Select Page

Pro-abortion folks cannot talk about the fetus

Pro-abortion folks cannot talk about the fetus

Memo to the pro-abortion community.  Abortion involves an evolving human life.  At some stage, it is called a zygote … then a fetus … and finally, a baby.  You can watch hours upon hours of news about Roe v. Wade and there will not be a single mention of the evolving human being in the womb of the mother.  Not one word.  In fact, CNN and MSNBC producers will not even allow pro-life individuals on their highly biased newscasts – individuals who would make a good case for the life of the unborn child.

That is because they know that they cannot win the argument over the right to life if the fetus is allowed a voice – even indirectly through those speaking on behalf of the unborn.  They know that the abortion-on-demand is a losing argument with honest, fair-minded people.

They claim that most Americans favor retention of Roe v. Wade, but never point out that 65 percent oppose abortions after the first trimester and 81 percent after the second trimester –especially those horrific “late-term” or “pre-birth” abortions.  

The only thing we hear is the so-called “right” of the mother to control her own body.  That is a bogus argument because the fetus is NOT an integral part of the female body.  It is not standard equipment.  It is not produced solely by the woman.

Abortion is such an onerous action that virtually no hospital in America — and very few doctors — will even perform the procedure.  That is why it is limited to very few “clinics” and an incredibly small number of doctors.  That is why states like Mississippi have only one clinic in the entire state that will offer that procedure.  That alone tells us that abortion is not a legitimate woman’s health issue.

What we have is a very real evolving human being that was created by TWO people.  The fact that nature assigned women the task of carrying and nurturing that person in the first months of his or her existence should not give the mother the right to snuff out the life of that being – to terminate a potentially long life on earth for selfish reasons.

There are justifications for abortions.  Most pro-life folks recognize the issue of incest, rape, and the life of the mother.  It is in those cases where the compelling right of the unborn is superseded by unique circumstances.  And even then, there can be legitimate debate about abortion.  But there can be no debate when an abortion is merely based on the arbitrary desire of the mother to end a life that she allowed to be created and belatedly finds inconvenient.

The pro-abortion community never questions the irresponsibility of the mother in causing a pregnancy that she does not want.  Is ending the life in the womb because it is inconvenient to the mother any different morally and logically than ending the life of a newborn for the same reasons?  The same rationales apply.  The only difference is that in the latter case, the child is “born” and bestowed with legal and constitutional rights.

But when is the moment that a fertilized human egg evolves into a human protected by a just society?  When does the evolving human suddenly acquire citizenship in the human race?  When is that dramatic event that suddenly transforms a piece of meaningless flesh into a person with rights?

That is the most critical question of all.  And yet that is the question no abortion advocate will or can answer.  They cannot only not answer the question, but they are unwilling to even ponder it.  They know that once they try to fix that time, their entire argument collapses.

No matter how many times the left claims that abortion is a health issue best left between a woman and her doctor, it is a lie.  They not only block out any consideration of the unborn child, but they disregard the responsibility and the rights of that other person involved in the creation of a new life – the man.

In a just society, a woman does not have a legitimate right to terminate the life of another human being – even if that human being is evolving in her womb.  By nature, the woman is the nurturer and protector of the life in her womb.  She is the moral and legal caretaker.  Providing her with the sole authority to determine whether that being should live or not based on capricious and arbitrary factors is an abomination.  

The pro-abortion folks cannot even talk about that evolving human being because they have no moral argument.  To recognize the very existence of that unborn human being undermines the exclusive woman’s right argument.

Those on the left argue that abortion is a matter of a woman’s health.  In fact, it is less about health than about a woman’s convenience.  Having a baby is not a disease.  Abortion on the other hand is a procedure that is virtually one hundred percent deadly for the victim.

Try it some time.  As a pro-abortion person when discussing that “thing” in the womb becomes a human being with legal and constitutional rights.  That is about the time you will hear, “I don’t want to discuss it anymore.”

