“Unplanned” Movie Is Challenging Pro-Abortion Advocates to Think

“Unplanned” Movie Is Challenging Pro-Abortion Advocates to Think April 7, 2019

Last week I had the opportunity to see the movie, “Unplanned” with a group from my church.

You may have heard of the movie, or you may not have, which wouldn’t be a surprise.

The big screen adaptation of former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson’s book [by the same name] was distributed by Pure Flix, a small company known for producing Christian content.

Johnson was the youngest clinic director in Planned Parenthood’s history, leading a facility in Bryan, Texas, with a passion for her work and an ambitious focus.

She was a true believer in the cause of “women’s reproductive rights” and counseled, by her estimation, thousands of girls and women, assuring them the fetus feels no pain, was not an actual baby, and it was a safe, simple procedure.

The reality, as told by Johnson in her story, as an insider on the way up, turned out to be as bad or worse as anyone on the pro-life side has ever imagined.

I won’t give away any of the key points in the movie, because I want to encourage you to see it for yourselves. I especially encourage my left-leaning readers who consider yourselves to be “pro-choice” to have an open mind and just go.

I would add, Abby Johnson was very “pro-choice,” but that was before she was asked to assist in a procedure, simply by holding the sonogram probe for the doctor.

The movie did surprisingly well, considering its lack of advertising, other than word of mouth and social media, along with only a $6 million budget.

It has cleared that budget, showing in just a bit over 1,000 theaters, nationwide, and managed to make it to #4 on the box office charts in its opening weekend.

At this rate, it may very well meet or surpass some of the better known Christian-themed releases, such as “God’s Not Dead” or the surprisingly successful “War Room.”

I’m asking people to go see this movie, whether pro-life or pro-choice. I’m asking folks to bring their puberty-aged kids – both boys and girls – to see this.

Is it going to change anyone’s mind?

If you were pro-life before, you will be pro-life after. If you were pro-choice, you’ll at least be given a chance to see more than just the politics involved.

Open minds, people.

To that point, Johnson, now a powerful voice in the pro-life movement, was a guest on “The Pure Flix Podcast” last week, in order to talk about the impact her story is having.

One result, she says, is that minds and hearts are being changed.

“It’s just really exciting, and just hearing all the stories of people who are going into this film pro-choice … and are walking out pro-life,” she said. “Every day I’m waking up to stories of people who are like, ‘Your film changed my mind … I can’t believe I ever supported abortion.'”

“I feel like this movie is not just a movie. It really is sort of creating a movement,” she said. “We want to get people plugged in. We want to rally around the people that are changing their minds.”

So let me speak to this, because I have already heard objections from the left:

If you refuse to expose yourself to additional views or information, simply because you don’t want your mind changed, how sure are you of your position?

In Johnson’s case, she has stood on both sides. She’s not simply a zealot waving a “baby killer” sign outside of abortion clinics.

She, like Norma McCorvey – also known as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade infamy – saw the manipulation that goes into the abortion movement, and she made the decision to change.

An additional trivia tidbit, for those who didn’t know is that McCorvey never had an abortion. She was simply the face the abortion industry wanted at the time: young, poor, and vulnerable. She helped drive the narrative that women needed abortion as an option, lest lawmakers be seen as tyrants holding poor women hostage.

It’s a narrative that continues to this day, actually, and it’s a false narrative.

Back to Johnson’s story, however, and what she has been doing since making her own escape from the Planned Parenthood charade.

She now runs a nonprofit organization called And Then There Were None. Its goal is to help former abortion industry workers, like herself, find a way out.

“We’re actually reaching into these clinics and trying to get their workers out,” Johnson said, noting that the organization sends mailers, calls clinics and trains pro-life advocates on sidewalks in how to appropriately reach out to abortion clinic workers.

“We’re trying to reach as many as we can, because we really believe that the majority of people who work in the clinics actually don’t want to be there,” Johnson said.

She knows from experience how hard it is to leave the job, as those who choose to do so lose their salary, friends, and other comforts.

