abortion accounts for b/w 1-2% of all abortions).

    These groups have always been destructive, in my opinion. While it is true that attitudes necessarily needed to change for the sake of equality to progress, the idea that these groups have promoted the value of womanhood is a lie. In repetition over the years, the central theme that a “housewife” is not a position of prestige and greater is fatally flawed. Our society, vic-a-vie such messages, has foregone the inherent and priceless value of a mother staying at home and raising her family’s children – HANDS ON, teaching and helping to instill the values of goodness. That a career is the end-all goal for all women is destructive. Look at the condition of the American family, today. I firmly believe that mothers choosing to stay at home and raise their family’s children is an incredibly worthy pursuit, one pushed aside by womens groups starting in the 1960’s, as central to developing strong families and a strong nation.

    Comment by politixican — September 30, 2008 @ 10:58 am |Reply

  2. The article you write about sounds pretty good to me. She recognizes that control of her own fertility is a choice and a responsibility of which she has to take ownership, lest well meaning people take it away from her.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 12:13 pm |Reply

  3. I’m not one for government getting itself involved where it shouldn’t, either, Tony. I desire limited government when all possible, one of the reasons I’m a conservative. (Govt. involvement in the mortgage industry is what cause the subprime mortgage disaster.) But one of government’s worthy purposes is to protect everyone’s right to “life” and all the rest. It’s a matter of natural law. People should not kill people, and the purpose of law is to ensure that this doesn’t take place. To limit the horrifying practice of abortion–both for mothers and for babies–to simply a matter of “controlling one’s own fertility” is a simplistic argument. Should we legalize murder, because the murderer felt like it was the best “choice” they had? It just doesn’t hold water.

    Thank you for proving the point of my post.

    Comment by lindyborer — September 30, 2008 @ 1:04 pm |Reply

  4. Perhaps abortion has remained a high priority for the women’s movement is that reproductive freedom – whether it be the right to have a child, the right to abort, the right to IVF treatments, or the right to adopt (as well as the choice whether to work or be a stay at home mother) – is a litmus test for whether a woman truly has equal rights.

    Comment by talulahkumquat — September 30, 2008 @ 1:04 pm |Reply

  5. Indeed. If a woman does not have ownership of her own body, she has no freedom at all.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 2:06 pm |Reply

  6. Tony, you’re missing the entire point. I’m going to borrow one of my favorite terms from the Catholic faith: “invincible ignorance.” I think you’re a lost cause, I’m sorry to say.

    Can’t the left find a better “litmus” test–anything other than keeping the right to muder innocent babies at the top of their list?

    “The right to life is not “private and personal” and thus prone to the whims of each and every single person’s conscience or lack thereof but is instead a demand of justice. That we become a human being at conception is an accepted scientific fact, not a matter of faith. That every human being deserves respect and the right to live their life is a moral decision with consequences and not a personal decision without consequence.” (St. Blog’s Parish)

    Comment by lindyborer — September 30, 2008 @ 2:32 pm |Reply

  7. I think I’ll have to differ with you on that, as does the law in just about every modern country, including the USA.

    I certainly don’t think it’s a matter of left versus right any more. Take my country, in recent debates in Parliament the question has not even been over recriminalizing abortion. Left, right and center now all have consensus on the right to abortion, and only debated whether to reduce the weeks of gestation (currently 24 weeks) before which a woman can effectively have an abortion on demand.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 4:59 pm |Reply

  8. Abortion is not a “right”. It is a choice, made by a woman, to end a human life. There is a huge difference between the right a woman has to adopt a child, or undergo fertility treatments, and the act of abortion. Abortion, rather, has been made a choice by our legal system through Roe v Wade, as illustrated by the woman in the article above–one which the sacred Life of the couple’s unborn baby was left to the whim of its confused mother. A woman’s “reproductive freedom” SHOULD NOT supercede and does not include her right to end a human life (i.e. her unborn, 46 chromosome, animated, anatomically complete, pain feeling, thumb-sucking little fetus). Our rights as individuals should not (and do not in the rest of our society’s laws) infringe on another human’s rights.

    A woman would still have as much reproductive freedom as a man in a society where abortion is illegal (the way it should be). A woman’s reproductive freedoms start BEFORE coitus and END with fertilization/conception. Just like the man’s. Her choice begins with the decision to have sex (or for some to have sex minus a contraception method) and ends there. Just like the man’s. The one difference, yes, is that the woman has been granted the incredible privilege to house that human being until birth. But with such great privilege also comes great responsibility. And to that end, women who have abortions, and the government which allows them to, have both failed miserably.

