Rick Santorum Misses the Point on Abortion and Social Security


Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) asserted earlier this week that Social Security’s future solvency is in jeopardy because of what he termed the U.S. “abortion culture.” Santorum is quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying, “Well, a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.” Leaving aside questions about whether Social Security is indeed facing insolvency, and, if it is, whether the major problem is that there are too few people to support it, there are a number of serious problems with Santorum’s statement.

First of all, he got the facts wrong. One-third of pregnancies do not end in abortion, as Santorum claims. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, 22.4 percent of pregnancies (excluding those that result in miscarriages) ended in abortion. More importantly, however, there are two main reasons why it is simply wrong to assume that every abortion reduces the U.S. population by one person: One, most women obtaining abortions are younger than 30 and are postponing childbearing. They typically want to wait to have children, or already have one child and don’t want another at that time. In either case, the abortion delays a birth, it does not eliminate it—and there is no impact on the overall population. Second, some abortions terminate pregnancies that would have ended in miscarriage, so again one cannot assume that every abortion would have otherwise resulted in a live birth.

But where Santorum really misses his mark is his failure to grasp a very simple idea: Most Americans want two children, and they try to time childbearing and space their births so that they have those children when they feel best capable of taking care of them. Overwhelmingly, this is accomplished through contraceptive use. When faced with an unwanted or mistimed pregnancy, some women decide to obtain an abortion. But the key point is that whatever demographic challenges Social Security may be facing, they are not due to abortion, but rather to the fact that most Americans desire—and generally achieve—small families.

The natural extension of Santorum’s purported solution for bolstering Social Security would be to require American women and couples to have more children than they want. Any possible scenario for achieving such a goal would be deeply disturbing—for example, banning both contraception and abortion, or trying to institute some form of mandatory three- or four-child policy through tax penalties or other punishments for those not complying. 

In essence, what underpins Santorum’s argument is a lack of support for the ability of women and their partners to decide for themselves when to have children and how many children to have.

Click here for more information on:

Contraceptive Use in the United States
Abortion in the United States
Mistimed and unwanted births, from the CDC’s National Survey of Family Growth
Women who choose abortion because they want to postpone having a child or because they have completed their childbearing

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Cory Richards please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • angi-becker-stevens

    Additional points Santorum misses:

    If you want to talk about the decline of population growth, then we should talk about fostering an environment in which women are supported in the choice to have children. Conservatives mistakenly see a return to “traditional family values” as a solution to this “population problem.” But women who can make the choice to have children and remain free of repressive gender roles are more likely to make the choice to have children. The problem isn’t abortion, the problem is at least to some degree the fact that motherhood still imposes a lot of limitations on women, limitations we’re understandably eager to avoid.

     

    And as for his one-third abortion statistic, I’d add that an estimated one-third of pregnancies actually did end in abortion in the depression era–when abortion was still illegal and the Comstock Laws made contraception incredibly difficult to come by.

  • prochoiceferret

    China: One-child-per-family policy

     

    U.S. a la Santorum: Seven-children-per-family policy

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ ProChoiceFerret ~

    I have really missed your clever, entertaining, comments, they are the reason I kept coming back to this website. Miss you.

  • prochoiceferret

    Awww, thank you FBIR =^_^=

     

    I try to pop in here every now and then. You know how it is—so much to dook, so little time to dook it!

  • crowepps
  • autumn

    All that assumes two things, one that all those extra people would have jobs and would be paying into the system, and Wiuld their be jobs and would they be employable?

     

    The education and social welfare system is getting slashed all the time and compelling the poor to have more children will improve this situation how?

     

    It’s really about repuglican misogyny. Sisters don’t let sisters vote GOP!

  • jenh

    Are you serious, Mr. Richards?

    More importantly, however, there are two main reasons why it is simply wrong to assume that every abortion reduces the U.S. population by one person…

    In either case, the abortion delays a birth, it does not eliminate it—and there is no impact on the overall population.

     

    So, what, the woman can decide years later that now she wants the child she aborted and get it back?  She doesn’t have to get pregnant with another child?  Recycled babies, right?  The abortion simply “delayed” childbirth?!? 