“You’re basically leaving everything behind,” she said.

And that’s the political clout that Planned Parenthood holds in this nation. If they weren’t powerfully connected, you wouldn’t see $500 million in taxpayer funds going into their coffers, each year. That money would be going to community health clinics and crisis pregnancy centers.

At the very least, adoptions in this nation would be made simpler, and there would be a requirement that all abortion providers counsel women on the adoption option, as well as allowing them to see their sonograms before any procedure.

To date, the abortion industry and abortion advocates are all but setting themselves on fire to keep those sonograms from the view of clinic clientele. Why do you think that is? Surely it’s not because they’re afraid the women will change their minds. What do they care if a woman decides to keep her baby?

Well, money. That’s why they care.

As Johnson portrayed a conversation with a top Planned Parenthood executive in the movie, abortion really is where they make their money, no matter what they claim, and they don’t want anything derailing that income stream. Not even a baby’s life.

To date, Johnson says her organization has helped around 500 abortion workers leave behind the industry.

Her story is a powerful one, and it has the ability to challenge the thinking of those who still see abortion as “safe” or simply a reproductive “choice.”

And how does she deal with her own past involvement with abortion?

“It took practice. I realized early on after I left that I had a choice to make every single day that I woke up,” she said. “That I could wake up and I could choose to live in my past — the place that I can’t change, really the place that I feel like the enemy controls — or I can wake up and live in the present, I could live today for Christ in this gift that he’s given me.”

She’s moving forward, and she’s right. There is forgiveness and there is hope, no matter how broken our pasts may be.

So, if you have the opportunity and you can find this movie near you, just go, no matter which side of the debate you claim. What do you have to lose, except your preconceived notions?




Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Fmontyr

    So you make abortion a matter which is all about politics. Abortion has been happening since the time before recorded history. Some people look upon it unfavorably and some favorably. It is not a political issue but one of conscience, so leave it alone! Society fails when one group wants to impose its way of thinking upon others.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    It’s a political issue when it is taking money from taxpayers.
    If it is truly your belief that abortion has nothing to do with politics, then we absolutely have common ground to work from.
    I’m sure you are as eager to see the industry defunded as I am, correct?
    They should get ZERO in government support and people like you can pay the salaries of executives with your generous donations.
    Thanks for chiming in.

  • Alpha 1

    The anti-abortion movement was the predecessor to today’s QAnon conspiracy. It told evangelicals that they were warriors for righteousness, fighting a war against baby-murdering satanic nazis. And the way they fought this war was by voting republican and posting. Once the idea that there was a vast conspiracy to murder babies in the name of Satan, it became trivial for Q to come along and convince them there was a vast conspiracy to eat babies in the name of Satan. And wouldn’t you know it, you fight the satanic baby eaters of QAnon’s deep state the same way you fight the satanic baby murderers of the anti-abortion movement: by voting republican and posting. There’s total synergy between the two movements, which is why the Unplanned twitter account was tweeting out the QAnon slogan “Where We Go One We Go All” (WWG1WGA) and liking Qanon tweets:


  • RebeccaSusanWright

    I’m pretty sure associating the pro-life movement as the equivalent of QAnon is on such a level of absurd it defies all manner of reason.
    For one, we know abortions are a thing. They happen.
    QAnon hasnt gotten a prediction right, yet.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    It looks like you hit a nerve with this article.

    The far-left weenies that have chosen to infest your blog are unusually agitated as a result.

    Good job. Keep up the good work and Christian testimony.

    Too bad the lefty infestation does not know what “open mind” means as evidenced by their narrow-minded, bigoted responses – we might have been able to open a dialog….

  • mudskipper

    Sure. I’ll try to go see it. However, I have to say that the idea that clinic workers are somehow trapped there and need rescuing strains credulity. I also suspect–indeed, I know, because I’ve read their testimonies–that there are people whose own life experiences have led them making the exact opposite journey: from abortion foe to abortion supporter. But I will try to keep an open mind while I watch it. (And by the way, it IS playing at multiple theaters here in my deep blue part of a deep blue state.)