The pro-abortion advocates often not that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for 49 years – as if that has any relevancy when addressing the life of a human being.  Should we not have abolished slavery because it has been the law of the land for 76 since the founding of the American Republic and more than 300 years after it was common practice in the colonies.

The most important consideration is the life of a developing human being … the fetus.  And when that life is determined by science and politics to be entitled to the rights of personage – foremost, life.  That THAT is what the pro-abortion folks want to keep off the public dialogue.  

By the way, the photo atop this commentary is a 12-week-old fetus.  Hardly an amorphous piece of flesh.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Ben

    Fetus is a term intending to dehumanize unborn babies.

    • larry Horist

      I used the scientific word in the title, but I prefer describing the unborn as and evolving human. No amount of feminist double-talk can change that fact. Abortion is not a woman’s health issue because pregnancy is not a disease.

    • Ben

      Yes, those Romans were the first woke folk trying to cancel culture at the sword’s tip.


  2. Trebor Retsbew

    I suppose that those anti abortion persons are more medically trained than the majority of doctors and scientists, who say that that glob in the womb before 15 weeks is in no way a child any more than it is a child when the egg is removed from one female and sperm taken from a different male is used to fertilize that egg in a petri dish and then the chosen results are implanted in a different woman. Does that mean that all the results not agreed to in that petri dish is an abortion. If they do how could so many be so unintelligent and the anti abortion is not even a third of the population dictating what the rest of the population must do, that sure sounds like the starting of the destruction of this great democracy we have lived in for this long. This Government was set up so the majority had their say, because where these founders came from the majority had no say in any way.

    • larry Horist

      Trebor Retsbew. You make a common mistake in believing the prior to 15 weeks it is a “glob in the womb.” The photo with the commentary is 12-weeks, and no one can call that a “glob.” And you are wrong about the medical community. Doctors deal with the biology to understand the development of the new life. They make no judgment as to when that life is entitled to the inalienable rights all people enjoy. That is a political decision. Doctors and society once believed that life began at birth. Now they talk about the viability of the fetus … ability to feel pain … brain waves. You misuse the polling data. Between 60 and 70 percent of the public believe in some limited level of abortion. The largest number believe that abortion should be limited to life of the mother , incest and rape. Between 50 and 60 percent believe in abortion-on-demand in the first trimesters. More than 60 percent oppose abortion in the second trimester. and 80 percent oppose abortion in the third trimester. If you follow public opinion, the states that are banning it after 12 or 15 weeks are consistent with public will. The procedure is so abhorrent to the medical profession that that vast majority of doctors and virtually all hospitals will not perform the operation. Using the scientific data, when do you believe that the life in the womb is eligible for the rights of personhood? And what is your rationale for that moment? If you are typical of abortion proponents, you will duck the question.