     

    Of course abortion eliminates a birth!  Isn’t that the point of abortion?  To eliminate the “unwanted pregnancy”?  How ludicrous to say that abortion doesn’t reduce the population by one person.  Of course it does!  It eliminates  the baby and reduces the population by one baby!  This is so absurd I laughed out loud!

     

    I’ve heard the pro-aborts use some twisted and crazy reasoning before, but thsi is just sheer stupidity.  Apparently Mr. Richards doesn’t realize that every baby conceived is an unrepeatedable, unique human being, and if that human being is eliminated through abortion, that human being’s birth has not been “delayed.”  That person has been destroyed forever. 

  • jenh

    Your comparison is nonsense.  China couldn’t care less about women or girls or their rights, yet I never hear the pro-aborts hollering about the way China violates the rights of females.  Why is that?  Is it okay to be killed just because you’re a girl?

     

    Santorum has never proposed or even suggested that any mandatory child policy is the answer to anything.  He values human life, including girls and women and thinks they ought to be allowed to live and not be killed just because they’re female.  He is also accurate to point out that as the workforce decreases in number because family sizes are smaller and more and more babies are aborted, while at the same time the retired population increases, Social Security will become very insecure indeed.  That’s just math, folks.

     

    You don’t really give a hoot about the rights of women or young girls or female babies.  You only care about abortion.

  • arekushieru

    “pro-aborts”

    That you continue to refer to us with that title, after having it explained to you SEVeral times, why it isn’t appropriate, uses some of the most twisted and crazy reasoning I’ve ever heard, before, I’m sure.  

    A fetus is NOT a baby NOR a human being/person.

    What is so absurd is that you can’t understand simple logic.  If the woman had not had an abortion, she would most likely not have had the child that resulted after having HAD the abortion. 

     

     

     

  • jenh

    You are pro-abortion.   You are in favor of aborting babies in the womb.  Just own it already.

     

    The child in the womb is a human being.  Check your biology textbook.  It’s not a houseplant or a kitten.  A human being.  Will never be anything other than a human being.

    If the woman had not had an abortion, she would most likely not have had the child that resulted after having HAD the abortion.

    Why not?  Babies that aren’t aborted are most often born.  You can’t seriously suggest that every pregnancy not aborted would certainly end in miscarriage anyway.

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    The comparison is: Is it okay to be coerced to give birth just because you’re a girl?  Is it okay to be coerced to abort just because you’re a girl?  SO sorry, but the comparison reMAINS accurate. If he values girls and womens’ lives, he wouldn’t force women to give birth, and esPECially not simply so Social Security can remain stable.  

     

    He is also accurate to point out that as the workforce decreases in number because family sizes are smaller and more and more babies are aborted, while at the same time the retired population increases, Social Security will become very insecure indeed.

    Uh, you didn’t take ANY time to read any of the links, did you?  Typical….

    You don’t really give a hoot about the rights of women or young girls or female babies.  You only care about abortion.

    Santorum doesn’t care about young girls or female babies.  Neither does China.  PCF certainly does, because she cares about the violation of rights Santorum, yourself and China, would impose on others by forcing abortion or pregnancy on women, just because they’re girls/women.

  • arekushieru

    You are pro-abortion.   You are in favor of aborting babies in the womb.  Just own it already

    Just own that we aren’t anti-choice like you, already.  If I was in favour of women aborting, I wouldn’t have been ecSTATic when my cousins and my friend CHOSE to have a baby.  Are you finally gaining some logic?  I can always hope, right?

    The child in the womb is a human being.  Check your biology textbook.  It’s not a houseplant or a kitten.  A human being.  Will never be anything other than a human being.

    A fetus is NOT a child.  A child, at the very least, is a baby/infant (first stage of development outSIDE of the uterus) that has been taken home from the hospital.  Biology textbooks agree with ME.  A fetus is human life/human being.  It does NOT agree with you, that a fetus is a person/human being.

    Why not?  Babies that aren’t aborted are most often born.  You can’t seriously suggest that every pregnancy not aborted would certainly end in miscarriage anyway.

    Typical, you misconstrue what I say and think you’ve made a point.  I SAID: A woman aborts, she has another child later.  A woman doesn’t abort, she has one child, but doesn’t have that other child later that she would have had if she DID abort.