  • Alpha 1

    Yeah, but the idea that anti-abortion advocates are fighting a war against satanic baby killers is very QAnon. What meaningful difference is there between the anti-abortion conspiracy that Planned Parenthood is selling aborted baby parts and the QAnon conspiracy that elites are eating babies? They’re both absurd. but they fill the same psychological need to feel like a warrior for righteousness without doing anything. That’s the real purpose of both movements. After all, we know that the anti-abortion movement was never about stopping abortions, since if it was they would advocate free birth control to prevent unplanned pregnancies that could lead to abortions. It’s also why “pro-life” politicians and voters support the Trump administration as it brutalizes migrant children, and are okay with the American military or its allies killing children in airstrikes. It’s not about helping children, it’s about feeling like a good person. Abortion is just an excuse. That’s why the people who made Unplanned also seem to have fallen for QAnon.

  • mudskipper

    What’s this about the people who made Unplanned falling for QAnon? I’m curious–do you have a link?

  • Alpha 1

    Check the tweet I linked, they were tweeting out QAnon slogans. They also like pro-QAnon tweets that replied to the original. The original tweet was deleted but the likes on the pro-QAnon tweets are still there. The simplest explanation for that is that they believe in QAnon. If you want to be generous it could be that only the people who run the twitter account believe in Q, but it’s still an excellent example of how the standard anti-abortion movement primes people to fall into more extreme conspiracies involving satanic baby-killing, like QAnon.

  • captcrisis

    Their hearts go out to the unborn, the tiny fingers, the cute tiny faces.

    But not to tiny cute faces if they’re brown and kept in cages at the border.

  • Fmontyr

    Your comment is confusing and since we are so far apart on the basics further discussion seems futile. Two quick points, the public is divided about 50:50 on the pro-life/pro-choice issue with the edge being with the pro-choice side by a very narrow margin. Second, my tax dollars are not paying for abortions but a massive amount of my taxes are being used to support killing of actual living persons by our military.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Your taxes, my taxes – both are authorized for specific purposes in the US Constitution. Taxes (by Constitutional mandate) are SUPPOSED to support our military, roads, post-offices and a handful of other functions that no one state can accomplish on their own that were/are therefore delegated by the States to the Federal Government to manage on behalf of ALL States.

    Also by Constitutional mandate, there are only a handful of reasons for the federal government to levy taxes on individuals (including corporations). The Military is one of those reasons. Roads are another as are post-offices. Welfare, abortion, healthcare are NOT among those the Constitution allows the federal government to even have a say in. Specifically, the 10th Amendment specifies that all powers, rights and functions NOT specifically authorized to the federal government are retained by the States and the individual people.

    As to the attitude on abortion, the tide is moving toward pro-life as the pro-choice narrative continues to fall apart and show the naked greed and hatred behind the virtue-signaling words of PP & the Democrats.

    It’s really too bad that the US Constitution is against your attempt to equate taxes going to a private organization like PP vs taxes going toward a Constitutionally mandated federal function like maintaining a standing military.

    … and yes – your tax dollars (which I don’t care about) as well as MY tax dollars (that I DO care about) ARE going to support abortion via federal funding of PP. PP – a private organization that kills actual living persons that are still in the womb.

    It would greatly benefit you to take off your ideological blinders and learn some actual science – particularly biology.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    As has already been so perfectly explained to you, our constitution calls for taxes to go to maintain a standing military for the protection of our nation.
    There’s not a single line in the document that is the foundation of our nation that requires a dime to be spent on propping up a private business, such as Planned Parenthood.
    As to the attitudes towards abortion, I would insist that it’s because the majority of those pro-abortion advocates are either benefiting in some way [as in PP execs], or do not have the full story, hence my call for open minds to Abby Johnson’s story.

  • Stephen

    Few of us are 100% either way on this issue. Most people will tolerate abortion in a few special instances. When the baby is dead and needs for the mother’s health to be removed. The mother’s health is in serious danger. Some will allow it in cases of rape or incest.