      • Ron Simmons

        Folks, the entire argument against abortion is based upon cultural upbringing, being influenced by church leaders, teachers, family and peers. There is nothing in the bible regarding when the spirit enters the body except some allusions pointing toward “first breath”. As a boy growing up forced to attend fundamentalist sermons and listen to the Baptist dogma, particularly, do as the preacher says or “burn in hell for eternity”, I found it necessary to look elsewhere for enlightenment. There were just too many unanswered questions or (man) made-up answers. I am 65 and in my lifetime of spiritual studies, it has become clear that before the soul enters the baby, a determination is made as to whether that soul wants to be born to that mother, family, at that time and place, based upon the life lessons that the being wishes to experience for spiritual advancement. The Bible says God is not mocked and this can be applied to the “baby killing” scenario in-as-much as the spirit being that is between incarnations will only enter the flesh if sustainment of the living being will be present (or if a lesson must be learned from a brief life – hence why children die young). Edgar Cayce, the leading Psychic and trance channeler in the 20th century offered over 14,000 detailed readings on an incredible range of topics and the readings often confirmed/supported themselves through cross referencing other readings as well as other schools of thought. How could a simple, uneducated, unworldly, Christian Sunday school teacher, when hypnotized – speak about things of which he had no earthly knowledge? His information came from the Akashic Records of the universe or as the Bible calls it “the book of Life”. This is the etheric record of everything that has happened or thought of, all through existence within the dimension we abide, as well as subtle or unseen dimensions of space/time. The answer is consistent – the soul is incarnated at the time of birth or shortly before/after. The neural system of the fetus is not yet developed to support the consciousness of a soul. Thousands of case studies involving hypnotic regression to time before birth reveal that some people have a remembrance of being in the womb – but at six months or later. Any earlier memories of the mother can be explained to be a visit by the discarnate soul to the fetus to see that all is well in their future physical body. If the mother is planning to abort, the soul will not seek to incarnate but would perhaps set intention to be born as the next child to that mother or may choose another relative in the soul group – or another family entirely. The most important conclusion of Cayce’s readings and many other mystic’s (or spiritually advanced entities) teachings is that we are all arguing over NOTHING of any consequence. Let’s concern ourselves with saving and improving life for the living, whether children or adults, and leave the unborn to the grace of God. Once again, God knows what she is doing.

        • Believer

          God is HE. And no infidel moron can change that. Believe what you will. I’ll take my King James Bible as truth. And it was inspired by God when holy men were moved upon by the Holy Spirit. Of course you don’t believe me, but that’s ok. Jesus Christ gloriously saved my soul and it was all by grace through faith. Don’t doubt me. I was there when it happened and I know it. And the only people who burn in hell are those who reject Jesus Christ. Us southern Baptist have got it going on. Re my earlier statement, it’s hard for the father of Christ to be female. But believe what you will. I’m ok with it. There’s room in America for different beliefs. And I wish people would realize that. If indeed abortion is wrong, God will judge the sin. And I’m not God. But the blood of Jesus and his literal resurrection from the dead will cleanse all sin if we simply believe and ask for Him to save our souls.

        • larry Horist

          Ron Simmons …. You start off the the wrong assumption. Pro-life is not merely a religious position I am way not a religious person. In fact, I do not think God is a he or a she. I also to not believe in Casper-the-ghost like souls, but I do believe in the possibility of an existence after death. My pro-life position is based totally on the requirements of a civil morality. Religious beliefs are often tied to secular law. We have all kinds of laws that are part of maintaining a just and civil society. Would you say that Just because the Ten Commandments had “thou shalt no kill”, we can dismiss it as merely a religious requirement — not applicable to non-religious people. And as far as you theory about souls picking and choosing — and avoiding where they are not wanted — is utter nonsense.

    • Karen King

      Trevor Retsbrew, You agree with murdering an unborn child and you have the balls to call Larry Horist a moron?!? You are lucky your mother didn’t abort you!! Jerk!!

      • Ben

        Life is a gift from God. But the idiot democrats doesn’t realize it

  3. frank stetson

    Life is indeed a gift from God; unwanted babies are not. “By the way, the photo atop this commentary is a 12-week-old fetus. Hardly an amorphous piece of flesh.” And at the same time, not a viable, living, person either. More like a vegetable on life support IMO.

    But all of that does not matter.

    Abortion is never mentioned, good or evil, in the Bible. The Bible has comments on robbery, murder, adultery, divorce, even gluttony, but abortion — nada. The Bible gets pretty specific including many passages on the art of the covet. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife, house, servant, ox or donkey. My Bible talks about the fact that life begins at first breath. In other words, the fetus cells do not breathe air on it’s own while in the womb. It is on life support. In Genesis 2:7, the Bible says: He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”

    The Jews believe life begins on the first breadth.

    Catholics believe life begins at conception but priests can abuse said lives just a mere few years later
    :>( and apparently that’s been OK at time too. They seem conflicted on the subject.