  • jenh

    I SAID: A woman aborts, she has another child later.  A woman doesn’t abort, she has one child, but doesn’t have that other child later that she would have had if she DID abort.

     

    Who are you to say that a woman who has an abortion won’t go on to have more than one child afterward?  Oh, that’s right.  The two-child mentality. 

    A fetus is NOT a child.  A child, at the very least, is a baby/infant (first stage of development outSIDE of the uterus) that has been taken home from the hospital.

     

    So the babies in the hosptial that haven’t yet gone home are not children either?  It gets real hard for you guys to keep up with your ever-changing classifications of what makes the baby human, when the baby is a child, and when the baby actually has the right to its life.  It’s really not compliacted.  Once conceived, the new human being is a child and has the right to live.  Size, development, intelligence, ability, cuteness, “wantedness” or any other such distinction is irrelevant to the fact that the unrepeatable, unique human being in the womb is a human child with the right to live.  Those distinctions only serve the whims of the adults who want to justify killing the baby.

     

    Our humanity is not dependent on our utility, or our “wantedness.”   And thank God for it.  Though, watch out.  We’re rapidly heading toward a utilitarian society where the disabled and chronically ill are going to be “gotten rid of” because they’re not “fully” human by someone’s definition.

  • crowepps

    Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, everyone opposes forced abortion because it’s not a choice. Pro-choice advocate Hillary Clinton has condemned it repeatedly.

    http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/china-enforces-one-child-policy-through-forced-abortion-forced-sterilization-and-infanticide/

    And here:

    On April 22 of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned forced abortion and forced sterilization in China, saying that they are “absolutely unacceptable.”  On January 19 of this year, another pro-choice activist, Felice Gaer, Director of the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, stated, “I’m fiercely pro-choice and I have never hesitated to bring up the issue of the violence and coercion associated with China’s population policy.”  She then described forced abortion as “torture.”  These opponents can hardly be characterized as “leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions.”

    This is not a “fundamentalist” issue.  It is a women’s rights issue.  It does not matter whether you are pro-choice or pro-life on this issue.  No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice.

    http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/Opinion_Editorial/ONECHILD_PLANET_AN_ASININE_ARGUMENT/26384

  • crowepps

    We’re rapidly heading toward a utilitarian society where the disabled and chronically ill are going to be “gotten rid of” because they’re not “fully” human by someone’s definition.

    As I recollect the words of that Tea Party lawmaker who wanted to ship the disabled to Siberia, he acknowledged they were human — he was just objecting to the fact that they’re expensive.  You know, like those pregnant women and infants who used to get WIC, before the program was cut as too expensive.  It’s pretty amazing to me that the ProLife community is so impressed with politicians speeches about ‘save every fetus’ when they have no follow through and seem pretty blase about allowing the infants to starve to death after they’re born.

    State Rep. Martin Harty of Barrington said he was kidding around with an unidentified woman caller who supported funding for the homeless when he raised the issue of eugenics and the world’s population growth.

    “I was kidding with her and it kind of got away from me,” he said of the conversation. “It was a girl that wanted money for the crazy people, the people … a good percentage of the homeless people are mentally disturbed.”

    He said he didn’t know what to do with them.

    “I said maybe they can rent a spot in Siberia off of Russia,” he said.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5QQzEOFkpF8aGkQwuBrB0V9pzGg

  • ahunt

    Our humanity is not dependent on our utility, or our “wantedness.”   And thank God for it.  Though, watch out.  We’re rapidly heading toward a utilitarian society where the disabled and chronically ill are going to be “gotten rid of” because they’re not “fully” human by someone’s definition.

     

    Permit me to point out that it is not abortion rights advocates who are in favor of cutting the funds that assist the disabled and chronically ill in this country to continue living, JenH.

  • crowepps

    Apparently Mr. Richards doesn’t realize that every baby conceived is an unrepeatedable, unique human being

    Well, of course he realizes that, just like every other person on earth is an unrepeatable, unique human being, and if any particular fetus isn’t born, for any reason, that an entirely different “unrepeatable, unique human being” will be born instead, who will likely be just as good or better because at every point on the scale the best outcomes result from children being wanted.

