So when are you writing an article on how to assist children in the foster system? Do you have anything to say about how to support single mothers? Or low income families? Are you going to touch on how difficult it is to raise a child in today’s economy? When are you going to write anything of value that helps your fellow human and not a political agenda? Bootlicker.
Your reply is a textbook example of deflection—a deliberate effort to pull focus away from the brutal and barbaric act of abortion by shifting the conversation toward other topics.
You did not refute the substance of my op-ed.
You did not address the central moral question of my op-ed.
Instead, you attempted to drown it in a sea of grievances that, while important, are entirely separate from the matter at hand. This is not thoughtful dialogue; it is rhetorical misdirection. And worse, it is dishonest.
-
You ask when I am going to write about foster care, single mothers, or economic hardship. You speak as though no one on the pro-life side has ever done so. That assumption reveals either deep ignorance or willful blindness. Let me be precise.
LiveAction.org alone lists hundreds of resources across the United States that directly aid women and families facing crisis pregnancies. These include:
• Pregnancy Resource Centers that offer free diapers, baby formula, ultrasounds, parenting classes, and even housing assistance.
• Maternity homes and transitional shelters, such as Mary’s Shelter in Virginia or Gianna House in Michigan, which provide long-term safe housing for expectant mothers.
• Financial support initiatives, like those connected through Option Line (1-800-712-HELP), which connect women to free medical care, job placement services, and legal assistance.
• Adoption services that empower mothers to choose life and secure a future for their child when parenting is not feasible.
So let me ask you: Are you unaware of these resources, or do you simply choose to pretend they do not exist?
-
You use the term “bootlicker”—a shallow insult aimed at shutting down disagreement rather than inviting discourse. Do you genuinely believe that anyone who holds a moral conviction different from yours is merely groveling before power? That term says far more about your intellectual laziness than it does about my position. If you are confident in your beliefs, defend them with reason, not schoolyard slurs.
Here's a challenge I'd like to see you put some real effort into answering:
94% of all abortions are elective. Only 6%, (to be generous), are the result of rape, incest, or a danger to the life of the mother. So please, justify for us all why it is okay in your mind to poison or dismember an otherwise healthy human being, (as 94% of abortions do)... Why is that okay with you?
-
You demand that I “write something of value.” I already have. I wrote to defend the most voiceless and vulnerable members of our human family—those who are alive, developing, and wholly dependent on others for survival. To pretend that concern for the unborn is not “helping your fellow human” is to redefine humanity in grotesquely utilitarian terms. That path leads nowhere good. History has seen it before. We know where it ends. Auschwitz.
-
But since you brought it up, let me assure you—I have op-ed's scheduled through the end of August, many of which speak about the needs of children in the foster system, advocate for the dignity and support of single mothers, and to my mind, most importantly, champion reform in adoption policy, family leave, and child welfare.
The difference is this: I do not use those issues as a rhetorical shield to justify the dismemberment of an unborn child. I do not believe one evil becomes permissible just because the world is imperfect. I do not believe it is righteous to use 6% of abortions as an emotional cudgel against science, reason, logic and human rights.
You seem to think that unless one solves every problem in society, one cannot speak about any injustice in it. That is not a serious argument. That is a silencing tactic.
So here is my answer to your original questions:
• I support expanding foster care reform.
• I support greater support for single mothers through tax credits, childcare subsidies, and workplace flexibility.
• I support elevating the dignity of motherhood, not erasing it with the cold violence of abortion.
• And yes, I support—and actively promote—real, tangible assistance through the many pro-life organizations already doing this work every day, including but not limited to Live Action, Heartbeat International, Care Net, and Let Them Live.
-
You ask when I will write something that helps others. I ask you: When will you stop hiding behind diversions and slurs to avoid facing what abortion truly is? When will you stop hiding behind the 6% lie that abortion advocates tout as their reason for unfettered access to one of, of not the most, inhumane practices in human history.
Because at the center of this conversation—beneath your anger and evasion—is a beating heart that was stopped. That is not political. That is human. And it matters.
Skimmed that and all I want to say about your shitty argument is that morality does not equate to Christianity, you are a closed minded shame of a woman. Look up how many women have been killed or permanently disabled due to abortion being banned in their state. Abortion is not about ending a “baby’s” (embryo, not a baby) life, it’s about preserving the life of a woman who is ALIVE and is a mother, a sister, a daughter, a friend, a lover. You’re a shame of a woman. Stand up girl I’ll keep you in my prayers.
