A daffy abortionist asks the impossible: a fetus must seek permission to invade a woman's body

The orthodox media and the far left typically hang the labels of cruel, merciless and extremist tag on pro-lifers.

But it would be hard to outdo abortionist Leah Torres when it comes to inhumanity, barbarity and depravity.

As she said when she got into a Twitter mouth-fight with a pro-lifer, Jeryl Bier, who contributes to the Weekly Standard:

And to become a fetus, one needs permission to reside in someone’s uterus and put that person’s health in jeopardy.

Responded the astonished Bier:

“Permission”? Is the unborn child supposed to raise her hand and ask, “Hey, is it okay if I temporarily reside in your womb since you and your partner put me there in the first place?”

Well, Torres can’t mean that literally, I thought. Except that reading further, she clearly believes that a fetus is assaulting the mother. As if the unborn child is no better than the scum who sexually harass or rape women. As if the #metoo movement also ought to go after unborn children.

What the…?

The moment that life begins?

The moment that life begins?

Bier correctly presses Torres about how she would define a fetus as opposed to a newborn. For Torres, it has everything to do with when the umbilical cord is cut. “Because once the cord is cut, there is no longer the utilization of someone else’s physiology.”

Torres stops debating after Bier observes:

Of course there are differences [between a fetus and newborn]. Breathing air is one. But is that the determining factor? How many differences are there 1 minute before birth vs 1 minute after? The fetus/baby is still completely dependent on someone. What makes terminating 100% right before & 100% wrong after?

I find also that is where the debate stops.

Public opinion polls consistently show that most Americans hold a middle-of-the-road position–abortions should be legal only under certain circumstances. But when it comes to what are called “extreme positions”–abortions should not be allowed under any circumstances compared with abortions should be  be allowed under any circumstances –there are far more “extremists” on the pro-choice side than on the pro-life side. (For example, here’s the Gallup poll.)

Torres clearly falls into that extreme category. But her cohorts have nothing to say about her extremism. It is the same kind of heartless extremism advanced by Planned Parenthood–among most barbaric, cold hearted and inhuman group of fanatics you can find on either side of the political divide.

 Want to subscribe? Type your email address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.


Leave a comment
  • Abortionist? Explain/

  • I'm on the middle ground. I won't speak for Torres, but perhaps she meant that a woman gives "permission" for the fetus to be in her womb and put her health in jeopardy. This would be essential to the idea of a woman's ownership of her reproductive system.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I think middle ground needs defending so that this can be a more private matter.

  • Nice post. Thanks for sharing. I have also a little discussion on Abortionist. Lots of examine the load measurement and tongue weight specs of your ATV earlier than shopping for a trailer. It is possible for you to to search out all kinds of latest trailers at a spread of costs. website

  • I won't speak for Torres, but perhaps she meant that a woman gives "permission" for the fetus to be in her womb and put her health in jeopardy. myfirstpremiercard

  • Who has been able to pick out the best product among those listed on this site?

Leave a comment