     

    If a woman can afford to raise and wants three children, she can reach that total number by having three pregnancies resulting in three children, by having twelve pregnancies, nine of which miscarry and three children, or by having four pregnancies, one abortion and three children.  She’s still going to stop when she reaches three.  She’s not going suddenly be filled with some insane desire to have ten live children and watch seven of them starve to death and three be stunted by malnourishment.

     

    The reason the number of children doesn’t balance the amount needed for Social Security is that when the SS program was first started, people on average drew their pension for two years or less.  By the 50′s that had risen to eight years.  Now people draw a pension for twenty years.

     According to SmartMoney, the average length of retirement has risen from 8.1 years in 1950 to almost 20 years in 2007.

    http://longevity.about.com/b/2007/03/29/average-retirement-length-20-years.htm

    That means the demand on the retirement end of the ledger has doubled and doubled and doubled again.   And, no, I am not suggesting we kill the old people or let them starve after their 2 years are up — just pointing that that the program as currently structured, with current workers paying in to current retirees, can’t continue to work, and it’s not the number of children/workers that’s the problem, it’s the number of years people are retired.

  • arekushieru

    Who are you to say that a woman who has an abortion won’t go on to have more than one child afterward?  Oh, that’s right.  The two-child mentality.

    No, it’s that whole idea of women being more than incubators, that you anti-choicers just can’t seem to grasp.  The idea of women having dreams, wishes, wants and desires, just like everyone else, that you forced birthers want to ignore (talk about utilitarian).  If a woman doesn’t abort because of policies enforced by the crowd of misogynistic ‘ProLifers”, she most likely won’t go on to finish schooling, get a well-paying job, earn enough money to support a family of more than two as a single parent or find a partner that will share the dreams she had, because the partner she would find, would most likely just be looking to survive and making ends meet, too.  

    So the babies in the hosptial that haven’t yet gone home are not children either?  It gets real hard for you guys to keep up with your ever-changing classifications of what makes the baby human, when the baby is a child, and when the baby actually has the right to its life.  It’s really not compliacted.  Once conceived, the new human being is a child and has the right to live.  Size, development, intelligence, ability, cuteness, “wantedness” or any other such distinction is irrelevant to the fact that the unrepeatable, unique human being in the womb is a human child with the right to live.  Those distinctions only serve the whims of the adults who want to justify killing the baby.

    Since I have never said anything different, that a fetus isn’t a baby (until it is born) isn’t a child (until it has been taken home from the hospital), I don’t know how you came to such an obviously erroneous conclusion, esPECially since medical and legal records agree with me.  A fetus is always human, it’s just not a human being/person, and it has the same right to life that a baby has, that an adult has, WITH abortion legal.  It’s REALLY not complicated.

    If the fetus is unrepeatable, then what are twins, triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets?  

    None of those distinctions play into the role of a woman deciding to have an abortion.  If it was the fetus that was unwanted, adoption is the option, after all.  Only if a pregnancy (y’know, the implantation of the fetal PORTION of the placenta into the uterus, NOT the fetus, itself?) is unwanted does a woman choose an abortion.  You really need to brush up on Debating 101, too, don’t you?

    No, since there is no baby involved and no one can use someone else’s body against their will, not EVEN to save their life.  Although, you ARE justifying a fetus’ right to kill it’s host, just by declaring it a person. 

    Yes, thank God we’re not as utilitarian as you and all other forced-birthers.  Which means we won’t ever have the problem you think we’re going to have, unless and until we become a society of forced-birthers.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Let’s talk about mandatory. Santorum wants all pregnancies to end in a live birth. That’s a mandate, meaning forced birth, mandatory birth. Blaming women for social security insolvency is scapegoating women.

  • spic09

    Well, let’s do the math.  The number of US births hovers around 4 million a year (more than the first year of the Baby Boom).  If one third of pregnancies were aborted, that would mean approximately 2 million abortions a year.  In fact, in 2005, the number of abortions in the US was less than a million and dropping.  So Rick’s numbers are a tad off.

    But beyond that, if you want the US to have workers supporting retirees, and they are coming from keeping women pregnant, wouldn’t you want to encourage immigration?  I’m pretty sure Ricky is not a big fan of immigration.

