More Equal Than Others

Among Christianity’s many influences on Western civilization is the concept that “all men are created equal.” The idea that human beings are equally valuable simply by virtue of being human is common even among those who otherwise reject religious teachings. What was once solely a religious principle has become almost universally accepted as a humanist principle. Two people might differ in their race, gender, intellectual abilities, age, or level of wealth, but both are equally deserving of respect, fair treatment, and equality under the law.

Call this “Belief A”.

Most people who support abortion argue that the fetus gradually acquires human rights as his/her nervous system develops in utero. According to polling done by Gallup, 61% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal during the first trimester of pregnancy. That figure drops to 27% during the second trimester, and to 14% during the third trimester. Since human life biologically begins at conception, this means that roughly half of Americans believe that some human organisms (third trimester fetuses) should have a legal right to life, while other human organisms (first trimester fetuses) may be legally dismembered with metal clamps and vacuum hoses.

DE-abortion1

In other words, these individuals believe that human worth is not derived “simply by virtue of being human,” but rather by possessing certain physical qualities. Thus, all humans are equal, but some humans are more equal than others. Call this “Belief B”.

A person cannot rationally hold both Belief A and Belief B. If “social justice” extends to some groups of humans – but not to others – then it isn’t really social justice.

Advertisements

Twelve Questions to Ask Your Pro-Choice Friends

These questions are meant to provoke reflection and conversation. Some are intended to gauge the pro-choice individual’s commitments and presuppositions. Others are designed to poke holes in the philosophical justification for “abortion rights”. Responses are welcome, and encouraged.

1. In terms of biology, the human life cycle begins at conception and ends at death. At what point in this life cycle do you believe human life becomes “valuable”? Is the value of a human life an “all-or-nothing” attribute, or are some human lives more valuable than others?

2. At what point in this life cycle do you believe humans should acquire legal rights? Why?

3. Pro-choice philosophers typically define the value of a human life in terms of utility (development of brainwaves, consciousness, etc.). If this is true, then why is it morally acceptable to sacrifice pigs and dogs for the purpose of medical/scientific research, but not human infants? Neurologically speaking, it’s not at all controversial to say that pigs and dogs are in many ways “more advanced” than human infants. Yet society only accepts sacrificing the former for experimental purposes. Do you? If so, why?

4. Do you support paternal child support laws? (Consider this quote from Dr. Michael Pakaluk: “[Suppose] that the reason the woman has sole right to decide to have an abortion is that the status of the fetus somehow depends upon how she chooses to regard it: thus, the fetus is not a child until the mother decides that it is, say, at some point later in pregnancy. But then a consequence of this is that the man, through having intercourse with the woman, does not conceive a child. Rather, he conceives only a fetus, and the fetus at some later point becomes a child, only because of the woman’s deciding that it is. But then the man’s role in intercourse is not a cause of a child. He brought into existence only a fetus, and it was the woman’s decision to ‘continue the pregnancy through term’ that made it a child. But if so, it is not clear why the man should have any responsibility for the child. How could the woman bring a claim for paternity support against him? After all, he could rightly reply: ‘You decided to regard the fetus as a child; so the child is your responsibility.'”)

5. Numerous state and federal laws allow for criminals to be prosecuted if an assault on a pregnant women results in injury or death to the fetus. Do you support fetal homicide laws? Why or why not?

6. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of “abortion rights” is the pregnant woman’s right to autonomy (read more here). This is especially relevant to abortion cases involving rape. Consider the following thought experiment: Suppose that a woman lives alone in a remote location. One day a man breaks into her home, assaults her, robs her, and before leaving, deposits his infant son on the woman’s kitchen table. Clearly it will require the sacrifice of both autonomy and valuable resources to care for the child until help arrives. Furthermore, it’s likely that the very sight of the infant brings back traumatic memories for the woman. Considering these challenges, is she morally justified in killing the infant, or allowing him to die of exposure? Does she have any legal (or moral) obligation to attend to the survival needs of the child?

