The Liberal View Of A Child In The Womb: Baby Or Tick?
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
Last week, Kos wrote this in a short diary entry:
“My wife and I just got back from the 12-week ultrasound, and seeing that everything looks healthy and normal, I think it’s safe to announce that yes, we’re about six months away from having our second child.
The due date is early April. And while it’s been a rough pregnancy thus far (just like the first), it was great seeing our very active 3-inch baby on a monitor.”
That’s a nice little post, isn’t it? However, it’s worth noting that Kos referred to his baby as, well, a baby.
Now, courtesy of Riehl World View, here’s a more typical liberal view of the baby in the womb, but in this case, it’s from a lib who wants to have an abortion:
“As I posted this morning the EC failed and I’m currently taking other steps while I gather the money I need to finish this thing once and for all. And you know what? Every time I think about it I refer to this fetus as a ‘parasite’, a ‘tick’ and other things I won’t even mention.
….I resent this fetus. I resent the f*ck out of the fact that something which is 1/16 of an inch long and which looks amazingly like a reptile trumps the life of a woman and her three children. I resent that this glob of cells which is smaller than a wad of snot is clearly valued more than the life of a 34 year old woman who is trying like hell to support her existing kids.” — Biting Beaver
See, is a fetus a baby or “a ‘parasite’, a ‘tick’?” For liberals, it depends on whether they want the baby or not. For conservatives, it’s always a baby, which means that whether you kill a baby in the womb or drop him face down into a toilet to drown when he’s a few months old, there’s no moral difference. If you understand that, you understand why conservatives are so hellbent on seeing Roe v. Wade overturned.
- 0share
- Share
- Tweet
- Comment Now 0