     

    Andy

  • forced-birth-rape

    I would rather be aborted then have you for a mother you misogynistic creep. When my mother was forcing me to be around her child raping family i told her i wish she had aborted me.

    This is what I learned from rape.

    Nothing and no one has the right to be in my body against my will, use my body against my will, terrorize me for months with dread of having extreme unwanted vaginal pain against my will, nothing and no one has the right to cause me extreme unwanted vaginal pain against my will, nothing and no one has the right to be in my vagina at any time or place against my will.

    Women and little girls vaginas do not owe pimps anything, just like they do not owe the republican party anything.

    You do not give a damn about women and little girls.

    Forced birth is sadomasochistic RAPE!

  • jenh

    I’m truly sorry for your experience as a child.  However, that has nothing to do with the fact that the child in the womb is a human being who has the right to live.  You speak of your rights to your body, and I simply say that the child has the very same rights.  The right to to have and keep her body from being killed against her will!  The right to live.

     

    Childbirth is not rape.  If you feel so strongly about childbirth that you never want to experience it, then your responsibility is to not have sex so that you will not conceive a child.  Sex makes babies, and once babies are made, they are human beings who have the unalienable right to life.  Period.  It’s not a Republican issue or mandate, it’s simply the most basic human rights issue.

     

    And for the record, I am glad you were not aborted.  You were not/are not a mistake.  You are very angry and wounded, and for that you have my compassion and prayers, but abortion is never the solution to anything.  Killing never heals anything.  I truly pray that one day you’ll know how much you’re loved.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “I’m truly sorry for your experience as a child.”

    No you are not, you want to do the same thing to me, not give me a choice, force me to have to anticipate having unwanted genital pain against my will, cause me genital pain against my will.

    You are saying a person has the right to cause a woman or little girl vaginal pain against her will to save their life. I, as someone who was raped, find it abhorrent that a person could have a right to rape me to save their life.

    “the most basic human rights issue”

    The most basic human rights for women and little girls is to be able to say “NO” to extreme unwanted vaginal pain.

    “and for that you have my compassion and prayers, but abortion is never the solution to anything. Killing never heals anything. I truly pray that one day you’ll know how much you’re loved.”

    I grew up in southern baptist christianity, went to christian home school, my preacher grandfathers church, and you JenH and your pro-lets cause women and little girls unwanted vaginal pain against their will friends has made me an athiest.

    I would rather be hated then have your kind of love, I have already had plenty of it.

    You do not give a damn about me, I am just a cunt to you.

    Just like I was just a cunt to the people who raped me.

  • plume-assassine

    You speak of your rights to your body, and I simply say that the child has the very same rights

    No organism has the right to use a woman’s body against her will, even if such an organism depends on that woman’s body for survival!

    Childbirth is not rape.

    Either you are missing the point, or you are deliberately misconstruing what FBIR has said. Childbirth is an excruciatingly painful experience, and should only ever be a VOLUNTARY experience. That is why forced childbirth is rape. (key word in bold, in case you missed it again!)

    If you feel so strongly about childbirth that you never want to experience it, then your responsibility is to not have sex so that you will not conceive a child

    You do not get to tell someone whether they are allowed to have sex or not. You do not get to tell someone what is or is not “responsible” when it comes to THEIR body and THEIR life.

    Sex makes babies, and once babies are made, they are human beings who have the unalienable right to life. 

    No, a fertilized egg is NOT a baby. No, a fetus is NOT a child. And sex is NOT an irrevocable contract of automatic parenthood.

     

    It’s not a Republican issue or mandate, it’s simply the most basic human rights issue.

    When you take away choice, what do you have? That IS a mandate. And if you gave a single iota about human rights, then you would understand that it is immoral and sick to force women to suffer bodily and psychologically through unwanted pregnancies and endure the pain of unwanted childbirth. If you cared about human rights, you would not want to punish women like FBIR for having sex or for being raped.