7. What is your position on “two-minus-one” abortions? Are they ethical? Should they be legal?

8. Many of those who identify as “pro-choice” are particularly concerned with issues of inequality and discrimination. Are discriminatory abortions (such as sex-selective abortions) legally or morally defensible? Suppose that scientists developed a prenatal test to determine whether or not one’s child will be homosexual. Would you support a woman’s legal right to abort her fetus solely because of his homosexuality?

9. In the United States, many pro-choice activists believe that it violates women’s rights to ban abortions after 20 weeks (even when these restrictions include exceptions for maternal health). Suppose that two women get pregnant at the same time. At 23 weeks, the first woman decides to legally obtain an abortion. On the same day, the second woman delivers a premature infant. Several hours after the delivery, she decides she doesn’t want to “keep” the infant and smothers him to death. Should the second woman be held legally accountable for her action? Why or why not?

10. It is often claimed that a fetus cannot have legal rights if she isn’t “viable” (that is to say, capable of living independently outside of the womb). Interestingly, this fetus is capable of living and thriving within one environment (the womb) but not another (Earth’s atmosphere). You and I are capable of living and thriving in Earth’s atmosphere, but not underwater or on Jupiter. Does an individual’s ability to survive within a specific environment have any bearing on his or her moral worth?

11. Suppose you have a friend, daughter, or sister who excitedly begins informing people that she’s pregnant. Do you believe that it’s ethically consistent to simultaneously celebrate the new life growing within her, and deny the personhood and legal status of that new life? How would you respond if, after giving birth, she was reluctant to let pro-choice individuals near her child (knowing that they had, only recently, denied her child human rights and legal equality)?

12. What argument (or arguments) convinced you to identify as pro-choice? What did you find persuasive about these arguments? What objections to these arguments would you anticipate from pro-lifers, and how would you address these objections?

More Hard-Hitting Journalism from “Slate”

This morning I ran across one of those articles that manages to be both frustrating and (unintentionally) hilarious. And also kind of revealing.

I’ll be addressing it in block quotes, but you can read the original piece on Slate.

The author’s primary complaint seems to be that the successful film “It’s a Girl” – a documentary about the horrific practice of sex-selective abortions in China and India – was directed by someone with…*wait for it*…religious and pro-life connections. Since the film isn’t heavy-handedly “pro-life” in its approach, it’s being screened by a number of prominent feminist and pro-choice organizations.

“How did this happen? How did a movie linked to a pro-life group become the darling of the pro-choice community? The story involves clever disguises on the part of financing sources that managed to hide their involvement and pass off a movie about the horrors of sex-selection abortions as just a sympathetic movie about the plight of women in India and China.  And the pro-life message is subtle enough that they got away with it.”

It’s often said that pro-life and pro-choice activists should compromise by keeping abortion legal and simultaneously working together to reduce its prevalence and abuses. (Trent Horn correctly points out that this isn’t really a compromise at all. “Compromise entails two sides giving up parts of their position in order to reach a middle ground. This is just asking pro-life advocates to give up fighting for the unborn child’s right-to-live.”) Yet, ironically, a documentary that manages to achieve broad appeal across the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum is being attacked here simply because it was created by someone who is pro-life.

The author discovered this insidious pro-life connection by doing some online detective work (i.e. googling a few names).

“I finally searched the owners of the domain name associated with the film’s official production company. The domain name of Shadowline Films is registered to Evan Davis of Tucson, Ariz., (the same name as the filmmaker except without the middle name). Only after searching for ‘Evan Davis Tucson Arizona’ was I able to discover that Davis is also the media director of Harvest Media Ministry, and the domain name of that company is also registered to Evan Davis of Tucson…Among its portfolio of works, the website features a video describing ‘unborn children’ as ’46 million people who will be killed this year.'”

(Nice use of scare quotes, right?)

“On the website of Harvest Media, Evan Davis’ biography proclaims that his ‘passion is to equip those who are called to bring the hope and light of Jesus Christ to the world through the provision of strategic media communication tools and storytelling methods.’ Yet on his Facebook page that is associated with the film, under his religious views, he states that ‘it’s against my relationship to have a religion.'”

