The Personhood of A Zygote

Scientifically a Zygote is a person. Person means an individual entity. A zygote is growing rapidly and made up of it's own (human) organic material; this would mean that, by definition, it is  human person.  When arguing about person hood in regard to abortion, the pro-choice side claims that yes, by definition, a Zygote is a person but it does not have the moral value of one. This is claim is not scientific but comes from the realm of philosophy .To be a person means that you deserve moral consideration.
Some people claim person hood is based on the morality or innocence of the individual or that person hood is right that can be forfeited by gruesome violations such as rape and murder. This is how many people justify the death penalty. This perception of person hood protects the unborn because they are the most innocent of all of us. There is another criterion for person hood called "Genetic Criterion" which states that you are a person if you have specifically human DNA. Most people disregard this criterion because it excludes other animals from moral consideration but includes corpses and sperm persons.Another criterion for person hood is called the"Cognitive Criterion." It consists of five factors .

1. Consciences 
2. Reasoning
3. Self-Motivated Activity
4. Capacity to Communicate
5. Self Awareness

This criterion excludes infants from person hood. An infant isn't self aware until at the minimum, eighteen months. I think that even pro choicers can agree that to kill an infant would be morally wrong. Another criteria is the Social Criterion which states that you are a person that deserves moral consideration when and if someone cares about you. This makes person hood the ultimate popularity contest. And in the unlikely and unfortunate event that no cares about said person their status as a part of a moral community would be stripped under this criterion. It gives society the right to decide whether or not you are  moral being.
The philosopher Peter Singer says that the key to person hood is sentience. The ability to suffer gives a being it's ticket to being deserving of moral consideration.This idea confuses experience from action. A person in a coma might not experience the harm being done to them, but they would none the less have harm done to them which would be morally wrong in most cases, especially if they wake up from the coma. As an unborn child would. Let alone, kill the said person while in their comatose state when they had a chance of waking up.
A newer theory of person hood is the Gradient Theory of Person hood which argues that person hood comes in degrees.  Even though this theory is usually only applied to unborn children it is meant for all people.So I would ask; There is mother and her (born) baby, do you think one has less value?

Two Stories of Two Women Who Chose Life.

The first story is about a woman named Sabrina. She was young (sixteen years old) and confused but happy when she learned that she was a mother. But she went she went to Planned Parenthood to get her pregnancy tests she felt like her questions about her pregnancy were not welcomed. The Planned Parenthood employees asked Sabrina what she planned to do and she told them that she wasn't sure.They treated her like a waste of time."They are 100% in the baby killing business and push it on you very much," she said. However, Sabrina was a bit luckier with supportive parents that definitely helped her. It was still not easy as a young mom but nothing as worldly money struggles and hard times could compare to the love she had for her daughter who is now twenty-four and a mother herself. One thing Sabrina mentioned to me was that she always thought about abortion as just a choice before. She had just listened to what everyone said about it without acknowledging what it actually was herself."I believe many girls are deceived into abortions." Sabrina told me. She now volunteers at Birthright international that helps get women supplies for pregnancies, referrals for adoption centers, how to get their GED and etc.  Most importantly, Sabrina does not regret choosing life.
The second story is about a Brazilian woman who is in Sweden whose name is Pamela. At the time Pamela was dating a so called "Christian" man. Pamela became pregnant with his child and he immediately started pushing her towards abortion.  He even booked her an appointment against her will, but she trusted him so she went.  When she got in the abortion clinic she couldn't stop crying. She couldn't even speak with the nurses. A nurse told her she had to speak with a curator whom she could barely speak to because she was so upset. All she could really get past her lips was that she didn't want an abortion. But Pamela also thought about what it would be like having a child with a man who did not want one. She could see, as Sabrina did, how woman are pressured into abortion.
A nurse gave Pamela the abortion pill and whispered to her "If you don't want to do it, then don't." 
Pamela did not take the pills when she got home. Instead she prayed. She wasn't religious at the time, but at that time she prayed. Then Pamela didn't care if she was rejected or affected. She didn't care if the father of her child would be there, she just knew she was keeping her baby. It was tough and there is no adoption in Sweden even if Pamela wanted to place her child with another family.
But most importantly, Pamela does not regret choosing life.

Abortion and Mental Health.

In the Pro-choice movement, abortion is said to be a right, but I have noticed ( as many others have) is that it is beginning to be more and more portrayed as “empowering”. It is a very disturbing evolution of an already terrible situation. Abortion is not just bad because it takes another human life; it comes with side effects. One in particular that I will be talking about is the mental health of the post abortive mother.

Many people on the pro-choice side will either deny that abortion causes mental health issues or tell you that society caused this by shaming women who had abortions . However, this doesn’t make complete sense because abortion is more supported than not.(1) It has become accepted and supported in society so to assume that society is responsible is illogical.

Planned Parenthood addressed these accusations that abortion has an negative impact on women's mental health. The research they showed says

“• Unwanted pregnancy increases a woman’s risk of

problems with her mental health.”

A problem that I have with this claim is that they don’t go into what they mean by “unwanted”. Does the mother that we are speaking of never want children or just doesn’t want a child at the moment? If they do want children eventually than that child, in a way, is wanted.If it is for a woman who never wants to have children, then this statement might have some truth to it.They also do not say if these unwanted pregnancies are carried to term, which is very important since most unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.

“• A woman with an unwanted pregnancy is as likely

to have mental health problems from abortion as

she is from giving birth.”

This statement is contradictory to what Planned Parenthood has said about the abortion and the mental health link.  As I showed you in the previous statement, they said that unwanted pregnancies increased mental health risk. Here they say that abortion is as likely to increase mental health risks as an unwanted pregnancy . Planned Parenthood also stated For more than “30 years, substantive research studies have shown that legally induced abortion

does not pose mental health problems for women.”(2)  It seems that Planned Parenthood has backed themselves into a corner.

• A woman with a history of mental health problems

before abortion is more likely to have mental health

problems after abortion.

• Circumstances, conditions, behaviors, and other

factors associated with mental health problems are

similar for women following abortion and women

following childbirth.

• Pressure from a partner to terminate a pregnancy,

negative attitudes about abortion, and negative

attitudes about a woman’s experience of abortion

may increase a woman’s risk of mental health

problems after abortion (2)

The last three points make sense and can all be said the same for pregnancies carried to term. But I notice that they are comparing abortion to childbirth frequently. In my opinion, this is another tactic to make abortion look noble and empowering; even though there should be nothing empowering about taking an innocent human life.  

There are some issues with the literature about the mental health link. A review called “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009” reviewed  this literature and found that abortion does in fact have negative mental health effects.” “After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion)”. (3) When this method was applied they found that women who had undergone abortions had an increased risk of mental health issues by 81%. This review explain some issues and why the other the conclusions of other literature regarding the mental health link to abortion were problematic. The review explained that “First, only a handful of studies have actually included unintended pregnancy carried to term as a control group”, the review states. In many studies, it is also not clarified what exactly “unintended” means. There is no in between ground with intended pregnancies and unintended ones, which there ought be because it’s not black a white."Second, many recently published studies with extensive controls for third variables were not reflected in the three recent reviews, with no explanation given as to why large segments of the peer-reviewed literature were missing", the review states. In my opinion, it seems that research regarding this topic is being purposefully twisted so that we can not tell whether or not abortion is linked to mental illness.Certain studies have been ignored in these reviews. For example a study labeled “Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During Adolescence Through Abortion Versus Childbirth: Individual and Family Predictors and Psychological Consequences” states that “After controlling for these variables, adolescents who aborted an unwanted pregnancy were more inclined than adolescents who delivered to seek psychological counseling and they reported more frequent problems sleeping and more frequent marijuana use.”(4) Another study labeled “Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence.” stated that “Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm.” (5) These two were just a few who were not reviewed in previous reviews.

“Third, in all three literature reviews the choice of studies lacked sufficient methodologically based selection criteria.”  

“The fourth troubling issue is the fact that quantification of effects was not attempted by any of the three research teams.” the review said (3)

The review concluded the results by saying

"These results indicate that the level of increased risk associated with abortion varies from 34% to 230% depending on the nature of the outcome."

(1) 5 facts about abortion | Pew Research Center

(2)https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzssW5z-HTAhXp1IMKHUfYBU0QFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.plannedparenthood.org%2Ffiles%2F8413%2F9611%2F5708%2FAbortion_Emotional_Effects.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHe0bZ5gTQvdHS4bnP7NmLHTq8rlA&sig2=3w9DcYIak4rpOgYicclCyA

(3) Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009 | The British Journal of Psychiatry

(4)Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During Adolescence Through Abortion Versus Childbirth: Individual and Family Predictors and Psychological Consequences | SpringerLink

(5) Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence. - PubMed - NCBI

Is the fetus truly a parasite?

So I've been getting more and more people in debates who insist on using the parasite argument while debating abortion. This logic is simply flawed to its roots. Libertarians for life has done a research article on this very subject listing 8 reasons why this is simply false. I've included their list in here.

1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirectcontact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.
5. a) When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.
6. a) When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)b) New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.
7. a) A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.b) A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.
8. a) A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).b) A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.

Parasites steal nutrients from the host for the purpose of the growth, development, and reproduction of their own species at the cost of their host. I've yet to hear a single straight answer as to how a fetus, who's after presented with this list, classifies as a parasite given the fact that it's the same species, and with the proper nutrition, actually betters the health of the mother. A fetus provides stem cells to the mother while developing. These are important to repair the reproductive system after birth as well as repair other bodily systems that consist of specialized, unreproducible cells. So how exactly does a fetus compare with a parasite? 

A Birth Mom's Journey; Calli Jett

Calli was only sixteen when she became pregnant with her birth son.Understandably she was mortified and scared. Never thinking about abortion or other options before she became pregnant, Calli tried to hide her pregnancy, but really thought that abortion was her only solution. Her mother had told her it was a safe choice. She had never thought about what abortion did or was.
"My friend had three abortions," Calli's mother told her,"It will be quick and easy." The birth father, along with her mother, were urging her to get an abortion,
Calli rode to Planned Parenthood with her mother. She saw the protesters outside of the Planned Parenthood trying to discourage her from entering.
"At first, I resented that these people wanted to interfere with my personal decision." Calli wrote. She proceeded to enter Planned Parenthood for her appointment.
When Calli entered that Planned Parenthood she was upset by how impersonal everything was and the lack of respect; it was a big decision and it was treated with a nonchalant attitude
While waiting in Planned Parenthood , Calli picked a up a booklet about the development of a fetus. 
Even after seeing what stage her son was or would be at did not give her the push she need to leave the Planned Parenthood. It was the people standing outside of Planned Parenthood that pushed her out the door. They had stood outside that abortion clinic hoping for the chance to speak with someone who was going to get an abortion; to speak to Calli.
"Apparently, the people outside the building care more about my choices than the people inside the building." Callie wrote.The protesters spoke kindly to Calli and told her about open adoption.

She pulled her mother outside to talk to her. Calli's mother tried to convince her to go back into that Planned Parenthood but Calli refused. She walked out of that Planned Parenthood and chose life for her baby.
Not only did Calli choose life for her child but she let him be placed in a loving home where he could bless another family. She knew she wasn't able to be a proper parent yet, so she chose the best for her son. Calli told me about her relationship with her son and how close they are. Fourteen years later and she still does not and will not regret her decision. "You will never hear a birth mom say,' I wish I had an abortion' But you will hear many post-abortion women say,'I wish I knew about adoption,'" Calli says.
After her son's birth and adoption Calli went on to college. During college she became a social worker and started doing research into abortion."My heart broke seeing the women going to get an abortion." She became a sidewalk advocate but after years of watching women go into abortion clinics (and some not go into the clinics) Calli decided to share her story.

Now Calli uses her story and her experience to help spread awareness about the option adoption."So, what does adoption mean to me? Adoption means that there are women in this country of opportunity who know nothing about it. There are mothers facing an unplanned pregnancy, who feel scared, alone, or are being pressured into an abortion, and they are not considering this other option of hope. This is where the pro-life community, and most importantly a birth mother’s presence, expands into action." Calli founded the organization "Talk About Adoption" so that women in unplanned pregnancy's could be more aware of the option adoption.Calli was a sidewalk advocate for eleven years before sharing her story about adoption. "This is about changing people’s lives, which in turn, change others, and so on. It is a divine chain reaction." Calli wrote.
Their mission is to end the stigma that adoption is a selfish option, create awareness and support birth parents. They fully support and encourage parenting as well.
As I spoke with Calli on  the phone I asked some questions concerning abortion that I myself get asked a lot. I asked her about women who just don't want to be pregnant so they get an abortion.
"They are already pregnant. Majority of them are aborting for other reasons."  she said. She explained that most simply don't that there are other options.
I asked her about women who don't have the resources. She said ,"Adoption is an option. There are a lot resources for pregnant women. " and "We should put the funding from Planned Parenthoods towards pregnancy centers and other resources for women".
Calli and I agree, as I would hope most pro-lifers agree as well, that we want to fight and work to make sure that there is no reason for a mother to think that abortion is her only option.


My Story | Talk About Adoption
 I Was 16 and Being Pressured to Have an Abortion, But Pro-Life People Told Me About Adoption | LifeNews.com
 Talk About Adoption

The Contradictions of Margaret Sanger

On September, 14, 1879 in Corning New York Margaret Higgins was born. She later became known as Margaret Sanger and founded Planned Parenthood. There is a lot of controversy regarding her intend for birth control and her activism.   Planned Parenthood says(1) "Among her many visionary accomplishments as a social reformer, Sanger Established these principles:

• A woman's right to control her body is the foundation of her human rights.
• Every person should be able to decide when or whether to have a child
• Every child should be wanted or loved
• Women are entitled to sexual pleasure and fulfillment." 

These things that Margaret Sanger(supposedly) worked at sounds amazing and noble. However, I do have to point our some very contradicting things Sanger has said and that prove that she isn't the character Planned Parenthood wishes she was.
First I will start with her notorious letter to Gamble. Margaret Sanger wrote
" The ministers work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro Population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."(2)
Planned Parenthood says that Sanger was simply acknowledging the fears of some in the black community. " Sanger was aware of African- American concerns passionately argued  by Marcus Garvey in the 1920s that he birth control was a threat to the survival of the black race. This statement, which acknowledges those fears, is taken from a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., a champion of the birth control movement. In the letter, Sanger describes her strategy to allay such apprehensions. A larger portion of the letter makes Sanger's meaning clear."(1) 
The entire letter does make her intent quite clear. Planned Parenthood's argument is a poor one. She refers to the people in the letter that question her intent as rebellious. She speaks of them as if they are children that need to be controlled. It's an interesting choice of words.What do you think?
 Another contradiction I have to point out is when Planned Parenthood says that she wanted women to have rights to their body. Sanger wrote in the Birth Control Review ,"Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals."  This Populations Congress would ," apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."(3)
Does that sound like freedom to do with your body as you please? Certain individuals aren't allowed to have children so that principle that " Every person should be able to decide when or whether to have a child" that Planned Parenthood say she worked to established is only is only for certain people. People of the lower class, criminals, prostitutes, and the mentally ill  would not be allowed to have children.
 I do not believe that Margaret Sanger's goal was to help women. I believe that her intend was to make the human race what she thought that it ought be.









(1) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8vcWoiaTTAhXGWSYKHWwYB8AQFggrMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.plannedparenthood.org%2Ffiles%2F8013%2F9611%2F6937%2FOpposition_Claims_About_Margaret_Sanger.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG9xTCZgKhnMoZY-YnaZfGy_R_uTg&sig2=dG58mXdCGRSwbfkdxz9s0g
 (2)Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10, 1939. · Smith Libraries Exhibits
(3) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwivxcuLlaTTAhVD0WMKHR2NArYQFggjMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.issues4life.org%2Fpdfs%2F1932_peaceplan_margaretsanger.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF13f9Qjdp58-NI58fN9vBnGn5_Ng&sig2=2GPwNjghn4BPuwRdksIcrg&bvm=bv.152479541,d.cGc&cad=rja

Planned parenthoods lies and California's STUPIDITY and Media deception, OH MY

     So to give some backstory, David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress have been charged 15 felony counts for invasion of privacy over the undercover reporting scheme they accomplished regarding Planned Parenthood. Basically these two reporters sought out to prove that planned parenthood did in fact sell organs and tissue from aborted children. In order to do this, they went and impersonated two people looking to buy baby parts. The idea was that they were going to record everything that happened, such as conversations and procedures.
     Their findings should be found disturbing by anyone with a strong conscience and I encourage you to try and find the unedited videos (although I wish you luck. They're taken down almost immediately everywhere I've searched). To sum up the hours of footage, the video shows multiple high-ranking Planned Parenthood members joking about selling baby body parts for market rates and picking through baby body parts in order to demonstrate which sorts of body parts were available for sale for medical research, as well as talking about the best methods of abortion for procuring those baby body parts. Many officials were very openly willing to discuss the methods taken to save valuable tissue and organs to be sold later. The huge point I'm trying to make is that planned parenthood,  since this subject became talked about, has denied that they do this. Anyone who's actually watched the videos cannot deny that they were lying but that's not the point of this post. It's no surprise to me planned parenthood is once again caught in such atrocities. What IS surprising is the lefts willingness to hide and ignore it, and their eagerness to silence those who expose these things.
     With the back story out of the way, let's look at the court ruling. I feel like banging my head into a wall Everytime a government official from the west coast lifts a finger.
     Fourteen of the 15 charges filed came under California Penal Code Section 632(a), which states in relevant part, “Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication ... shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.” let me put some extra emphasis on the word *confidential*. The majority of these conversations were not in a confidential secluded room with only the officials and men in suits. These were public conversations happening in restaurants. I'm sorry. But judging by all the conversations I've accidentally picked up from other people in restaurants, I think it should be common knowledge that restaurant banter isn't a place that should be considered confidential. Then there are the few parts of the videos where they're talking within planned parenthood doors; which planned parenthoods lawyers argued should be considered private areas. And they technically are right. Just kidding ;). gotcha didn't I? They are wrong because of one simple rule. Or... Ruling. By the 9th circuit court of appeals (undoubtedly the most liberal circuit in the country) in 2002. Long story short:
     They the 9th circuit decided that undercover tapes made in a private area by undercover journalists who are considered strangers to that company are not illegal. They ruled this during a ruling on a very similar undercover investigation by ABC News against Medical Laboratory Management Consultants for Primetime Live, in which they ruled in favor of ABC News saying: “Devaraj's willingness to invite these strangers into the administrative offices for a meeting and then on a tour of the premises indicates that Devaraj did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of solitude or seclusion in the parts of Medical Lab that he showed the ABC representatives.”
     In addition to this, the 9th circuit also stated that they could not find any reasonable expectation of privacy between the two parties saying: “Devaraj did not reveal any information about his personal life or affairs, but only generally discussed Medical Lab's business operations, the pap smear testing industry, and Gordon's supposed plans to open her own laboratory.” also, while comparing Arizona law to California law, the court EXPLICITLY stated that EVEN UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, there was still no expectation of privacy: “The expectation of limited privacy in a communication – namely the expectation that a communication shared with, or possibly overheard by, a limited group of persons will nonetheless remain relatively private and secluded from the public at large – is reasonable only to the extent that the communication conveys information private and personal to the declarant.” You could practically copy and paste the circumstances David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress worked under and be able to tell that there were no privacy laws broken here.
     Furthermore, Daleiden and Merritt were also tried for trying to buy illegal baby parts. Yes. You heard me right. The courts tried to charge a felony for trying to buy baby parts but didn't bat an eye to planned parenthood as the supplier. Have you smashed your face into your phone screen yet? These charges were later dropped for obvious reasons. Good job courts, ya did one thing right :)
     So before I leave you all to go on with your daily lives, I would like to raise one question. Where were all the defenders of the press jumping to lash out at the courts for violating Daleiden and Merritt's 1st amendment rights? There are so many hilarious people out there trashing trump for merely criticizing the media but this gets ZERO criticism from the left?
     It's ironic. Because I was scrolling through my news feed and I saw a story from earlier last week where National Public Radio asked for the reinstatement of a reporter who secretly recorded high school students and legislators chatting about LGBT issues. Yet NPR has said nothing about Daleiden and Merritt.
     I'm becoming less and less convinced that the left is fighting for 1st amendment rights and more and more convinced that they're just fighting anything that exposes their agenda. Ben shapiro worded it perfectly: "They pretend to be fighters against governmental overreach – they’ll fight Trumpian fascism every step of the way! – but the minute that somebody they don’t like, a conservative, faces serious government crackdowns, they shut up." No lefty would DARE have a negative thought about their beloved knights with forceps, body bags, and misinformation. They'll silence anybody who rises up against it. So now these innocent journalists are facing serious punishment and the lefts most beloved "healthcare center" gets to continue their planned genocide.

Having said all this, I'm seriously considering dropping my plans to major in computer science and just go headfirst into law. People with sense need to be running this country and I can't sit here making Facebook posts if I'm not willing to fight these atrocities with every God given breath I have.