Some Persons Have No Rights

Let’s speak clearly.

There are people who believe that some persons do not have rights. They advocate for public policy which denies Constitutional rights to some persons. Those persons‘  unrecognized rights extend even to their right to live.

How on earth did they gain any kind of high moral ground?

I keep a blog because I want to present thoughts which I don’t see everywhere. I’ve been hitting the institution of abortion-on-demand pretty regularly for the last few months over many posts. Here’s a list of many of my points so far:

The unborn are a disenfranchised, legally unprotected group of human beings and are vulnerable to legal termination. They need spokesmen and defenders.

The legal termination of millions of the unborn is morally equivalent to any other selective killing of a group of human beings who share some characteristic, therefore it is a kind of genocide.

Our descendants may look back on us with disgust and shame for our willingness to commit mass extermination of the unborn (who would have numbered among those same descendants). In history we may be reduced to one identifier: Abortionists.

We are not conducting a “war on women” but in exactly the same sense we are conducting a war on children, ie. unborn babies.

Contrary to the pro-choice line that conservatives and particularly religious pro-lifers want control over women’s choices, it is the pro-abortion culture which is exploiting women:

First, by creating a dishonest narrative in which all women are victims of non-choice and male-oriented oppression (fabricating a need for female rescue); second, by pitting the pregnant woman and her unborn child against one another as victimized and parasite (marking the scapegoat for elimination);  then by insisting that corporations like Planned Parenthood are necessary for the “health” and self-determination of women (reaping the monetary and political benefits of the conflict they created).

Gender-selective abortion of female fetuses is wildly popular in some parts of the globe. Where are the feminist objections?

The worst thing modern women have added to their collection of beliefs is that human life is relatively valuable; that some lives are priceless while others are expendable.

The second worst thing women believe is that each woman’s life ought to be about what makes her happy, and that all other considerations are secondary.

Both of those beliefs are destructive and self-defeating.

Defenders of legalized abortion are unwilling to call legalized abortion morally wrong, but they are also unable to explain what is objectively wrong with genocide. At the same time some of them equate non-veganism with genocide.

Liberal men expounding with assurance on the ease, health and rightness of abortion is outrageously presumptuous.

Likewise the sight of pro-abortion women trying to convince the world that abortion is an easy and “cool” experience is cruelly misleading.

According to law, any woman may abort her child for any subjective reason and that reason is totally personal and no one else’s business. What other life or death decisions in our society are totally protected from objective judgment?

Ironically, we have arrived here because we want to be thought of as compassionate people and we want to be on the right side of history

Why does a woman cling to an ideology that requires her to believe that she must conceive of herself as oppressed if her right to end another person’s life is infringed in any way?

It’s time to re-examine this peculiar ideological house of cards which balances all of our rights as women upon one tenet: the right to destroy our own offspring.

“Never in the history of mankind has the denial of full human status to a subset of the human race meant anything good. It has always meant exploitation and death.” This is what we have done to pre-born human beings.

Are we even able to recognize exploitation when we see it? Institutionalized abortion is exploitation. Planned Parenthood exploits babies, and Planned Parenthood exploits women. Planned Parenthood objectifies children. Planned Parenthood objectifies women.

In other words,Planned Parenthood does to wome what feminism asserts that men and patriarchy does to women: it victimizes them.

If somebody might have to die in order for me to exercise my full potential…something is very wrong with that paradigm.

Women and particularly mothers were designed with built-in tendencies to protect and nurture the helpless unborn, but our culture of feminism has successfully trained us against our nature.

The worst thought by far that women have embraced is this: Human value is relative, not intrinsic, not eternal, not immeasurable. That the value of a given human being is dependent on a variety of situations and circumstances. Fundamentally, we need women to be the protectors of helpless human life.

It’s too sad to contemplate the role we were meant to play as guardians of life, versus the one we have actually embraced.

This list of points is not exhaustive and you can read the posts from which they come in my “Life” category. Also I have many posts in the drafts pipeline about the pernicious results of the abortion culture.

88 thoughts on “Some Persons Have No Rights

  1. john zande

    “The legal termination of millions of the unborn is morally equivalent to any other selective killing of a group of human beings who share some characteristic, therefore it is a kind of genocide.”