…which is an extremely common expression in many evangelical circles. But to her credit, the author did manage to sort out this apparent contradiction by interviewing Mr. Davis. He explained: “I don’t identify myself with a denominational group. But I believe in God. My faith is a factor in what motivates me in wanting to help people around the world and never tried to hide that.”

“Yet the film’s press kit does not mention his affiliation with Harvest Media Ministry and describes him as a ‘social justice advocate’ who writes videos and directs educational documentaries ‘championing the causes of the poor and exploited.'”

(Since, you know, these things are clearly incompatible with being religious and pro-life.)

“Why go to such efforts to hide the fact that Evan Davis aka Evan Grae Davis has also worked for a company that creates videos on behalf of faith-based groups to promote their interpretations of the teachings of Jesus Christ?”

Wow, this guy was even using an alias! Sometimes he used his middle name, and sometimes he didn’t. What a scumbag. Fortunately, efforts to hide his connection with Harvest Media Ministry were no match for this author’s unstoppable search engine skillz.

“When I asked Davis about this, he said that there was no ulterior motive in his failure to disclose his affiliation with Harvest Media Ministry and said he no longer works for the organization even though his biography is still on their website.”

Caught. Red. Handed.

“Pro-life groups have in recent years begun using the practice of sex-selective abortion—a practice that is rare in the United States—in foreign countries as an excuse for limiting women’s access to abortion here at home. A bill was recently filed in the North Carolina legislature to ban sex-selective abortion, and a similar bill was defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives last year. Although no one supports sex-selective abortion, pro-choice groups correctly worry that such laws could be misused to restrict abortion more broadly.”

Wait…”no one” supports sex-selective abortion? Clearly some people do, or they wouldn’t be happening.

“Regardless of what Davis’ goal is in making the movie, it is clear that efforts have been made to hide any affiliation with Harvest Media Ministry. In fact, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, a partner organization for which the film’s official website seeks donations, and whose founder features prominently in the film is also part of a coalition that seeks to ban sex-selection abortion in the United States.”

Yeah, you read that right. It turns out that the director of a documentary exposing the “tragic practice of sex-selection abortions” (<< the author’s words, not mine) is, in fact, in cahoots with an organization that seeks to ban sex-selective abortions in the United States.

Ten Outstanding Pro-Life Articles

Today is the 40th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision – as good a day as any to pass along some pro-life resources that I’ve found particularly insightful:

  1. Bad Pro-Choice Arguments (Neil Shenvi): Dr. Shenvi debunks a number of popular, yet seriously flawed, pro-choice arguments. Examples include “The unborn is not a human being, it is just a mass of cells” and “We should combat abortion by reducing poverty, not by making it illegal.” 
  2. Questions for Pro-Choice People (Michael Pakaluk): Dr. Pakaluk poses some tough questions to those who support legalized abortion. This is a must-read for anyone who considers himself “pro-choice”, but nonetheless has a few inner qualms about the actual practice of abortion.
  3. A Future Like Ours (Clinton Wilcox): This summary of Don Marquis’s “Future Like Ours” argument appeared recently on the Secular Pro-Life Perspectives blog. The argument states that murder is wrong, in part, because it deprives the victim of future experiences. This “future value” of a living entity constitutes a sufficient reason to presume that killing is wrong. Abortion is thus tantamount to murder…even though the embryo or fetus is at an early developmental stage, and may lack some of the physical qualities that we otherwise associate with “humanness”.
  4. The Pro-Life Position and the Bible (J.W. Wartick): My friend J.W. demonstrates how Scripture compellingly supports a pro-life stance. He’s written extensively on the issue of abortion, and you can check out an index of his pro-life posts HERE.
  5. Why I Lost Faith in the Pro-Choice Movement (Jennifer Fulwiler): In this powerful narrative, Ms. Fulwiler explains how she came to abandon her support of “abortion rights”. In particular, she discusses the widespread fear of information within the pro-choice movement, as well as the startling lack of interest among many pro-choicers in defining when, exactly, we should start protecting life.
  6. Unstringing the Violinist (Gregory Koukl): The well-known “violinist argument” for abortion rights (sometimes formulated as the “parasite argument”) is widely regarded as one of the most persuasive pro-choice arguments. Mr. Koukl uncovers some serious flaws with this argument, however, and explains why its strength is only illusory. In addition to Mr. Koukl’s criticisms, I would also emphasize the issue of implicit consent to the possibility of pregnancy that comes with the act of sex – at least in the vast majority of abortion cases that don’t involve rape.
  7. Why Your Friends are ‘Pro-Choice’ (Scott Klusendorf): This article analyzes the common claim, “I don’t like abortion, but I don’t think the government should be involved in taking away a woman’s choice” (or, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”). Abortion is wrong not because pro-lifers find it distasteful, but because it violates rational moral principles.
  8. Responding to Pro-Choice Bumper Sticker Speak (Jennie Stone): This is a great response to some of the more common pro-choice ‘one-liners’. I also recommend checking out the articles she cites near the beginning (by Kristen Walker and Kristi Brown, respectively).
  9. Pro-Life or “Anti-Abortion”? Who Decides? (Richard Evans): Richard reflects on how terminology (“pro-life” vs. “anti-abortion”) is used to re-frame the debate. He also raises some important questions about what “choice” really means…and when it should take place.
  10. Guest Post on BadCatholic (Michael Frances): In the “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life” debate, which viewpoint is the scientific default, and which viewpoint must rely on philosophical or religious assumptions? The answer might surprise you.