    I personally know a man who’s wife was raped and she conceived from that rape. They were white and the baby black. No way to hide what had happen. They elected to have that child and raised the child. Discussing that with my wife I was shocked she would in a similar situation consider abortion to protect me. I told her no way. I would choose what my friend had chosen.

    Hard ethical questions for sure. Then we have the example of China and their one child polices. Which BTW is turning out to be a disaster of epic portions. Their country is in a demographic free fall. A government that can say no abortions allowed can also mandate them. Do we want a white nationalist leaning government to fix the browning of America by only allowing one child per Black or Hispanic couples?

    When we argue we are pro-life then cut food stamps, health care for women and their children, cut child day care help so they can work and or go to school the hypocrisy is easily and stinky seen by society. And before the rigid right piles on, since my teen years I have every year paid federal income tax. In retirement my tax burden has gotten larger.

    We need to make it easy as possible for a woman not to choose abortion. Guys no woman happily makes that choice. I know a woman who grieved mightily after she made that choice. Her last pregnancy was by cesarean section. She was scared up badly by the procedure. When she got pregnant again despite using birth control she faced both her and the baby dying if an abortion was not done. She had two kids already and no one else to care for them. This guys is real life and a real moral ethical situation.

    This is what I think. First make available cheaply or free both birth control and education on how that works. Places that do that have much fewer abortions.
    Next make adoption easy and cheaper. I know a couple who spent tens of thousands of dollars to adopt and had to go over seas to do that. Many couples who would make fine parents cannot afford to do that.
    We need to quite the judgement mode and go to the mercy mode. Just help moms that need help with health care, day care, SNAP and what ever else they need to support themselves and their kids. Knock off talk like you should of kept your legs crossed. If you claim to follow Jesus , I am talking to you especially. Jesus was all about mercy when He came to earth. The only ones He judged was religious hypocrites.

    Finally we need to change how our society thinks of abortion and it’s acceptance of it. The film wrote about here is helping to do that. I have read in the 19th century abortion was more common than now. Actually advertising in news papers that service. The churches rose up , helped mothers and took a moral stand. They actually changed society’s think on abortion greatly reduce them with out any law passed. Sadly as long as a market exist someone will service that market. So to torpedo abortion we have to change how society sees it so it becomes shameful and something to avoid.

  • Hi Fmontyr

    Re: “It is not a political issue but one of conscience, so leave it alone!”

    Murder is a matter of conscience? If you don’t mind me asking, where did you learn that at and why would you believe that self-refuting nonsense?

    Where ever it was it has no historical basis in this country and certainly no justification for it anywhere. In a lecture titled ‘Of the Natural Rights of Individuals (1791)’, James Wilson rhetorically asked:

    What was the primary and the principal object in the institution of government? Was it — I speak of the primary and principal object — was it to acquire new rights by a human establishment? Or was it, by a human establishment, to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights, to the enjoyment or acquisition of which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift, or by the unerring law, of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator?

    It was rhetorical because the question was already answered in the Declaration of Independence that he signed, which unequivocally states:

    That to secure these [natural] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

    In his lecture, James Wilson goes on to address the subject of abortion.

    With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.

    By wrong reasoning you and your friends are guilty of imposing your way of thinking on the rest of civilized society, which in effect is spreading confusion and disorder. So do you think we should leave the decision of what to do with you and your faction to the conscience of each individual? And if not, why won’t you afford the same protections to the most helpless of us?

  • Michael Weyer

    Very well said. Especially like the pointing out of the hypocrisy of being pro-life but then cutting down on all the programs and medical resources a new mother would need, something the GOP sadly does too often.

  • Fmontyr

    Wow, you are way, way off target again. Congress has the say in present times regarding for what tax revenues are to be used. Tell me how many line items are in the budget and that will indicate just how wrong you are. Come on now, be honest and stop pretending that you are a know-it-all.

    “As to the attitude on abortion, the tide is moving toward pro-life…” WRONG!