    Comment by Jon Hart — September 30, 2008 @ 5:09 pm |Reply

  9. Tony: You, of all people, should know that just because something is “law” does not make it right. I realize, though, that objective truth and right and wrong are not in the vocabulary of those who share your beliefs regarding abortion. Indeed, for pro-aborts, everything is relative, and that is what complicates the abortion debate.

    Are you writing from a country other than the USA? Because, in the USA, the abortion movement is losing. It will eventually be illegal to have or perform an abortion. I don’t know where you’re getting your data, if you are talking about the USA. The center and right and the majority of Americans are decidedly pro-life.

    Comment by lindyborer — September 30, 2008 @ 7:22 pm |Reply

  10. Lindy, I’m writing from the United Kingdom. I’m confident that the United States would not be stupid enough to go back to the state of affairs existing before safe, legal abortion was generally available. Abortion is still strongly supported in opinion polls from different organizations using different methodologies carried out over some decades now.

    I’m not sure why you think that I “of all people” should have a special insight into whatever it is you’re trying to say. You incorrectly claim that those in favor of safe, legal abortion believe that “everything is relative” so probably whatever it is you think about my opinion is also incorrect.

    Jon, don’t try the “sacred life” stuff on me. As a child I endured many hours of lecturing on this subject, and some rather bloody photographs, care of some of some highly skilled and motivated priests. I was unimpressed then and I remain so now. I am of the opinion that my body is my own property, and a woman’s body is her own. We don’t get to tell her she does not have the last word on the contents of her womb.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 7:58 pm |Reply

  11. Just answer one question for me: Do you think that an unborn child does not feel pain? If no, then you’re ill-informed. If yes, then you’re reprehensible.

    Comment by lindyborer — September 30, 2008 @ 8:25 pm |Reply

  12. The consensus of neuroscientists seems to be that a critical event in the road to the human fetus feeling pain is the development of thalamocortical connections in the brain, which happens in the 26th week of gestation, (Essential Reproduction, Martin H. Johnson and Barry J. Everitt, Blackwell Publishing, 2000). At what point after that the complex pathways to awareness of pain arrive is not known.

    The overwhelming majority of abortions in the UK and the US (~90% in each country) are carried out during the first twelve weeks before fetus even shows an EEG rhythm. Abortions as late as 26 weeks are extremely rare in both countries and are usually only carried out that late if there are medical grounds.

    I’d counsel against trying to use emotional manipulation in this kind of discussion. It does not advance a case either way.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 8:42 pm |Reply

  13. WARNING: No emotional manipulation here. Just fact.

    Since we are all on a first name basis now, Tony, let me pose another scenario to you: You or I become a temporary ‘burden’ to our respective families and society. We are placed under general anesthesia, and without our permission, we are terminated. Because we feel no pain, is this an ethical practice? Are our families entitled the power to terminate our life for their own convenience and benefit without our permission? No. So the argument that abortion is ethical because the fetus feels no pain is defunct.

    The real question: When is a human considered just that: a living human? For the scientific community, the safest most accurate response is at conception. When haploid meets haploid and becomes diploid, and becomes a genetically complete metabolically active human cell.

    It is a fact that all human babies continue to develop dramatically in the postnatal period. This includes the most dramatic formation of the CNS, including dendrites, synaptogenesis, and myelination through infancy. The cellular structure of the visual cortex forms from birth to 6 months. Babies do not have full adult level maturation of their alveoli until they are 8 years old. So the fact that it is ethical to terminate a fetus because it is not fully developed to adult function is defunct. Otherwise, we would be terminating 1 day old infants. Or, those infants who somehow survive an abortion (wait, many, including Obama, already say this is acceptable).

    The fundamental question of whether abortion is an ethical/lawful practice should not rest on the question of whether the fetus feels pain or not (not to detract from Lindy’s argument, it is a very valid argument against abortion). The question of fetal pain sensation only strengthens the argument against abortion past, as you have pointed out, 26 weeks. But it’s genetic make-up is the same as yours and mine at conception. All of its vital organs are formed by 8 weeks. And as I have stated earlier, cellular development is a fluid and continual process that begins at conception and continues into infancy and childhood. Who are we to decide at what point after conception it is ethical to terminate said life? Who are we to decide at what level of cellular development a human is worthy of life? If there is any question (mind you, there IS), then don’t you think we should err on the side of preserving life from conception?