As a bonus, I’ve listed below a few of my own previous articles on the issue of abortion:

  1. The Roots of the Abortion Debate: I explain why pro-life and pro-choice advocates both seem to genuinely believe they are acting ethically. The answer, I believe, often boils down to one’s philosophical views on the value of life.
  2. Abortion Methods: An Overview: I describe the various surgical and non-surgical methods used to terminate a pregnancy. I intentionally avoided using gory photographs, but the content is nonetheless quite disturbing. As it should be.
  3. Possibly the Worst New York Times Op-Ed in the History of New York Times Op-Eds: This was my response to a NY Times opinion piece by Thomas Friedman. I point out the hypocrisy of those who support a “woman’s right to choose” when it comes to killing her unborn child, but not when it comes to consuming “giant sugary drinks”.
  4. In Defense of the Pro-Life Movement: A Response to Greg Rubottom: In this post, I respond to attacks on the pro-life movement from a member of the “progressive Christian” community. In the comment section, you’ll see that this also involved some interaction with Frank Schaeffer (the son of Francis Schaeffer).

If you have any good pro-life resources that I’ve overlooked, please feel free to share them in the comments below.

In Defense of the Pro-Life Movement: A Response to Greg Rubottom

Earlier today I received an email from a good friend, asking for my feedback on Greg Rubottom’s recent guest post on Frank Schaeffer’s Patheos blog. The original article (“Death throes of a great deception – the fall from grace of the pro-life movement”) can be found here.

About three sentences into my response email, I decided to make this into a blog post. The article is fairly long, so I’ll try to limit myself to the major points.

Rubottom begins by describing “the Republican Party’s nefarious campaign to teach Americans that God opposes abortion”. He includes this paragraph:

“Modern medical abortion is a relatively new phenomenon in the world. When this procedure was unexpectedly legalized in 1972 many struggled to understand it. There were no centuries old church degrees (sic) concerning abortion in existence. The responsibility therefore fell on all believers to decide for themselves what the “will of God” might be concerning abortion.”

I don’t want to spend too much time nitpicking history…but medical abortions have been around for thousands of years (qualifying them as “modern” in order to call it a “new phenomenon” is just being redundant). Christians have been responding to the practice (and generally condemning it) since Roman times. It isn’t as if the moral ramifications of abortion suddenly fell from the sky in 1972, blindsiding Christians everywhere.

“The pro-life believer feels confident that rape can not be the will of God – because rape is a bad thing. But despite the other obvious “bad things” staring them in the face, a woman required to bear a rapist’s child against her will and a child growing up with a rapist father, they still steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility that God might actually prefer to terminate a conception.”