    Tax dollars, by law and audit are not used by PP for doing abortions. PP obtains very generous contributions from the pro-life crowd for what little abortion work it actually does. Women’s health and well-being are the main purpose of PP. Your racism comes through as you seem to want poverty stricken African-American women to die off quickly.

    You said …”kills actual living persons that are still in the womb.”
    WRONG again. Living persons are not in the womb! Except for some crack-pot religious people BIRTH has always been the demarcation point for the beginning of life of persons.

    I fully suspect I know far more science and especially biology than you and will challenge you to a test any day. I will not go into the ridiculous ideological blinders that Evangelical ?Christians? labor under.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Just keep repeating your liberal nonsense to people that are less and less willing to hear it.

    You and your liberal friends have already lost a sizeable portion of the American public’s trust and that portion continues to increase.

    As to your belief that life does not begin until birth, just how have mid-wives create life from non-life throughout history ?

    If you think that a baby in the womb is not human, please cite one example of a human female giving birth to a puppy, a pony or a pig (or any other non-human life-form).

    If you think that “personhood” (whatever mythical distinction that implies starts only at birth, you will never be able to explain how premature babies can grow up to become “persons”. Babies delivered via C-Section are not ‘born’.

    As to the level of science and biology that you think you know, your so-called “science” is based in liberal ideology – not really any different from the medieval ideology of the Roman Catholic Church that insisted the Earth was flat and that the Sun rotated around the Earth.

    Any believe that creates their “science” around their pre-determined ideology has the same blind-spots. No knowledge that conflicts with their beliefs is allowed to exist. Such is the state of liberal “science” where facts do not matter as much as “consensus” or “agreement” on what reality should look like.

    God does not listen to or care about your reality. His is the one we all live in. Yours is internally inconsistent and unsustainable.

  • Fmontyr

    Dear Gadfly,

    Lengthy effort and nice try to negate my opinions. And you had the audacity to equate my conscience with that of a murderer. Then you overlaid everything with words spoken 225 years ago by the man who came-up with the 2/3rds personage for human slaves (surely you agree), and who in spite of his intellect ended-up in financial ruin and spending time in debtors prison. Clearly you and Susan share the same cognitive bias regarding abortion.

  • Good afternoon Fmontyr.

    Well you know what they say: You can lead a horse to water…

    Now you may not like my equating your advocating for the legal justification for murdering the unborn with that of a murderer, but it is what it is. There is no need to address the self-refuting implication that words (i.e. principles) are not true because of who wrote them or when they were given, or because of whatever misfortunes may have befell a person. Those are irrelevant red-herrings.

    As for the 3/5 compromise alluded to, it has nothing to do with depriving a person of their worth as a human. We are a representative government and the number of House Representatives each State is allowed is derived by its population. Slaves were not citizens but the Southern States wanted to count them anyway so as to disproportionately increase their numbers. Because 3/4 of the States were needed to ratify the new constitution, the 3/5 compromise was concocted in hopes of obtaining at least that many and to also limit the mischief from those pro-slavery States. The dangers should be self-evident to all in allowing States to increase their representation over other States by those means.

  • mudskipper

    Interesting that you use James Wilson’s opinion on this, since he clearly states that the fetus is NOT protected before the quickening, which is sometime in the second trimester. So first trimester abortions would be okay with him.

  • In claiming to be “Challenging Pro-Abortion Advocates to Think”, these anti-choice fanatics’ idea of “thinking” is believing and promoting the monstrous lie that “abortion really is where they make their money, no matter what they claim, and they don’t want anything derailing that income stream”
    If there’s anybody here actually capable of thinking, here’s your chance to prove it : http://ChristianChoice.org/Believable/ChristianChoice-5 . Rev. R D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/982bd0874225a9d6e320a580340226d63fe9c7106b108132c7160cdc4d8907db.jpg

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    Why dont you listen to the woman who was on the inside and ran away from it?

  • Hi mudskipper

    When does life begin is the million dollar question. Catholic doctrine declares it to begin at conception, but that is a matter of opinion and faith. While it may eventually be proven correct, the law should not be based upon opinions but on facts. Otherwise it ceases to be justice and becomes persecution. Thus the scientific method of using the quickening to determine when life is protected by law was decided.