    I still fail to see how the woman’s right to control the “contents of her womb” supercedes the fact which is conveniently ignored: the “contents of her womb” cannot be equated to sluffed cells of her endometrium, or a tumor–they are in fact a living, metabolically active, highly organized and rapidly developing human being. Mind you, she has other options such as putting the child up for adoption.

    You place “sacred life” in quotations. Why? Do you consider your life sacred? Most people, including myself, would answer yes to this question. Life IS sacred. I am pretty sure in retrospect, I would consider my own life sacred at the moment I was conceived. I believe, that given the opportunity, millions of other individuals would answer the same, had they not been aborted because they were deemed unworthy of life by another human, or worse and more common: they were deemed an unexpected inconvenience.

    I think these sort of points, though, will continue to be ignored by those of you in the pro-choice community. Sadly, many of you have already known someone or have undergone an abortion yourself, and therefore, will not relent in your persistent attempt to rationalize the unethical nature of abortion. I do not point all of the blame to those of you, I point the blame to the societies and governments who have legalized this unethical and evil practice.

    Comment by Jon Hart — September 30, 2008 @ 10:28 pm |Reply

  14. No, I strongly disagree with attempts to equate the developing fetus with a fully developed human. The medical evidence opposes such a conclusion.

    Roe v. Wade decided that the woman’s rights outweigh those of the fetus up to the point of viability. I think that’s a fairly reasonable stance, and it seems to have enjoyed almost 2:1 support by the US public for some decades now.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 10:50 pm |Reply

  15. “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” Hippocrates, 400 B.C., Greece

    “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.” The “Father of Modern Genetics” Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

    “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

    “Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”–Association of Prolife Physicians

    Comment by Jon Hart — September 30, 2008 @ 11:27 pm |Reply

  16. You must also realize, Tony, that just because a court decides something doesn’t mean it is infallible. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 ruled that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a “person” with rights but the “property” of his master. Was the court right then? Of course not. And though the Spartan’s left their weak children on hillsides to die does not legitimize a society’s acceptance of evil practice.

    The Supreme Court of 1973 that legalized abortion nationwide with its Roe v. Wade decision was just as immoral and unjust as the Dred Scott Supreme Court. They dehumanized an entire class of human beings in order to legitimize wholesale discrimination against them. Abortion may go down in history as the greatest human rights abuse of all time.

    Comment by Jon Hart — September 30, 2008 @ 11:36 pm |Reply

  17. I think Tony missed my point: a fetus need not be equivalent to a fully developed human, in order to BE a genetically unique and individual human life and thus, possess the right to live. (see my first entry above).

    Medical evidence, in fact, is in overwhelming support of the fertilized zygote as a living, genetically unique and human entity. Not a part of the mother, but dependent upon the mother.

    I may not have the last word here, as I have to live the life that was granted me and be productive while doing so. This argument is already centuries old.

    Comment by Jon Hart — September 30, 2008 @ 11:50 pm |Reply

  18. John, I’ve no problems accepting that the embryo is alive from fertilization (indeed it is formed by the union of two living cells) and that the zygote is an organism distinct from the mother. Those are the clinical facts.

    I do have a problem with the questionable conclusions that are drawn above from those facts. Most people do.

    Of course the Supreme Court of the United States isn’t infallible. I described the import of its 1973 decision, expressed agreement with it, and noted that there has been strong support for it amongst the American people for some decades now. Could we all be wrong? Yes, but you would have to persuade us that there is a good reason to stop all legal, safe abortions.

    And again I have to ask you to stop these attempts at emotional manipulation. As a child I had to endure this handwringing and manipulative attempts to express the facts in such a way as to reach a predetermined conclusion, but then I was in school being indoctrinated by them and had no choice. As an adult I insist that you avoid it.

    I would think that after all this time the anti-abortion movement would have learned to avoid the elementary error of assuming that emotional manipulation is an effective way of gaining mass support. Time and again it fails.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — September 30, 2008 @ 11:56 pm |Reply

  19. Because, in the USA, the abortion movement is losing. It will eventually be illegal to have or perform an abortion. I don’t know where you’re getting your data, if you are talking about the USA. The center and right and the majority of Americans are decidedly pro-life.

    You’re mostly right. Although very few surveys show a pro-life majority (it usually ranges from 50:50 to a pro-choice majority), the fact that not having an abortion leads to a voter in 18 years time means that the pro-life population is increasing each year. So, it will indeed be illegal, one day in the future, to have an abortion in the United States (although, I’ve no idea what the punishment would be).

    Medical evidence, in fact, is in overwhelming support of the fertilized zygote as a living, genetically unique and human entity. Not a part of the mother, but dependent upon the mother.