Are we to play God, then, and decide that a fetus conceived through rape is undeserving of life? Do the circumstances of a person’s conception really determine their worth? Doesn’t this just open the door to prejudices from the not-so-distant past, when “bastards” were socially stigmatized as adults for the circumstances of their conception?

Or consider the following scenario from Dr. Neil Shenvi:

“Imagine a woman living in some remote area. A man breaks into her home and rapes her. But before leaving, he leaves his newborn son in her kitchen. The sight of the baby obviously brings back horrible memories for the woman. But is she morally justified in killing him to avoid the pain? No. Even if it takes the government weeks or even months to come take the baby, he should not be killed for the actions of the rapist. She is certainly a hero for caring for the needs of the innocent child. But her only other option – to kill the child – is morally wrong.”

“The pro-life worldview is promoted in our Evangelical churches [and by the Roman Catholic bishops] almost entirely by means of a very powerful appeal to ones’ empathetic emotions, along with a preference for some scripture over others and a complete denial or perversion of yet others. All to try to make a case for “human soul life” beginning at conception.”

Rubottom makes no attempt to engage with the Scriptural evidence for the pro-life position, but I think it’s worth taking a moment to do so. If you’re at all uncertain about the Biblical basis for the pro-life position, I implore you to read this excellent summary from JW Wartick.

“The teaching of the pro-life heresy in America’s churches (along with other blatant heresies all stemming from the belief in an inerrant Bible) imperils the very survival of Christianity in America.”

I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but I think Mr. Rubottom tips his hand here. After spending several paragraphs explaining why the Christian stance against abortion is in conflict with the Bible, he now claims that it’s a heresy stemming from a belief in an inerrant Bible.

Just think about that.

It’s an implicit concession that there is a Biblical basis for the pro-life position. Furthermore, by claiming that the Bible contains errors, he seriously undermines his previous attempts to refute the pro-life position on Biblical grounds.

“Just like nature, people should choose to allow a conception to proceed if a healthy body is understood as likely and the external environment is favorable for nurturing an emerging soul. Choice is simply another of God’s tools promoting our evolution toward perfection.”

Your eugenics alarm should be going off about now.

“God trusts nature to use her wisdom at times to destroy a fetus to ensure the best “body environment” for the potential soul.”

The author makes the mistake here of assuming that spontaneous abortions are acceptable to God (rather than a form of natural evil). In the absence of clear evidence that a fetus isn’t a “human person”, this is akin to saying, “God trusts nature to use her wisdom at times to destroy (via lightning strikes, flash floods, and eathquakes) newborn infants that lack an ideal ‘body environment’.”

And again, what kind of message is this sending to the physically and mentally disabled living among us, who WERE born with less-than-ideal “body environments”? Are their lives somehow less valuable? Isn’t this essentially telling people from impoverished families and broken homes that their lives aren’t worth living?

Is this the message of Jesus?

“Humanity must follow nature’s and God’s example by judging the “exterior environment” into which the potential soul will be born. The mental and physical fitness of the mother and father. The physical resources. Is there severe damage to the fetal body nature is blind to? Would pregnancy endanger the life of the mother? Is the conception against the will of the mother? All of these external environmental factors must be considered and found acceptable in order for one to truly say that “God approves” that another soul come into the world.”

As Mary Ann points out in the comments section, shouldn’t Jesus himself have been aborted according to this criteria? Wasn’t He born into abject poverty, in a barn, to an unwed mother?

Rubottom argues that babies shouldn’t be carried to term if the external environmental factors are unfavorable. Yet even a child born into a stable, upper-class family is certain to experience some degree of pain and hardship during her life. This “exterior environment” argument just seems so…arbitrary. Is there even such as thing as an ideal environment for bringing a new soul into the world?

Throughout the article, Rubottom spends a good deal of time arguing that the human body is merely a “container”, and that the soul is created as a “process” during human development. Yet, astonishingly, he shows no interest in even attempting to define when a human life becomes valuable and worth protecting.

When should we start protecting human life, and why? This ought to be the first question that’s asked.