    But with the advancement of science, we now know the baby starts developing a brain, spinal cord, heart and other essential organs in the third week of gestation. Movement has been detected as early as eight weeks and before that electrical brain activity begins at around six weeks (half of the first trimester).

  • mudskipper

    The question isn’t when life begins. The question is when does a developing human life deserve full protection of the law.

    Science can’t help us here. It has been long known what a fertilized egg is. We know it the very first stage of a developing human life. It is alive. It has human DNA and therefore is human. We are not going to discover anything new about it that has any bearing on its legal status. Similarly, we have long known the essential stages of embryonic and fetal development.

    The question isn’t when human life begins, but when does a developing human life deserves full protection of the law. This is and will remain a question of opinion. It cannot be scientifically settled.

    You seem to think that the fact that a three-week old embryo, the size of a pepper-corn, has started the very early development of organs means it merits full protection. I disagree. Many people disagree. I think it would a travesty of justice to imprison or execute a woman who terminates a 3-week old embryo, since I don’t see that to be even close to the moral equivalent of killing a fully developed a human being.

    So I’m afraid that we are all in possession of the facts–but our conclusions are very different.

  • Re: “The question isn’t when human life begins, but when does a developing human life deserves full protection of the law. ”

    Of course our conclusions would be different because we are looking at it through completely different lenses. The premise of your argument is that rights are granted by men, and thus alienable according to their whims. But as the Declaration of Independence states in no uncertain terms.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    So you see it has everything to do when life begins and not when man decides to grant rights, if at all. It’s of small wonder why someone like Woodrow Wilson fought so hard to swap out the principles of the Declaration for what he called Darwinian principles, which would make the Constitution a ball of wax in the hands of whoever is in power at the moment. Calvin Coolidge brilliantly refutes this erroneous concept on the Declaration’s 150th Anniversary that I hope will give you pause.

    “About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers”

  • Fmontyr

    Gadfly, I’ll keep it very simple for you. The Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade upheld abortion as being legal. Thus, abortion cannot be murder because it is legal. And stop twisting the Constitution to suit your needs. And take your silly man-made religious notions with you and get in a boat and drift out to sea.

  • Fmontyr

    Again, Gadfly, you have got to be joking. You said, “As for the 3/5 compromise alluded to, it has nothing to do with depriving a person of their worth as a human.”

    Again Gadfly, I’ll keep it very simple for you. The only way to justify a human owing another human was to accept the common knowledge of that time that slaves were an inferior class of primates relative to humans. Now stop re-writing history to suit your needs.

  • Tsk tsk Fmontyr. Such a pathetic (i.e. obvious and extremely shallow) display of sophistry.

    If you truly wished to keep it simple you could have admitted to being willfully ignorant and left it at that. Obviously you know very little about the Constitution if you don’t know the Supreme Court can neither make law or invent rights (especially those that contradict our Natural Rights). And so to keep it simple just for you, it doesn’t matter what they say on this issue. Their opinion if void.

    Re: “Thus, abortion cannot be murder because it is legal.”

    Perhaps you are not being willfully ignorant after all and simply an idiot who is incapable of rational thought. To apply this erroneous principle elsewhere, it could be said the Nazis did not murder anyone because it was legal in Germany. And as a matter of fact they did try arguing just that. It’s famously known as the Nuremberg Defense. But hey, thanks for playing anyway.

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” ~George Washington’s Farewell Address

    “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being…This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” ~William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

  • Fmontyr

    It is typical when cornered and unable to validate one’s cognitive bias, to strike out in anger at one’s opponent. Insults and humiliation become part of the strategy in the effort to sustain an untenable position. I’m bringing this matter to an end.

    I said, “Thus, abortion cannot be murder because it is legal,” and you disagree. Indicate those jurisdictions within the US where one can go to trial for murder due to an ordinary abortion.