    Islam believes that life begins at conception but to Muslim religious leaders, abortion is a nuanced subject and allowed up to 4 months at which point Islam believes Angels breathe life into the womb. Even then, allowances made for mother’s health.

    Hindus say life at conception but abortion is allowed.

    Buddhists also believe at conception and have both pro-life and pro-choice advocates, just like the US.

    So it’s pretty hard to be pro-life or pro-choice and exercise religious freedom for the world’s major religions at the same time. Both RvW and Alito’s asshat opinion (but I am not bitter), are wrong according to the religious faiths practiced in America.

    Isn’t that just as important as any law of medicine?

  4. frank stetson

    I find Larry’s tome to be that of a bitter old man, with what I see as very little regard for women, whatsoever. As I read on, I kept feeling twinges of the troglodyte. It wasn’t until I parsed out his sexist comments that the magnitude of his heartless diatribe became clearer.

    Larry says: “That is a bogus argument because the fetus is NOT an integral part of the female body. It is not standard equipment.” A womb is optional equipment that you optionally fill up like being at the drive-through? Larry seems to think an unplanned pregnancy of an unwanted child is not an integral part of life, both women and men being integral, sex being natural, and not exactly optional for many, —- and not necessarily just some option they picked off the shelf on a whim. While Larry boldly acknowledges that men play a part, he firmly lays the blame and responsibility on women. He just leaves out the slut part.

    Larry concludes: “Abortion is such an onerous action that virtually no hospital in America — and very few doctors — will even perform the procedure.” Oh come on Larry, how simple minded can you be, in such a close-minded fashiona? Might it also be the high cost of insurance due to violent protests? Or the frequent death threats, assaults, bombings, murders, arsons, and other violent acts that are directed to abortion centers and their practitioners every day? Want the numbers, they are big? Onerous? Most procedures take 5-10 minutes, outpatient basis. Your whole logic here is faulty and not based on anything but your personal feelings. Quit trying to tell people what they can and can’t do with their own bodies. Man and woman take part in this, men and women make the decision. It is not the women’s sole fault or responsibility here. You bastards are willing to force delivery on the woman but you don’t have the man take part in any of your forced pregnancies nor the aftermath of raising the unwanted child. The male is totally absent in your so-called pro-choice laws that offer the woman no choices whatsoever. There is nothing in your new laws to change that, to have men take any responsibility whatsoever unless the women decide to take them to court. Even then, innocent until proven not shared responsibility, and your laws make it the women’s issue to prove otherwise. The woman is still guilty, guilty, guilty. It’s her fault, she has to take care of it for a lifetime. Same choice whether you are 15 or 30. Yup, high schoolers forced to stay pregnant. Welcome to life kiddo. We’re here to help, not. What’s next, the man as victim?

    Here’s a bunch of Larry-isms taken out of context but showing some real sexist class. Larry admits: “What we have is a very real evolving human being that was created by TWO people.” Then it all goes terribly downhill as Larry further says:

    “that she allowed to be created and belatedly finds inconvenient” where he seems to put the blame where Larry feels it deserves to be because: “the irresponsibility of the mother in causing a pregnancy that she does not want” which Larry admits: “disregard the responsibility and the rights of that other person involved in the creation of a new life – the man.” Oh shit, he has rights says Larry. Yeah, he can duck without penalty but she has to stand and deliver…Crikey, I need alcohol. But no matter, because Larry says the ultimate responsibility is that of “a woman does not have a legitimate right to terminate the life of another human being” “Providing her with the sole authority to determine whether that being should live or not based on capricious and arbitrary factors is an abomination.” But Larry’s law forcing them to deliver what they don’t want don’t love, and don’t have any help with, well that’s just swell. 500,000 unwanted, unloved babies every year…..

    “In fact, it is less about health than about a woman’s convenience.”

