Your bias is showing. That is not NARAL's position. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Nor is it the ugly you wrote. So much for an attempt at intelligent debate.

And NARAL has no bias?
They support not extending legal personhood to babies born alive after surviving abortion. So it wouldn't be so difficult for them to taken that next baby step, now would it?

This thread is not about sperm.
You and Stash should start one if you wish to discuss it.



Pro-choice certainly is not pro-preterm infant.

Never said they didn't have a bias. Just found it interesting how each side reads into the bill whatever suits them to rile up their supporters. I'm not the one that initially introduced such biased sources as evidence.

I think it's funny that I'm expected to take the NRLC and USCCB at their word, because NARAL said the opposite. To be honest, I didn't refer to NARAL or NOW or any other potentially left wing organization when writing my letter because I didn't want to restate an opinion, but show what the facts were. I'll have a (hopefully short) rebuttal to Mr. Armstrong soon, but I think I may not preview it here...

True dat. FWIW, I don't take NARAL or any other group, even if I tend to support their position, at face value either. I just posted it to illustrate how those with a bias read and interpret things to support their bias. I can recognize that and do my best to search out more objective information. But that point seems lost on some. Oh, well....

Best wishes on your upcoming rebuttal. I'm sure it will fine.

And hopefully accurate.

Oh, come on. You know me. I'll probably fill it with that liberal "truthiness"...

It's about tissue that can't live outside the womb, so sperm qualifies.