Let me begin with the obvious: The morality of abortion is not contingent on Christianity—nor any religion for that matter. You seem desperate to cast this as a “Christian” debate so you can dismiss it with a wave of the hand. But that is intellectually dishonest.
One does not need a Bible or any other religious text to know it is wrong to intentionally end the life of a distinct, developing human being. One only needs a functioning conscience and the courage to look at the facts without flinching.
This is not about theology. This is about biology and basic human ethics.
From the moment of conception, a new human organism comes into existence—genetically distinct from mother or father. This is not conjecture. It is not opinion.
It is embryology, affirmed in every scientific textbook on human development. Whether you call that organism an embryo, fetus, or “clump of cells” does not erase the reality that it is a living human being at an earlier stage of development.
And that life—yes, life—is terminated by abortion. Deliberately. That is the act we are discussing, no matter how many emotionally manipulative slogans you stack on top of it.
You speak of mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends—as if acknowledging a woman’s value somehow justifies the erasure of another life in her womb. But being a woman does not mean you get to decide who is human and who is disposable. That was never the standard for morality, and it never will be.
You tell me to look up how many women have died or been disabled due to abortion bans. I have. And the numbers you are alluding to are often based on deeply flawed or misleading data. In nearly every case where a woman’s life is at risk—ectopic pregnancies, septic uteruses, preeclampsia—treatment is permitted even under the strictest pro-life laws.
Important Point Here: NOT A SINGLE pro-life law bans medically necessary interventions to save a woman’s life. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to name the law and cite the clause. I will wait.
What is being banned is elective abortion—convenience-based abortion, the kind used to erase the consequences of sex in a culture allergic to responsibility. That is the reality. That is the target. And that is why you are scrambling to change the subject to religion, personal insults, and grotesque exaggerations.
You want to skip over the 94% of lives that have been ended in utero for no other reason than convenience.
You called me a “shame of a woman.” That is not an argument. That is a tantrum disguised as moral superiority.
You said, “Stand up, girl.” I am standing. I am standing for the unborn—whose voices you will never hear because they have been crushed in silence. I am standing for the women who have been lied to by a culture that tells them violence is liberation. And yes, I am standing for science, reason, and moral clarity—none of which require a single verse of Scripture to be valid.
But since you brought up prayer: I do not need your prayers, Iris. I need your honesty. Until you are willing to face what abortion is and what it does, you are not part of the solution.
Until then, you are just noise.
Loud, angry, and tragically misinformed noise.
You are the camouflage for the cruelty of an inhumane practice.
You are the barbarian with a needle of poison at the ready, or the forceps clamping down on the limbs of an unborn child ready to tear them away.
You, Iris, will be a blight on history—like the Germans who watched their Jewish neighbors vanish and said nothing… or worse, cheered. Your silence. Your mockery. Your complicity in the genocide of children will not be forgotten.
You have severe monkey brain if you believe that getting an abortion is equal to genocide. You said I am “loud, angry, and misinformed” when your entire page revolves around what women shouldn’t have the autonomy to decide that they are not ready to have a family. The purpose of human life is not procreation. I hope you do some serious soul searching and try to find real human connection.
You opened with the phrase “monkey brain”—a childish insult masquerading as a thought. That alone tells me how seriously you engage with opposing views: not with logic, not with evidence, but with mockery. That is not debate. Again, you are deflecting.
Let's get something clear: abortion is not simply a matter of “autonomy.”
If the issue were just about your body, there would be no debate. But abortion involves another body, another human, one with its own DNA, its own heartbeat, and its own trajectory of life—interrupted not by fate or illness, but by deliberate action. That is why the term “genocide” applies.
When you systematically justify the extermination of a particular group—in this case, the unborn—because they are unseen, unheard, and inconvenient, you are defending something unspeakable. You are not progressing humanity. You are rationalizing barbarism and disregarding the most basic of human rights: the right to life.
You say my “entire page revolves around what women shouldn’t do.” No. It revolves around what no human should do—erase another life under the illusion of personal empowerment. This is not about controlling women. It is about protecting humans. In this case, the most vulnerable humans - those without a voice - the unborn.