    There you go, using those words again.

    Madblog, tell me: How can you kill something that cannot die?


    1. madblog Post author

      “Unborn PERSONS do not have Constitutional rights.” Even Hillary knows she’s talking about people. Time to wake up and catch the train.


      1. john zande

        Rights are bestowed on independent human beings.

        So, tell me: How can you “kill” something that “cannot die”?

        You’re the one using that language, so justify it.

        Tell me…


        1. john zande

          For starters, an organism that can sustain itself in the natural world without any external assistance. Can a foetus breathe by itself? No, and considering the battery of life is adenosine triphosphate (which is first broken down and then re-formed during respiration to release energy used to drive every living reaction) is inactive in a foetus (because it is not breathing by itself) it is not independent.

          An independent human being can die, and I have given you (many times) the legal, scientific, and medical definition of death. Not until full bilateral synchronisation (week 28) can the foetus “die.”

          So, tell me: How can you kill something that cannot die?

          You keep using this language (kill, murder, genocide), so stop your pathetic screeds and justify it.


        2. madblog Post author

          The fact that you are reading and engaging with this pathetic screed contradicts your stated evaluation of it.

          Am I to infer then that persons who require external assistance in order to be recognized as living are likewise not living? I’m sure you can see what mud you’ve waded into here.
          If not, let me point out that your criteria would include all children under the age of, say two; persons who are physically handicapped yet possess full mental capacity; persons who are in declining health; etc., etc.

          And I still have to ask you to clarify whether you’re discussing personhood, humanity, or something vaguely else?


        3. john zande

          The fact that you are reading and engaging with this pathetic screed contradicts your stated evaluation of it.

          I confront nonsense wherever I find it… and you just keep making the same mistake over and over again. You are practicing willful ignorance. Willful ignorance annoys me.

          your criteria would include all children under the age of, say two; persons who are physically handicapped yet possess full mental capacity; persons who are in declining health; etc., etc.

          What sort of nonsense are you rambling on about here? A two-year-old child can breathe by itself, can it not?

          And I still have to ask you to clarify whether you’re discussing, personhood, humanity, or something vaguely else?

          Don’t play dumb. You’re far smarter than that. You are using language like “kill,” “murder,” and “genocide.” I’m asking you to justify that language, or stop using it.

          Tell me: How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Deep down, you know, however, that I’m right. You know you’re wrong. You see, Madblog, if you truly believed what you are writing then why aren’t you doing everything you physically can to stop this “genocide”? Why aren’t you on the streets screaming? Why haven’t you bolted yourself to the door of a clinic? Why haven’t you done what Dear did and take an assault rifle to a clinic and make a stand?

          By your own language, isn’t your utter and complete failure to act morally inexcusable. If you believe what you are writing, then your inaction is unforgivable. Isn’t it?


        4. ColorStorm


          Just an observation that includes an apology to madblog for entering a convo in which I am not really a guest, but have followed from a distance.

          Apostles of atheism who by virtue of their own admission, have forfeited any semblance of authority regarding the defining of life. Why? Because the ultimate authority is rejected, the owner of LIFE, making man his own creator, Uh, sorry, no.

          A man not under authority has NO authority. Your so-called authority is weighed in the balance and is found a bit thin. Btw, I am impressed with mb’s patience in handing you her gracious but devastating blows of common sense and reason.

          On the bright side, it’s good that you are at least thinking about eternal life.

          Liked by 1 person

        5. ColorStorm

          Gee jz, you are finally coming to the realization of the sovereignty of God and the consequences of sin, allowed mind you, by the Creator, leaving Him perfectly blameless and perfect in ALL His ways.

          Note that small word there: perfect. He is not on trial, WE are.

          Btw, kinda silly to bring your argument of ‘moderation’ to the table. WP apparently thinks it’s a good tool, and of course so do many of your ‘friends,’ some of whom are professional banners.

          At least you have a say. 😉


        6. madblog Post author

          I don’t travel about the internet looking for things by which to be annoyed, and I will never understand those who do.