  • elburto

    You are the worst kind of theocrat hypocrite, you are disgusting and abhorrent and do not deserve the oxygen of publicity. How fucking DARE you tell someone who was raped over, and over, and over again that it’s her CHOICE to not have sex if she doesn’t want to give birth. Are you so completely blinded by your religious rhetoric and your “God loves you” nonsense that you do not see how insane that statement is? Here’s the deal – a third of all people born female will face unwanted sexual contact, often in the form of rape, from men. So what was their choice? How could they have avoided that? Given that most rape and sexual assault is carried out by family members, closely followed by friends of said family, should anyone unlucky enough to be born with a vagina simply be locked in a crate until they’re old enough to be married off to the highest bidder? Is that a good choice Jen? After all, better that than getting raped, falling pregnant, then having to get an abortion.

    Face it, that’s what you’re about. Women as chattel, as ambulatory uteruses and convenient cunts for their owner (father or husband) to use as they see fit. More babies! More arrows in God’s holy quiver! More poverty, more abuse, more neglect, more child and infant deaths, higher maternal mortality, more minions for people like you to use up as cannon fodder for your disgusting wars, more cogs in the machinery of the prison industrial complex that makes so many of you so rich.

    You are truly hateful, twisted and evil. I’d pray for you, but fortunately I grew out of my childhood indoctrination and realised that religion does nothing but cause war, incite hatred and violence, and keep mankind in the gutter. So instead I’ve donated money to a charity that helps women acquire abortions. I’ll keep doing that every time you open your fool mouth about ‘children’ in utero, or refer to ZBEFs as baybees. So keep on keeping on, and I’ll keep hitting up paypal to ensure that women get the help they need, and the lives they want.

    PRAISE SCIENCE!

  • jenh

    I have never in my life used the word c***, and I will not allow you to use it for me.  You are no such thing and I never suggested you were.  Anyone who has treated you as such was evil and criminal.  Not just wrong, but evil.  And I am genuinely sorry.

     

    Women and girls are not sexual objects for anyone’s use or abuse.  They are beloved human beings who deserve to be treated with respect, love, and honor.  They are precious daughters of a heavenly Father who loves them, and the evil that men on this earth may do is not a reflection of the Father’s love.

     

    Rape and abortion are both gravely, intrinsicaly evil acts.  Violence, violation, and murder are always and everywhere despicable.  The fact remains that the child in the womb is a human being with the right to live and be born.  Just as you and every female on the planet has the right not to be violated and abused, so does the child in the womb have the right not to be killed. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    JenH, I very much agree with FBIR. Forcing a woman to give birth is rape. Taking away her bodily autonomy by forced pregnancy is rape. Don’t tell FBIR how to feel or what to say! She is entitled to say what she feels and talk about her experience. If you don’t like it go away! No one is making you post your “trolly” responses on this site. It’s interesting that you say “I will not allow you…” You won’t “allow her.” Who the hell gives you the authority to say things like you won’t allow her to use a certain word. Go away troll.

    As for the Christian religion has been hijacked by patriarchy, by men to do what they want to women, to control and have power over women. They use religion to maintain their unjust power. So don’t give me that crap about a “heavenly father.” Don’s use this site to proselytize! 

    What a bunch of crap you post. Abortion is NOT evil! It’s a medical procedure that has been used for thousands of years by women to control their fertility. Seriously where you get this crap you spout? No a fetus in a uterus is not entitled to carried to full term. A fetus does not trump by bodily rights. A fetus is not a person and is not granted equal rights to a woman. We are not walking uteruses her to serve man.

  • arekushieru

    If rape is a gravely, intrinsically evil act, then abortion is not.  If rape is not a gravely, intrinsically evil act then abortion is.  Do make up your mind.  If you don’t believe childbirth is violent, for the fetus or the woman, then you have no idea what pregnancy and childbirth are like.  Forced gestation is absoLUTEly a violation of a woman’s body.  And abortion is not murder.  Since murder = illegal killing with malice aforethought, there are FOUR criteria that abortion does not meet, to be convicted as murder.  The fact remains that a fetus is not a child nor a human being.  That the fetus does NOT have more rights than someone born, meaning the right to be born or the right to life at the expense of another’s right to self-determination.

    By saying that abortion should not be permitted, you ARE abusing and violating women.  Shows where your priorities lie between the woman and the fetus, doesn’t it…? 

  • plume-assassine

    Hell yeah, elburto! Thank you for your righteous anger. Every time anti-choice theocrats troll my personal blog, I donate to a women’s charity or pro-choice organization, too.