My Previous Posts on Abortion

The Roots of the Abortion Debate

Abortion Methods: An Overview

A Pre-Election Post: Abortion and Right of Conscience

Possibly the Worst New York Times Op-Ed in the History of New York Times Op-Eds

Possibly the Worst New York Times Op-Ed in the History of New York Times Op-Eds

Thomas Friedman, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Times, brings us a truly head-scratching opinion piece today, entitled, “Why I Am Pro-Life”.

Thomas Friedman

I have this thing about letting ridiculous statements go unchallenged. This piece has enough ridiculous statements to warrant its own blog post.

{SPOILER WARNING…Friedman isn’t actually pro-life}

Friedman begins:

Hard-line conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

New extremes? It’s hardly “new” for a pro-life politician to believe that all unborn children are equally valuable in the eyes of God – regardless of the circumstances of their conception.

If it’s offensive to even suggest that a fetus conceived through rape is valuable and intended by God, then what kind of message is this sending to the children and adults living among us who were also conceived through rape? As I observed recently on Facebook, the hostile reactions to Mourock’s comments bring to mind a time in the not-so-distant past when “bastards” were socially stigmatized as adults for the circumstances of their birth. For more on this controversy, I urge you to read this outstanding article from GetReligion.

Friedman goes on to educate us on the “mainstream consensus in America” on the issue of abortion:

That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well.

Actually, it turns out that pro-life Americans now outnumber pro-choice Americans by a nine-point margin. So I’m really not sure where he’s getting this “mainstream consensus”. No sources were provided.

He continues:

You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.”

The effectiveness of the Head Start program has been called into question by a number of conflicting studies. At the very least, it should be recognized that opposition to this federal program shouldn’t be equated with opposition to helping disadvantaged children.

As to the implication that pro-lifers only care about children before they’re born…I defer to a recent Facebook status from a friend of mine: “Was told today that Pro-Life people are monsters because we don’t care about children after they’re born. So I got my phone out and went through my contacts one by one and pointed out which folks were adoptive parents to children in America, which ones were adoptive parents to children from overseas, which ones were social workers, which ones work as detectives for crimes against children, which ones ran orphanages overseas, which ones are highly involved in ending human trafficking and sex-slavery, which ones are currently digging water wells and striving to improve sanitation in africa….come to think of it…I think almost every pro-life person in my entire life is committed to the welfare and health and happiness of children in this country and around the world. Then I threw a chair at her. lol just kidding, it was a bar stool.”

Friedman’s only getting warmed up, though:

“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s ovary, no matter how that egg got fertilized…

I have to stop this one mid-sentence. And no, it isn’t because of the innocent “sanctity life” typo. I’m much more disturbed by the complete lack of understanding Friedman reveals about human reproduction. For those who remember from high school biology, fertilized eggs aren’t located in a woman’s ovary. The haploid female egg cell is actually ejected from the ovary (a process called “ovulation“) into the Fallopian tube, where it sits around waiting to be fertilized.

This mistake is pretty egregious, considering the entire article is dedicated to issues involving fertilization. I’m not going to claim that it automatically invalidates everything else Friedman has to say…but doesn’t it, kind of?

…but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon.

Wait, a concealed AUTOMATIC weapon?

“Hold on, let me just slip this under my jacket.”

But in all seriousness…is Friedman honestly trying to equate the killing of 1.2 million unborn children each year in the United States with the relatively rare cases in which a psychopath gets his hands on an AR-15 (which is semiautomatic, FYI)? I’m all in favor of having a discussion about the availability of certain types of firearms…but this just isn’t a valid comparison. Also: automatic weapons have been illegal for decades.

I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.

I think Friedman disqualified himself from talking about “voodoo science” when he mentioned “every fertilized egg in a woman’s ovary” in the previous sentence.

Also, a source for the 99 percent figure would be really cool.

Friedman closes by holding up New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a shining example of the kind of “pro-life” politician he would like to see more of. The kind of politician who respects the sanctity of life by banning the sale of “giant sugary drinks”, and by requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus.

Not to be cliché…but I seriously couldn’t make this stuff up.