    Medical evidence can inform a moral debate such as abortion, but it doesn’t make moral decisions.

    You still need an independent, moral reason for why all living human entities should be protected. I, for one, don’t think that merely being a member of group (race/gender/species) should confer any special rights.

    Comment by Joshua — October 1, 2008 @ 3:46 am |Reply

  20. Joshua, “the fact that not having an abortion leads to a voter in 18 years time means that the pro-life population is increasing each year.”

    That’s an intriguing projection, but it seems to assume that the children of people who are likely to oppose abortion will themselves oppose abortion. Two things we do know about America is that abortion is a very religiously charged issue and the religious mobility of Americans, unlike in other nations, is very high. Moreover the proportion of Americans unaffiliated to no religion is growing considerably at the expense of the proportion of American Christians of all hues.

    The opinion polls, moreover, show no great trends over the decades to support your conjecture. If anything, absolute opposition to abortion of the kind espoused in this discussion is in a slow decline.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — October 1, 2008 @ 11:09 am |Reply

  21. Since when is the right to live, a “special right”? It is a basic right. As affirmed by our Founding Fathers (i.e. “The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”). And inherently I think a vast majority of human beings on this earth would agree that their right to live is as basic and fundamental as one gets. The question is when do we have the authority to convey that right to a living human entity. Or a more direct question: do we have the right to take that basic right of life away from an innocent living human entity, and if so, at what point is it all right to do so? To me, the correct answer is never. I would argue philosophically natural law would also agree. A fetus is not a part of a woman, only dependent upon her, and therefore the woman’s natural right to control her own body without infringing upon another living human’s rights’ should not extend to her right to end the life of the fetus within her womb. Just as it is not ethical for her to end her 1 day old neonate’s life

    But you may be correct in that scientific evidence can only inform us on moral issues, but science has influenced many moral discussions and serves to advance our moral understanding of our natural world. And what science tells us is that a human is created at fertilization/conception and undergoes fluid development past birth into infancy. Even neonates are dependent upon their mother’s or others for their survival (i.e. could be considered non-viable on their own). Thus, the viability argument at the point of lung maturation in utero is also defunct.

    Tony, I have never used emotional speech or manipulation in any of my comments (as you claim). I am sorry you had bad childhood experiences, but to continually use that experience in order to claim that all anti-abortion arguments are emotionally manipulative (despite how unemotional and factual they are) is a mistake. I do not claim to have the answers, just facts and evidence and a human conscience, integrated to form a very valid argument.

    Comment by Jon Hart — October 1, 2008 @ 11:59 am |Reply

  22. Jon, you became manipulative when you tried to equate the developing fetus with an adult yesterday, and later tried to equate a developing child with a fetus.

    Neither of these addresses Roe v. Wade, which draws the line at when the fetus became viable (by which the Supreme Court said it meant “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”).

    You further twist the meaning of the Court’s words when you say: “Even neonates are dependent upon their mother’s or others for their survival (i.e. could be considered non-viable on their own).”

    This is not the meaning of viability as used in this instance by the Supreme Court.

    Please present arguments. Please do not attempt to change the meaning of the language in order to circumvent or misrepresent the position of the Supreme Court.

    It is important to address Roe v. Wade since it’s the defining case in US abortion law and it has strong public support over several decades now.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — October 1, 2008 @ 12:53 pm |Reply

  23. Hi. I just found your blog after searching the web for Elana Sigall. I have you bookmarked. I very much appreciate your point of view, and your eloquent expression of it. I wanted to comment that, not only will her unborn baby haunt her, but also her husband. I feel so sad for him. She killed his baby too. He wanted to hold and love that baby, and she killed the baby anyway. What must their marriage be like?

    Comment by Kirsten — October 27, 2008 @ 7:20 pm |Reply

  24. Hi Lindy.

    Really appreciate your article. This was so sad! Wanted to send you a link to the new commercial that Jane Roe produced – who never actually had an abortion and is now a pro-life advocate . . .

    We put out a number of blogs like this.

    Thank You, God, for the precious gift of all human life. May we always acknowledge it as such.


    Comment by Disciple Nations Alliance — February 16, 2009 @ 12:27 pm |Reply

  25. “Thank You, God, for the precious gift of all human life. May we always acknowledge it as such.”

    This reminded me of the puzzling fact that,of all nations professing equally to uphold human life, the United States passes and carries out more judicial sentences of death than any other civilized nation. Most other developed nations have abolished capital punishment.

    Comment by Tony Sidaway — February 16, 2009 @ 6:55 pm |Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: