Students at Johns Hopkins University accused students who oppose abortion to be white supremacists. This was an odd accusation since “[a]ccording to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009.” These highly educated students need to check out this site for a dose of empirical reality.
I wonder what these Johns Hopkins University pro-abortionists think of Al Sharpton who made something of an anti-abortion comment on his TV show. A caller wanted Sharpton to comment on the same-sex marriage controversy. Sharpton mumbled through his answer and said something that I’m curious to see what the pro-aborts will say about it. I suspect they’ll ignore it so as not to draw attention to its implications for their “pro-choice” narrative. Here’s what he said:
“Even if people want to . . . take away women’s right to choose, I would advise my daughters never to . . . get rid of a child. I don’t think I’d have a right to make a law about that.
Sharpton equates abortion to getting rid of a child. If a woman gets rid of a child, then it seems to me that there ought to be a law against it. If a mother gets rid of her one-month-old child by killing her, she’ll be prosecuted. There are laws against women getting rid of their children. Child-killing is a crime.
Here’s a frightening statistic: “more than 200 women a year kill their children in the United States, according to the American Anthropological Association.”
The pro-abortion industry understands the power of words and the definition of words. A pro-abortionist almost never describes himself that way. The pro-abortion, better, the pro-pre-born baby killers, chose a euphemism to cover their bloody business. They are not pro-abortion; they are pro-choice. Who can be against choice?
The same-sex sex people did the same thing by distancing themselves from the word homosexual by describing themselves as “gay.”
I suspect that the pro-aborts won’t call on Sharpton to repent for describing abortion as getting rid of a child, since many recognize that fact and don’t see it as a moral problem. As far back as 1984, college students conceded to the fact that abortion killed a child. After a debate on the issue of abortion, a discussion arose:
“[M]ost of the students already recognized that the unborn child is a human life. Nevertheless, certain social reasons are considered ‘high enough’ to justify ending that life. According to some of the women, examples of ‘high enough’ reasons include protecting pregnant teenagers from the psychological distress of bearing a child, helping poor women who aren’t able to care adequately for a child, and preventing children from coming into the world ‘unwanted.’ Many charged that pro‑life philosophies are not ‘socially acceptable’ because they fail to deal realistically with these problems.”1
We don’t hear these types of views very often, but they’re ever-present. For example, Jack Coleman writes the following about author Charles Murray and something he said at the 2013 CPAC conference:
“[Murray] recounted a conversation he had with a person in favor of legalized abortion. Murray told the person he believes abortion is a form of homicide and should be viewed as such. The other person’s response — there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.”
Here’s a legal definition of justifiable homicide: “a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties.”
Since when is a pre-born baby an aggressor?
- “Students Defend Abortion For ‘High’ Social Reasons,” The Rutherford Institute (January/February 1984), 8. [↩]