Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) left a pro-choice advocate absolutely speechless when he asked her to explain the difference between murdering a child who is 2 years old or 1 hour old and one who is in utero. The fascinating moment, which unfolded during a U.S. House Judiciary hearing titled, “Revoking Your Rights: The Ongoing Crisis in Abortion Care Access,” took place amid a back-and-forth exchange between Johnson and Aimee Arrambide, executive director of Avow Texas, an abortion advocacy group. “So, abortion should be allowed then, by your definition, for any reason, for any purpose, at any stage?” Johnson asked, to which Arrambide delivered a common pro-choice retort. “I trust people to make decisions about their body, and then, when relevant, I think that they need to consult their medical practitioners and not Congress,” she said. And that’s when Johnson masterfully set up his question for Arrambide, an inquiry that seemed to stump her. “If it is not lawful and morally acceptable to take the life of a 10-year-old child — I assume you agree with that, right? That would be wrong, correct?” Johnson said, to which Arrambide agreed it is, indeed, wrong.
But then Johnson proceeded. “And a 2-year-old child, same thing, that would be murder; we would all agree that’s wrong,” he said. “Then what is the principal distinction between the human being that is 2 years old, or 9 months old, or 1 week old, or an hour old than one that is eight inches further up the birth canal in the utero?” Johnson continued, “What’s the difference. Why is it OK in the latter case and not the former cases?” That’s when Arrambide seemed totally stumped. “I trust people to determine what to do with their own bodies. Full stop,” she said after a long pause. Johnson responded with surprise and a perplexed and flabbergasted, “Wow.” “There’s a legal issue here, but under that is a moral issue. It’s about reality. It’s about science.
Source: FaithwirePrint This Post
Comments are closed