          If you wish to converse about this, once again, you will have to define your terms; a thing which you steadfastly refused to do last time. I know what you’re trying to get the word to say, but you refuse to recognize the implications of even your own argument. I am not referring to MY implications, but yours! You cannot seem to understand your own proposition.

          Are you saying fetuses are not living? Or are you saying fetuses are not human? Or not in possession of personhood? These are all distinct, though overlapping, propositions.

          I never use the word “murder.” And you have no say whatsoever regarding what language I choose to use.

          Deep down, I have no knowledge of you at all. But not deep down, I do not know you are right about anything. It is bloody obvious to literally everyone that a baby in the womb is as living, and as human, as any other person at any age. This is not in dispute anymore, even among abortion activists. They make their claim on the greater rights of an adult human being verses the lesser of a developing baby. Really, you can look it up.

          Haha nice try there. Like you’re concerned that people advocate for the unborn. Or have cogent opinions on what is morally inexcusable. Oh please stop.

          I am not in the streets screaming because my activism is of a more effective and lawful kind. You have no idea what I do or don’t do; in fact I do, within the law, actively engage in the defense of the unborn.


        7. john zande

          We’ve been through all this before. You see: wilful ignorance.

          A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. Life never magically appears in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. Everything is part of that living system. For this reason, the only method we have to distinguish the onset of a distinct, functioning human being is when the brain begins to exhibit sustain EEG activity, and this begins at around week 25, although it is not until 28 weeks till we see full bilateral synchronisation. That is when you may call the foetus “On.” After week 28 it can therefore be turned “Off,” and meet the legal, scientific and medical definitions of death.

          It’s really not that complicated.

          So, tell me: How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Like you’re concerned that people advocate for the unborn. Or have cogent opinions on what is morally inexcusable.

          Of course I’m concerned. The lies you people tell are appalling! And I repeat, if you truly believed the words you write then your inactivity is morally inexcusable. Indeed, if you actually believe your religion, and believe you’ll one day meet Jesus, then you should be terrified at that prospect… because what can you present in your defense? A few words? That’s pathetic.


        8. madblog Post author

          Since you have trouble here: I am not inactive.

          Organic means “living,” John.

          How does a person who has written a book the premise of which is: There is a God, he’s creator of us all, and he’s an evil megalomaniac…have moral standing to call someone else morally inexcusable?

          You are too much.


  2. Wally Fry

    Madleyn hI

    I have absolutely nothing to add to what you have written, but only a commendation for your unwavering stance in the face of unrelenting assaults. Thanks for it and many blessings.


        1. john zande

          By all means, if you doubt anything, anything at all that I’ve said then do please indicate what, exactly, and provide evidence for your alternative position.

          If it’s compelling and verifiable then I will most certainly change my position accordingly.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Wally Fry

          Hmm..ok. Sigh. The problem with that John is that the definition of compelling and verifiable is held by you. And anything that you disagree with is deemed neither.

          The problem is, as usual, that you either don’t understand what you read, or you ignore it so you can cut and paste your own repetitive arguments. This post is not an argument about whether an unborn child is a human life.

          It is about the fact that the statement was made that an unborn “person” does not have rights. SHE established that the unborn is first, a person then secondly does not have rights.

          So, if you have an issue with Hillary Clinton’s definition I suggest you take it up with her.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. john zande

          OK, so you can’t challenge the facts I have presented.

          And no, the unborn do not have rights, not as citizens. Judaism is quite clear on this: they say once the head is out the child becomes a person and has rights.

          Are you questioning the wisdom of Jesus’ religion?


      1. Wally Fry

        Oh so you agree with Hillary that the unborn are persons but merely persons with no rights as citizens. Interesting that apparently some persons are worth less than others giving the worthy ones the right to kill the less worthy ones

        Interesting. Now I understand much

        Who is next on your not so worthy list? The disabled? The elderly? the mentally ill?


        1. john zande

          After full bilateral synchronisation I believe the foetus should have rights, although the life of the mother trumps those. Before that moment, there is no human being. Here is one of the leading anti-abortionists agreeing with me:

          “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists… After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.” (Goldenring, Professor of Surgery, the Paul W. Sanger Chair in Experimental Surgery, Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology)


        2. madblog Post author

          Oy, we’ve been here before zande. This quote doesn’t demonstrate what you assert that it does. This unknown person is referring to brain death, the cessation of life. And you’re actually going to try to assert AGAIN that brain death (after a living person has died) is THE SAME as the state of an unborn child’s brain at the beginning of the development process.

          These are two distinct conditions with virtually no similarities.

          Thank you for clarifying that you agree with Mrs. Clinton and all the other pro-aborts to which I refer by stating that the woman’s life trumps the child’s. However, you disagree with all pro-choice advocates because they do not believe that unborn babies of any developmental age possess rights.
          So you disagree with Mrs. Clinton. You would be considered pro-life by most progressives I know.

          Why should a fetus of any age have rights, John?


        3. john zande

          LOL! Perhaps you should look Dr James R. Goldenring up. He’s one of the leading voices in the anti-abortion movement… and sorry, Madblog, but he is talking about foetus’s. See his used of words “is once again…”


        4. madblog Post author

          I did. Would that be the dermatologist or the chiropractor? Or the cancer research specialist with no pro-life internet mention?


        5. Wally Fry


          You said rights are given to independent human beings. Some of those with disabilities, the elderly, and some mentally ill are not independent.

          When do you plan on starting to kill them

          Now quit with your nonsencical cut and paste screed and answer this question you have been asked.

          You stated flat out that independent humans have rights. That means those who are not do not. That is your justification for killing unborn persons.

          When will you start killing the disabled, the elderly, and certain mentally ill, since they fit your definition of those who can be killed, that being, not independent.

          You said it John, now run with it. Explain why you favor the murder of the disabled, the elderly, and mentally ill.

          Do it John. Any thing other than explaining your support for this is backpedaling, and the world will know it.

          Go John. You said it, now back it.

          Liked by 1 person

        6. john zande

          What are you rambling on about, Wally? The disabled, the elderly, and the mentally ill have full bilateral synchronisation, do they not? They breathe by themselves, so they not? They each can “die,” meeting the legal, scientific, and medical definitions of death, correct?


        7. madblog Post author

          This trail could have been avoided if you had been able to define what you meant by “independent” when I asked you to, jz. The definition does seem to wiggle around a lot.


        8. madblog Post author

          Wally trail is not unhinged. His question is a valid one. You refused to answer it when I asked as well.
          “Independent” can mean many things and you still have not defined your meaning.
          To follow your logic, any person who is not “independent” is vulnerable to legal termination…unless you want to define exactly what you mean by “independent.”

          Liked by 1 person

        9. john zande

          And as I said, poor word choice.

          Shall we say: a human organism capable of breathing by themselves and whose brain is functioning, as measured on EEG machines.


        10. madblog Post author

          So paraplegics don’t have a right to live? People with COPD?

          As for the EEG machines…your position would make it legal to euthanize many as well.

          Your criteria is (are?) rather arbitrary and not well thought through.


        11. john zande

          Paraplegics can’t breathe by themselves?

          That’s interesting.

          I’m sure they’d also tell you they’re brains are working just fine… It’s the signalling that’s the problem 😉


        12. madblog Post author

          You aren’t aware of people with spinal chord injuries who need help with breathing? Never heard of Charles Krauthammer or Christopher Reeve?


        13. madblog Post author

          Whoa, better do some “scientific/ medical” research there. Some people who depend on breathing assistance would be brain dead pretty quickly, but they aren’t yet.


        14. madblog Post author

          Brain death, AFTER the machines are turned off. Except sometimes all the medical experts are wrong and the person breathes on his own, or makes a partial or full recovery. Funny how we aren’t omniscient.

          In any case. neither the state before nor after the machines are turned off are equivalent to a developing fetus.


        15. john zande

          Wrong. To repeat Goldenring’s statement:

          When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists … After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

          See those words, “After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs…”

          Once again.


        16. madblog Post author

          How do I put this delicately?
          Big deal. This bit of preferred information does not persuade. Why would you think that I, or anyone, would reverse our confidence in the obvious truth that fetuses are human beings just as deserving of protection as any other human being…because this DR. has an opinion?

