The point of the issue is surely that if someone -- like Reist -- wants to convince me to change my mind on an issue then they are obligated to give me good reasons. Reist claims SHE has good reasons for opposing liberal abortion laws, yet neither she nor anyone else can provide a rational foundation for that opposition. Assuming that they are not merely barking mad, either the anti-choice brigade either have to explain why they are right, or their opponents need to explain why they are wrong. Identifying a religious belief which is associated with other delusional claims goes a long way towards explaining this one as well.

anyone who wants to support liberal abortion laws simply does not want to face simple facts. It is killing a young child in no uncertain terms. What could be more obvious. Would you like a video that you can watch?

"Murder, and pornography, sexual representation of women and abortion are very different things. Reist is not arguing about the crime of murder, she's arguing about matters of morality and opinion. Your analogy is false." J.Wilson

Only the highly educated could possibly hold such a neo-stone age moral philosophy. Power confiscates natural access to the good http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/does-morality-depend-on-god.html so that authority lies solely in the hands of a positivist (and amoral)ruling class. The same one that pays and nurtured Wilson. But their yoke is hard - for Wilson has lost the natural light of reason and chosen an expensive repentance in court.

Wilson should listen to Mrs Gora and in Jesus' name - pray. He loves us deeply.

Jon J.
Why does MTR have to be singled out for being anti-abortion. Do other feminists think she is becoming too popular, and taking away their popularity?

I can imagine an interveiw with a feminist.

"I don't want to discuss it."

"Ah ha, so you are trying to hide something", says the feminist.

Then if the other person does tell the feminist something, the feminist will try and use it against them.

So it would be best not to associate with the feminist at all.

@ Mishka Part 1
“Badgering?” Now asking questions of Christians is “badgering?” And if not that, it’s “blaming?” What is this sense of being entitled not to be questioned that some Christians assume?

Reist is a public intellectual. Part of her role is to debate her position with members of the public. Questioning her is a legitimate activity. If she doesn’t want to answer, then she isn’t fulfilling her chosen role and can’t expect to be taken seriously.

You write: “Secondly, if a woman is going to have an abortion, I believe she should know exactly what she is doing.”

What makes you think she doesn’t know “exactly “ what she’s doing? And what does “exactly” mean in this context?

Given that you consider I have no right to know Reist’s religious beliefs, why on earth do you think you or your church has the right to decide whether or not a woman knows what she’s doing when she seeks an abortion? Your assumption is that unless a woman goes through a process you and your church considers adequately educative, she doesn’t know “exactly” what she’s doing?

I contend that this is religious rubbish. If it isn’t, the onus is on you to prove that women seeking an abortion do not know “exactly” what they’re doing. You must then prove that a compulsory vaginal ultrasound will tell them “exactly” what they are doing, in a way that nothing else can.

Despite absence of proof of assumptions that are based on the entirely presumed ignorance of women, vaginal ultrasounds are to be compulsory in VA before a woman may access abortion. Based on religious doctrine, not on empirical evidence because there isn’t any.

There are of course non-religious people who debate when life begins. And I would like to hear their empirical evidence for claiming women do not know “exactly” what they’re doing when they seek abortions. If they make such claims, which I seriously doubt.

Vanna, Reist is a public participant in an open debate. If she puts forward a position she is obliged to justify it. If her only justification is "The Sky Fairy told me so," then we can all draw our own conclusions as to the defensibility of that position.