You claim, “The purpose of human life is not procreation.” That is a straw man. I never said it was. But if a risk of having sex is the creation of a new life, then having sex comes with moral responsibility.
Freedom is not license.
Rights are not unbound.
And the creation of new life demands more than flippant disregard under the banner of “choice.”
You suggest I do some soul searching. I have. That is why I stand where I do—not out of hatred, but out of conviction. Not out of moral superiority, but out of moral obligation. I have looked abortion in the face, stripped of euphemism and rhetoric, and I refuse to call it mercy.
You want to talk about human connection? Then begin with the most vulnerable among us—the ones who never get a name, never get a cradle, never get a chance. Because if we cannot recognize their humanity, we will eventually lose our own.
Now ask yourself—have you done that kind of soul searching?
Because screaming “autonomy” while defending the dismemberment of a voiceless human being is not liberation. It is complicity.
And history will call it what it is.
Over 60 million babies killed in utero.
That is a genocide of the most innocent, the unborn.
If you choose to align yourself with that, I cannot stop you. But understand this: Your defense of such actions is no stronger than the Nazi officers who claimed they were “just following orders.”
“while important, are entirely separate from the matter at hand” nothing but their argument will ever make sense. They don’t really care for the people and communities these abortions laws are hurting. Just to get their point across. Which just babble atp and true hypocrisy
You are free to disagree with the pro-life position, but reducing it to “babble” ignores the reality of over 60 million lives lost and the thousands of pregnancy resource centers offering free medical care, housing, diapers, formula, counseling, and real support for women in crisis.
Caring about the unborn and caring for women are not mutually exclusive—that is a false dichotomy.
The pro-life movement is rooted in the belief that both lives matter. If you are genuinely concerned about the communities affected by abortion laws, then engage honestly—because pretending abortion is the only compassionate option ignores the countless alternatives already in place that prove otherwise.
And here is the real question:
Why is it that those most committed to defending child genocide are also the most unwilling to even consider adoption, resource centers, or support networks as humane alternatives?
Why is death the only answer you are willing to fight for?
So when are you writing an article on how to assist children in the foster system? Do you have anything to say about how to support single mothers? Or low income families? Are you going to touch on how difficult it is to raise a child in today’s economy? When are you going to write anything of value that helps your fellow human and not a political agenda? Bootlicker.
Iris -
Your reply is a textbook example of deflection—a deliberate effort to pull focus away from the brutal and barbaric act of abortion by shifting the conversation toward other topics.
You did not refute the substance of my op-ed.
You did not address the central moral question of my op-ed.
Instead, you attempted to drown it in a sea of grievances that, while important, are entirely separate from the matter at hand. This is not thoughtful dialogue; it is rhetorical misdirection. And worse, it is dishonest.
-
You ask when I am going to write about foster care, single mothers, or economic hardship. You speak as though no one on the pro-life side has ever done so. That assumption reveals either deep ignorance or willful blindness. Let me be precise.
LiveAction.org alone lists hundreds of resources across the United States that directly aid women and families facing crisis pregnancies. These include:
• Pregnancy Resource Centers that offer free diapers, baby formula, ultrasounds, parenting classes, and even housing assistance.
• Maternity homes and transitional shelters, such as Mary’s Shelter in Virginia or Gianna House in Michigan, which provide long-term safe housing for expectant mothers.
• Financial support initiatives, like those connected through Option Line (1-800-712-HELP), which connect women to free medical care, job placement services, and legal assistance.
• Adoption services that empower mothers to choose life and secure a future for their child when parenting is not feasible.
So let me ask you: Are you unaware of these resources, or do you simply choose to pretend they do not exist?
-
You use the term “bootlicker”—a shallow insult aimed at shutting down disagreement rather than inviting discourse. Do you genuinely believe that anyone who holds a moral conviction different from yours is merely groveling before power? That term says far more about your intellectual laziness than it does about my position. If you are confident in your beliefs, defend them with reason, not schoolyard slurs.
Here's a challenge I'd like to see you put some real effort into answering:
94% of all abortions are elective. Only 6%, (to be generous), are the result of rape, incest, or a danger to the life of the mother. So please, justify for us all why it is okay in your mind to poison or dismember an otherwise healthy human being, (as 94% of abortions do)... Why is that okay with you?