          Liked by 1 person

        17. madblog Post author

          And thank you Wally. That puts the discussion back where it ought to be because we are talking about the fact that some people believe and advocate for the “eradication” of other people. JZ seems to advocate for that camp.

          Liked by 1 person

        18. john zande

          Poor choice of words, perhaps. A human organism can die. Here is the so-called ”Father of the Anti-Abortion Movement”, Jack Willke:

          “Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?” (Dr. Jack Willke, Abortion: Questions and Answers)

          There it is, in black and white from an anti-abortionist.


        19. madblog Post author

          ” Willke’s assertions [that women who are raped rarely become pregnant because of physiological defenses which come into play when she is frightened] were dismissed as false and outlandish by experts in obstetrics and gynecology.[12][13][14] The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that rape victims had no control over whether they became pregnant, adding that “to suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths”.[14] Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Harvard Medical School, dismissed Willke’s claims by saying: “There are no words for this—it is just nuts.”[12]”


        20. madblog Post author

          He’s not my hero.Why would you use him to represent your case, the “facts” you base your metaphysical position on, if you think he’s nuts?
          I don’t see why I ought to capitulate to your position if you don’t believe your own expert.


        21. john zande

          He’s the Father of the Modern Abortion movement… your movement… and as you have so aptly demonstrated, he was completely insane.

          That’s kinda’ funny.

          I cite him because that quote of his was a tremendous blunder. If you read the linked article (Brain waves when) you’ll see where he got his “information” from, and see how he “thought” it supported his position. He was wrong, but hey, the cat was already out of the bag.

          That is also quite funny.


        22. Wally Fry

          Actually John, what is in black and white is what YOU said.

          “Rights are bestowed on independent human beings.” A quote.

          So, my question remains valid and is NOT a ramble.

          When do you plan to begin the killing of the rest of the non independent beings?

          Answer that or prove to the world you either don’t know what you say, or don’t stand behind it.

          Until then, I am done with you, and I bet Madblog will be glad to see that.



        23. john zande

          When do you plan to begin the killing of the rest of the non independent beings?

          Wally, you should really try and contain your anger. It’s not becoming, and only makes you look thoroughly foolish. Do I support the killing of sentient beings? No.

          End of story.


        24. madblog Post author

          But you do. Do YOU scream in the streets for the repeal of abortion laws which allow for the termination of fetuses throughout pregnancy? Millions of abortions would be taking place after “synchronization”, and it is perfectly legal.

          How do you live with yourself?


        25. john zande

          Foetus’s are not sentient (conscious). They simply can’t be until after full bilateral synchronisation.

          How many times do you want me to repeat this?

          Just let me know so i can plan ahead, OK?


        26. madblog Post author

          As soon as you tell me how many times I will need to explain to you that that is an arbitrary marker desperately grasped by those searching for some scientificisized “proof” that some human beings aren’t human beings, and therefore it’s morally neutral to kill them.


        27. Wally Fry

          How typical John, to say anybody who dares to argue with you is either angry or unhinged.

          Can you quantify that I am unhinged? Or is that like every single thought you have merely your own opinion, or the cut and paste thought of another google expert?

          Back to the issue. You stated independence bestows rights. Period. Of course now you back pedal. But even in your back pedaling you waffle.

          Your definitions roll around like a greased pig, and no one can catch them. When you get caught in a bad position, you change definitions.

          First it was kill the non independent, now it is kill the not sentient, now you are waffling in defining sentient.

          Bottom line here, John, is that you stated your support for the killing of those inconvenient to the rest of us.

          Sad, really

          Liked by 2 people

        28. john zande

          I agree. Going to the bother of writing a post that uses language which is both factually wrong and cannot be defended, is indeed a colossal waste of time.


        29. john zande

          Can you quantify that I am unhinged?

          Sure. Easily. Just read your rambling diatribe from April 14, 2016 at 6:41.

          Bottom line here, John, is that you stated your support for the killing of those inconvenient to the rest of us.

          LOL! Yep, there’s the unhinged behaviour again.


    1. madblog Post author

      JZ, we will not be chasing any attempts to hijack the post so that you can yammer on about your one and only premise. Likewise we will not be posting eye-glazing lists of facts obtained from marginal yahoo sources.

