Together At Last: Planned Parenthood and ACLU

Imagine the two worst people you've ever met getting together on a blind date and hitting it off famously. That's what this is kind of like.

For years the ACLU has been bent on destroying America with broad sweeping court decisions while Planned Parenthood destroyed the country one little baby at a time. And now they're together at last. That's a match made in...well...you know where.

Who else could you imagine being against this statement: "The term 'person' applies to every human being."

How could anybody be against that statement?

Christian Newswire reports:
The ACLU has joined forces with abortion giant Planned Parenthood to stop the initiative process of Nevada citizens. The simple, one sentence amendment reads: "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being."
The hearing is set for today.

Whether you agree with the personhood movement or not, think about how crazy you'd have to be to oppose that statement. But here's the thing, they have to. They know that if the amendment is passed then pro-lifers just have to prove that in the moment of conception a human being is created. And let's face it, there's no rational or scientific argument against that.

So they go to the courts to stop it. By fighting this so vehemently Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are essentially admitting that what they like to call "blobs of tissue" are actually human beings.

You'd think that any philosophy that forces you to be against the statement that all persons are human beings would be one you'd have to at least reconsider. Unfortunately, they've got millions of dollars and some great lawyers and a blossoming new relationship together.

Update: The judge just ruled that the amendment could not appear on the ballot. Surprise. Surprise.

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you didn't see this love affair coming, you've been in a coma for 37 years.
    Nevertheless, an unhappy though unsurprising development. I will now light myself on fire.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hopefully godly lawyers will take up the cause for the unborn. Even without millions of dollars, their compensation will be literally out of this world.

    So, I'd hold off the barbeque just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow. It's like a bad Freshman phil class come to life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Some animals are more equal than others."
    -Animal Farm

    (freddy)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "A person is always a human being, but a human being is not always a person"? Nope. doesn't make sense.

    I have to say I am somewhat surprised this proposed initiative came from the sin-state of Nevada. Good on them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...all persons are human beings..."

    Woah! Let's be careful not to speak heresy. All human beings are persons, but there are non-human persons, e.g. angels and the three persons of the trinity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Don't forget these geniuses who say that dolphins should be treated as "non-human persons".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dakota thanks for the spiritual correction. But I think the people of the state of Nevada were speaking on purely biological and scientific sense. And on the abortion debate, that's most likely how we will win it. I think they knew what they were doing by not mentioning angels or the trinity in the initiative.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, the statement is that all human beings are persons not all persons are human beings. It's one of those all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares things. Thus the door is left open to allow for a person as something other than a human being (angels, trinity, dolphins{hopefully not!}). But it is clear that you cannot be a human being without being a person.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry, I meant in the actual article not the commentary. The sentence reads: "person is to be applied to all human beings" i.e the term rectangle is to be applied to all squares

    ReplyDelete
  12. The law already recognizes non-human persons: corporations and other juridical entities.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment