The left has always had difficulty with the abortion argument. It's a messy thing to argue that murder is a right. And while actual science—not to be confused with "the science"—is on the side of we pro-lifers, the left attempts to draw weird, arbitrary lines to justify the killing of unborn babies—we'll all recall how Governor Northam candidly endorsed infanticide, too—the right has no such difficulties when defining when life begins and thus must be cherished and protected.

In the lead-up to the supreme court hearing arguments against the new Texas abortion law, the rabid lefties are done tiptoeing around the obvious. They're done trying to hide their position on the matter. Abortion (read: the killing of unborn, innocent, defenseless babies) is all about selfishness.

Please, welcome the star of today's disgusting, demented rant:

"At no point, ever, has it mattered whether it's just a clump of cells or a fully-fledged person already accepted to Harvard University. It has never, ever mattered when life begins. The point is that a person cannot use another person's body without their permission. By forcing women to share their bodies with fetuses to keep them alive, you are actually suggesting that fetuses should have more rights than any other person in the world. And that people with uteruses should have less rights. If you want the fetus to have the same rights as other people, I hate to break it to you, but you'd be pro-choice."

Wow… Just—just wow…

I'm going to skip over how stupid she sounds by using a phrase like "people with uteruses". She's obviously not that smart, to begin with. Let's just focus on her ridiculous argument.

This despicable succubus says it doesn't matter when life begins: so long as that kid depends on the body of another person, it can be killed without hesitation because it shouldn't have the right to depend on that person's body. What about born babies? They require the mother's body to live. Can they be offed? I suppose if you're Governor Northam they can be. What about small children? Do they not depend on the bodies of their parents to earn a living, provide food, water, shelter, clothing, and innumerable other necessities to survive? Does she believe they can be killed for being an inconvenience? What about adults? How about every lazy mooch living off the welfare state, depending on the bodies of every good, working American to put food in their mouths and shelter over their heads. Can these people be torn apart, limb-by-limb, because they depend on other people's bodies?

My point here is this: like so many arguments for abortion before this one, they all fail when taken seriously. The left knows this. They know abortion is abhorrent. They know that, in reality, it is indefensible, which is why they couch it in euphemism and wordplay and attempt to connect it to women's rights or choice or the constitution—all things, when spoken of normally, are anodyne. They know, deep down inside, they are ghouls, selfish, morbid, bloodthirsty ghouls. And this woman has just happened to come out and say it outright. They don't care about life. They care that they can't do what they want to do, so they advocate murder to get rid of what they see as an obstacle. That's it. Pure and simple.

Get your content free from Big Tech's filter. Bookmark this website and sign up for our newsletter!