    Now as you drift farther out to sea with your silly notions, pray mightily to your god to save you. Farewell.

    P. S. Your quotes are of no relevance to me. The goodness of man is innate and not subject to the will or the dictates of some higher being. Morality evolved as the brain case of homo species primates enlarged during their evolution. God has nothing to do with it.

  • Re: “It is typical when cornered and unable to validate one’s cognitive bias…”

    Well if anyone would know it certainly would be you.

    Re: “P. S. Your quotes are of no relevance to me.”

    Yes yes, you’ve made it perfectly clear how anything that contradicts your own cognitive bias is automatically dismissed. Therefore it was never my intention to correct you but rather to use your subversive and incoherent ramblings as a teaching tool. As Jonathan Swift once wrote:

    Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired…”

  • Fmontyr

    Gadfly, being unable to validate his/her cognitive bias that Abortion = Murder, did hurl lots of insults and dumped humiliation on the counter party. In one highly amusing effort, the Holocaust was equated with Abortion! Well you can’t win them all, loser.

  • Fmontyr!

    I didn’t expect to hear from you again considering how in your last reply to me you said your were ending this. So when I seen the notification of your reply which contradicts that, I ignored it with the firm belief you use your words loosely and are not to be minded anyway. Eventually though curiosity got the better of me and to my surprise it gave me fits of laughter.

    For starters, you keep accusing me of cognitive bias when you haven’t given a rational reason for as to why anyone should agree with your opinions that you refuse to budge from. Then there is your incessant bleating over insults while you spew your own.

    Well to say anymore would only be beating a dead horse…

    “In the field of literary contention, it is common to see the epithets artifice, sophistry, misrepresentation and abuse, mutually bandied about. Whether they are more justly applicable to you, or me, the public must decide. With respect to abuse, I make not the least doubt, but every reader will allow you to surpass me in that.” ~Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted (1775)

  • Fmontyr

    So, Gadfly, against my better judgement I returned when seeing another piece on abortion. My curiosity drives me to learn more of what right-wing evangelicals believe about abortion. As you know most members of this off-shoot of Christianity are extremely pro-life. Yet in the book they take literally there is no mention of abortion although it certainly was a practice of those times. It probably was an insignificant matter in their culture. However, in the Bible there is a distinction is made between persons and fetuses.

    Your cognitive bias is your belief that abortion is murder. It is not under the law but is to your way of thinking. That is your bias. And yes, the horse is dead.

  • What a remarkable admittance, “against my better judgement”. Is that to say emotion and not reason is your master? It’s of small wonder then why you can’t logically deduce the right to life from God’s commandment to not murder and apply that principle to all life.

    As for abortion not being murder, ever hear of the ‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act’ which recognizes the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide? It’s a contradiction and injustice to say it’s legal for one group of people to terminate an unborn child yet define it as murder for another group.

    “The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends. ~Samuel West, Natural Law: The True Principles of Government (1776)

  • Fmontyr

    Boy, do you ever screw thing up! I have rational thinking and emotions. To reply to you was an emotional matter. Furthermore, you will not rectify your cognitive bias of abortion = murder. You need to understand that person-hood begins at birth, that is the tradition long followed. In the womb still attached to the supply line is a fetus. As said your Bible, there is that distinction.

    You’ll not hoodwink me with an apple and oranges comparison. A mother’s choice is just that, her choice whereas her being subject of an criminal assault is not something she choose. The key word in the so-called abortion debate is CHOICE, as in freedom of choice by the mother. Some day you may be able to understand.

    I had ‘splained to you that god has nothing to do with morality and, in fact, for many of us god does not exist. For those claiming to be “Christian?” there is wide variance of opinions about pro-choice. You, being a follower of Susan Wright, has me assuming that you are within one of the more highly conservative sects known as “Evangelical Christians?” where pro-choice is a no, no.

    “In an effort to specify that it applied only to the criminal assault on the mother, language was added to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act allowing its successful passage that stated that it could not be used to prosecute an abortion provider acting with the consent of the pregnant woman and with the certification of the law.”