There are easier ways to defeat feminists like Tankard Reist. Just ask them about personal responsibility and watch them run.

Jennifer, you haven't just asked questions. You have written an entire article calling her unethical. She's not a public servant, and there's no requirement for her to answer your questions. I don't like her evasiveness any more than you, but even public figures have a right to privacy. And the way you're attacking her, no wonder she doesn't answer you!

I wouldn't call her an "intellectual", but I take all people seriously and try to evaluate arguments rather than judging people based on their beliefs. The more you attack MTR the more credibility and exposure she gains. Well done, Jennifer! On the bright side, at least she might get more of a hearing, which is good for democracy.

As for knowing "exactly" what an abortion entails, that is a medical right of all patients, not "religious rubbish". (Next time you're lying in hospital I suggest you read your Patients' Rights sheet.) Furthermore, if you look at http://www.abortionhelp.com.au/facts-on-abortion#12med you will see that even abortion providers like Marie Stopes require an ultrasound and explain why (as I did in my previous post). I'm also constantly told by pro-choice women who've had abortions that the embryo/foetus is "just a blob of cells" and by other women that it's something they deeply regret.

I can't speak for the Virginian legislators, but I don't see how their religion affects the legitimacy of their arguments. The pro-life argument has nothing to do with religion - it's about when life begins and whether we have a right to terminate that life. If you decide that someone's argument is invalid because they are religious, you are being discriminatory. The validity of an argument is not dependent on who's advancing it or what their creed entails. I think you'll also find it's their democratic right. They were elected to legislate for Virginia's citizen's, 76% of whom identify as Christian. Got a problem with that? That's a problem with democracy.

And if you're so interested in hearing the evidence of secular pro-lifers, why don't you ask the folk over at http://secularprolife.org? Hopefully, they will be more forthcoming than MTR.

David

It is not rational people who kill the unborn it is hard hearted sinful people whose consciences are seared. Doctors slaughtering the unborn are in this category.

Also the feminsist and educators who insist abortion is only about the woman and not the baby. They are deceitful and lead many to abdicate their responsibilities.

In answer to your questions

Should all abortions be illegal?

Having brainwashed and deceived so many into hard heartedness and deceitful thinking no. The gaols are already full.

Just imagine unborn children were given a chance and adopted out. That that really would be quite novel wouldn't it David

<The ethics of the situation are obvious. If Tankard Reist is a practicing Christian then there is no doubt that her faith guides her moral values. If she has a relationship with God in which she seeks through prayer advice and instruction on her work, as Christians are required to do, then she is ethically obliged to disclose this.>

The problem with this logic, Jennifer, is it suggests that non-denominational advocates are objective. Just because you deny God and profess secularism, it doesn't follow that your views are comparatively disinterested, or ideologically undirected--apologies but you views appear populist and predicatble. Indeed it could be argued that unconscious bias--especially when it has the moral high ground, as secularism does at at the moment--is more successfully devious than a patent agenda. I might add, however, that it seems to me MTR has a patent agenda when she uses or has phrases like the "sanctity of life" attributed to her.

Mishka Gora,

I'm a little confused.
You say above that "...The validity of an argument is not dependent on who's advancing it or what their creed entails..." Yet, in your recent article on OLO your argument appears to rest abundantly on those points. You say that religious employers shouldn't be compelled to adhere to a "dictatorial mandate" enforced by the U.S. government to fund free birth control through insurance - precisely because of who they are and what is their creed.

Poirot, not at all. The right of someone to follow their conscience is not dependent on whether they're right or wrong. It doesn't matter how batty someone is, if they are convinced of the immorality of something then that must be respected. I don't think that war is inherently wrong, but I respect the right of Quakers to not be conscripted into the armed forces. And the validity or invalidity of their argument isn't dependent on whether they're Quaker or anything else. I decide for myself that they're wrong, but I still respect their right to have a contrary opinion and not violate their conscience in that regard.

So, what I'm saying is that while I can disagree with MTR, I still respect her right to her opinion, her right to express it, and her right to follow her conscience wrt those opinions... and her right to privacy. I do not need to know whether she's a Christian or not to know that I disagree with her portrayal of men and women. I will disagree with her whether she's a Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist because I disagree with her argument, not with her creed.