      I am quite active in the pro-life cause, aside from writing here. Besides, if you believed that writing a blog wasn’t an effective way to persuade, you wouldn’t have a blog.

      You will likewise refrain from travelling over to my blog and pronouncing your self-righteous judgments on others based on nothing but your opinion and a rejection of objective moral standards.

      So yeah, I guess you are censored from now on.


      1. john zande

        Fair enough, but all you are doing by banning me is admitting I’m right and that you simply cannot respond to the facts presented in a coherent and adult manner.


        1. madblog Post author

          Not approving someone’s comments does not equal admitting defeat. It might mean the comments are incoherent, childish, boring, insulting, pointless,or stupid. I’ll stick to the topic from now on, and you’ve been very clear that you’re unable to move off of your pet one.


        2. john zande

          Yes, it does admit defeat. It shows you cannot present a coherent defense of your position, and so you censor.

          Censorship is admitting defeat. Period.


        3. madblog Post author

          I have presented a coherent argument over and over again. The fact that you can’t understand my position does not invalidate it.
          I’m not approving more of your comments because it’s a pointless exercise and you are nasty.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Tricia

    Oh very well said madblog. I appreciate you presenting points of view in your blog that don’t make it in to general discourse. I don’t think it needs to be said that the MSM avoids pro life narratives like the plague and has fallen hook, line and sinker for the silly victimization of women politics the Left takes as gospel.

    It’s not at all healthy for society to continue on with these lies and treat those who puncture them as the enemy. Keep speaking out!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. madblog Post author

    JZ: if you want to discuss, how about discussing some points which are in the post? You’ve got a lot to choose from , and I’m sure you can engage with some other point on topic?


  5. madblog Post author

    For the record, I have declared awhile ago: no more off-topic. Also no more hijacking, no more repetitive stonewalling. I have chosen not to approve such comments and will continue.

    Also no more attempts to dictate how I run my blog or use my moderation feature. Also no more aspersions on character because of same. That’s just how it is. It’s my place.


  6. john zande

    A positive discussion would be to talk about prevention of unwanted pregnancy, not access to abortion. Sadly, this is not something evangelicals (such as yourself) appear willing or capable of doing. Why? Because abortion isn’t really even the issue:


    1. madblog Post author

      I allowed this comment just to allow our readers to assess for themselves what’s what. And I note that I have chosen not to include some other comments which would only reflect poorly on this commenter.

      JZ: there are numerous points for discussion you could draw from my post, yet you will only engage with your own conspiracy-theories while trying like heck to bend the discussion your way.

      It is quite sad that an adult person could buy into such nonsense as you’ve added here.

      You believe it would be “positive” to talk about prevention of pregnancy, as though the consensus is that we are all looking for some way to stop people from being born, and I just don’t like the method called abortion.

      There is no one–no one– leading a movement or writing legislation for the restriction of birth control. Abortion advocates lump abortion into the category “birth control” and then sell the idea that conservatives want to restrict bc. The consensus is OK with birth control and sees the obvious distinction between it and abortion. Abortion is the issue.

      As for some cabal of religious weirdos trying to keep women from experiencing sexual satisfaction? You might want to befriend some actual committed Christian marrieds and ask them about their intimacy.
      The faction killing women’s sexual satisfaction is called Feminist ideology.


      1. john zande

        I’m gathering you’re a little embarrassed by Dr. Monica Miller’s statement. It doesn’t reflect well on a movement when the Director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society makes such a crazy public statement. Interestingly, she’s also the Associate Professor of Sacred Theology at Madonna University, so I don’t think you could call her a religious weirdo.


        1. madblog Post author

          Why would I be embarrassed? John, there’s something fundamental here which continually trips you up. You seem to think everyone but you perceives himself to be a cog in some larger group, a follower of some stamped-for-approval experts. I have no more to do with this person you’ve referenced than I have with Dolly Parton. I have no idea who she is….why would you think I would be embarrassed by her? Likewise I’ve never heard of Citizens for a Pro-life Society. I have also never heard of Madonna University. And I’m decidedly not Catholic.

          You really need to get out more.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: One Hundred Years of Death | Messages from the Mythical

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s