-
You demand that I “write something of value.” I already have. I wrote to defend the most voiceless and vulnerable members of our human family—those who are alive, developing, and wholly dependent on others for survival. To pretend that concern for the unborn is not “helping your fellow human” is to redefine humanity in grotesquely utilitarian terms. That path leads nowhere good. History has seen it before. We know where it ends. Auschwitz.
-
But since you brought it up, let me assure you—I have op-ed's scheduled through the end of August, many of which speak about the needs of children in the foster system, advocate for the dignity and support of single mothers, and to my mind, most importantly, champion reform in adoption policy, family leave, and child welfare.
The difference is this: I do not use those issues as a rhetorical shield to justify the dismemberment of an unborn child. I do not believe one evil becomes permissible just because the world is imperfect. I do not believe it is righteous to use 6% of abortions as an emotional cudgel against science, reason, logic and human rights.
You seem to think that unless one solves every problem in society, one cannot speak about any injustice in it. That is not a serious argument. That is a silencing tactic.
So here is my answer to your original questions:
• I support expanding foster care reform.
• I support greater support for single mothers through tax credits, childcare subsidies, and workplace flexibility.
• I support elevating the dignity of motherhood, not erasing it with the cold violence of abortion.
• And yes, I support—and actively promote—real, tangible assistance through the many pro-life organizations already doing this work every day, including but not limited to Live Action, Heartbeat International, Care Net, and Let Them Live.
-
You ask when I will write something that helps others. I ask you: When will you stop hiding behind diversions and slurs to avoid facing what abortion truly is? When will you stop hiding behind the 6% lie that abortion advocates tout as their reason for unfettered access to one of, of not the most, inhumane practices in human history.
Because at the center of this conversation—beneath your anger and evasion—is a beating heart that was stopped. That is not political. That is human. And it matters.
Skimmed that and all I want to say about your shitty argument is that morality does not equate to Christianity, you are a closed minded shame of a woman. Look up how many women have been killed or permanently disabled due to abortion being banned in their state. Abortion is not about ending a “baby’s” (embryo, not a baby) life, it’s about preserving the life of a woman who is ALIVE and is a mother, a sister, a daughter, a friend, a lover. You’re a shame of a woman. Stand up girl I’ll keep you in my prayers.
Iris,
Let me begin with the obvious: The morality of abortion is not contingent on Christianity—nor any religion for that matter. You seem desperate to cast this as a “Christian” debate so you can dismiss it with a wave of the hand. But that is intellectually dishonest.
One does not need a Bible or any other religious text to know it is wrong to intentionally end the life of a distinct, developing human being. One only needs a functioning conscience and the courage to look at the facts without flinching.
This is not about theology. This is about biology and basic human ethics.
From the moment of conception, a new human organism comes into existence—genetically distinct from mother or father. This is not conjecture. It is not opinion.
It is embryology, affirmed in every scientific textbook on human development. Whether you call that organism an embryo, fetus, or “clump of cells” does not erase the reality that it is a living human being at an earlier stage of development.
And that life—yes, life—is terminated by abortion. Deliberately. That is the act we are discussing, no matter how many emotionally manipulative slogans you stack on top of it.
You speak of mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends—as if acknowledging a woman’s value somehow justifies the erasure of another life in her womb. But being a woman does not mean you get to decide who is human and who is disposable. That was never the standard for morality, and it never will be.
You tell me to look up how many women have died or been disabled due to abortion bans. I have. And the numbers you are alluding to are often based on deeply flawed or misleading data. In nearly every case where a woman’s life is at risk—ectopic pregnancies, septic uteruses, preeclampsia—treatment is permitted even under the strictest pro-life laws.
Important Point Here: NOT A SINGLE pro-life law bans medically necessary interventions to save a woman’s life. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to name the law and cite the clause. I will wait.
What is being banned is elective abortion—convenience-based abortion, the kind used to erase the consequences of sex in a culture allergic to responsibility. That is the reality. That is the target. And that is why you are scrambling to change the subject to religion, personal insults, and grotesque exaggerations.
You want to skip over the 94% of lives that have been ended in utero for no other reason than convenience.
You called me a “shame of a woman.” That is not an argument. That is a tantrum disguised as moral superiority.
You said, “Stand up, girl.” I am standing. I am standing for the unborn—whose voices you will never hear because they have been crushed in silence. I am standing for the women who have been lied to by a culture that tells them violence is liberation. And yes, I am standing for science, reason, and moral clarity—none of which require a single verse of Scripture to be valid.
But since you brought up prayer: I do not need your prayers, Iris. I need your honesty. Until you are willing to face what abortion is and what it does, you are not part of the solution.
Until then, you are just noise.
Loud, angry, and tragically misinformed noise.
You are the camouflage for the cruelty of an inhumane practice.
You are the barbarian with a needle of poison at the ready, or the forceps clamping down on the limbs of an unborn child ready to tear them away.
You, Iris, will be a blight on history—like the Germans who watched their Jewish neighbors vanish and said nothing… or worse, cheered. Your silence. Your mockery. Your complicity in the genocide of children will not be forgotten.
You have severe monkey brain if you believe that getting an abortion is equal to genocide. You said I am “loud, angry, and misinformed” when your entire page revolves around what women shouldn’t have the autonomy to decide that they are not ready to have a family. The purpose of human life is not procreation. I hope you do some serious soul searching and try to find real human connection.
You opened with the phrase “monkey brain”—a childish insult masquerading as a thought. That alone tells me how seriously you engage with opposing views: not with logic, not with evidence, but with mockery. That is not debate. Again, you are deflecting.
Let's get something clear: abortion is not simply a matter of “autonomy.”
If the issue were just about your body, there would be no debate. But abortion involves another body, another human, one with its own DNA, its own heartbeat, and its own trajectory of life—interrupted not by fate or illness, but by deliberate action. That is why the term “genocide” applies.
When you systematically justify the extermination of a particular group—in this case, the unborn—because they are unseen, unheard, and inconvenient, you are defending something unspeakable. You are not progressing humanity. You are rationalizing barbarism and disregarding the most basic of human rights: the right to life.
You say my “entire page revolves around what women shouldn’t do.” No. It revolves around what no human should do—erase another life under the illusion of personal empowerment. This is not about controlling women. It is about protecting humans. In this case, the most vulnerable humans - those without a voice - the unborn.
You claim, “The purpose of human life is not procreation.” That is a straw man. I never said it was. But if a risk of having sex is the creation of a new life, then having sex comes with moral responsibility.
Freedom is not license.
Rights are not unbound.
And the creation of new life demands more than flippant disregard under the banner of “choice.”
You suggest I do some soul searching. I have. That is why I stand where I do—not out of hatred, but out of conviction. Not out of moral superiority, but out of moral obligation. I have looked abortion in the face, stripped of euphemism and rhetoric, and I refuse to call it mercy.
You want to talk about human connection? Then begin with the most vulnerable among us—the ones who never get a name, never get a cradle, never get a chance. Because if we cannot recognize their humanity, we will eventually lose our own.
Now ask yourself—have you done that kind of soul searching?
Because screaming “autonomy” while defending the dismemberment of a voiceless human being is not liberation. It is complicity.
And history will call it what it is.
Over 60 million babies killed in utero.
That is a genocide of the most innocent, the unborn.
If you choose to align yourself with that, I cannot stop you. But understand this: Your defense of such actions is no stronger than the Nazi officers who claimed they were “just following orders.”
In fact, it's worse.
How do you feel about the genocide in Palestine?
“while important, are entirely separate from the matter at hand” nothing but their argument will ever make sense. They don’t really care for the people and communities these abortions laws are hurting. Just to get their point across. Which just babble atp and true hypocrisy
You are free to disagree with the pro-life position, but reducing it to “babble” ignores the reality of over 60 million lives lost and the thousands of pregnancy resource centers offering free medical care, housing, diapers, formula, counseling, and real support for women in crisis.
Caring about the unborn and caring for women are not mutually exclusive—that is a false dichotomy.
The pro-life movement is rooted in the belief that both lives matter. If you are genuinely concerned about the communities affected by abortion laws, then engage honestly—because pretending abortion is the only compassionate option ignores the countless alternatives already in place that prove otherwise.
And here is the real question:
Why is it that those most committed to defending child genocide are also the most unwilling to even consider adoption, resource centers, or support networks as humane alternatives?
Why is death the only answer you are willing to fight for?
Babbling
Let me repeat the most important question I can ask:
Why is death the only answer you are willing to fight for?
SUFFAH!