    Larry blames women for choosing convenience over the life of an unwanted child. It really not that black and white, Larry, and men share responsibility —– fucking 50% of that. What does your new law say about men Larry? What have you done to fix that problem and put that responsibility where it actually belongs? Why does your new laws not address the man’s responsibilities?

    And now you are responsible too. A potential 500,000 unwanted babies every year. Poor babies. Unloved babies. Rape babies. Incest babies. Druggie babies. Whattttya gonna do about it? Pray? You made the law. You forced the deliveries. Where are the adoptions? Have you expanded the facilities? You gonna need some bigger boats….

    • Austin

      Frank are you being spoofed again? You kn a lot of scriptures but you don’t know what they mean

    • larry Horist

      Frank .. You come to stupid conclusions because you start out with stupid assumptions. The evolving human in the womb IS living … alive. It cannot live without the natural nurturing of the mother. It is not viable. It cannot live on its own. But then neither can a 3-month old baby. By your logic, that baby should be expendable.

      • Frank stetson

        IMO you are wrong and neither of us can prove it.

        In legal opinion we are each gonna be about half right, half wrong.

        And you still have absolutely zero support for all those unwanted, unloved, babies you force to be delivered.

    • Thomas

      My friend rents an office building to an ob doctor. It’s written in the lease that babies are not to be murdered on the property.

      • Ben

        Well, as long as abortions are allowed on the property, it’s probably good to specify that murder is not to be.

        • Thomas

          Baby murder isn’t allowed there There’s a notice about it at the entrance. By the way, the staff there is in total agreement. And locked and loaded to defend the place 24/7

          • Ben

            They have a sign specifically saying “no baby murders here on premises?” And then are armed, locked and loafed at the ob gyn’s office?

            Who do they expect?

  5. frank stetson

    Hmmm, no this is the real Frank, being frank, and frankly, I’m lost in Austin’s translation…..

    I only quoted Genesis and pretty sure, according to the experts, I am spot on in meaning. First breath and all that. I did not quote any other Biblical passages but alluding to all that covet-shaming going on. Again, pretty sure “thou shall not covet xyx, xyz, and fyt is pretty spot on for meaning. Just say don’t covet….

    So pretty much lost on your problem, can you clarify????


    “Most pro-life folks recognize the issue of incest, rape, and the life of the mother” does not seem quite ring true Larry. I do not know how you can make such a crazy claim against the rhetoric and actual laws and trigger laws currently existing. Already, ten States will NOT recognize rape or incest day one when SCOTUS does it’s thing here. That’s 20% of all States on Day One. That’s Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. Undoubtedly, more will follow after the law passes. Amazingly, these states are where most of the incest take place :>). Honestly, it’s a statistic… Only Missouri, Ohio, and Texas have laws or trigger laws and are not in the top twenty incest States in America.

    Larry, I too believe life begins at conception, if not before, BUT I feel unwanted babies may be a worse sin than abortion which is also a sin. Yet I do not judge others on this sin, nor would I like them to judge me on my sins as well. That’s the province of God. I do not feel it is murder, unless late term, and that’s really a different discussion. I just don’t feel it’s my place to judge these decisions, sure as hell don’t plan to support unwanted babies, either personally or with my tax dollars, and I feel a better place is to affect positive change would make these folks change their minds about termination, voluntarily, not by force of law with either jack-booted thugs or local vigilante’s like in Texass. I do not support a punitive action to force delivery for an unwanted embryo, fetus, whatever. Ultimately an unwanted child as punishment for becoming pregnant. IMO, there are no rights for a fetus, fetus, fetus (just using the word for Larry) until the first breadth (except perhaps late term, again, a separate discussion).

    I keep saying this law is broken before it even starts. You force delivery but you offer zero assistance for the results of your actions. The man can skate off from the whole situation with little risk and all reward. The child remains unwanted with very few alternatives for the mother. With over 500,000 abortions of unwanted children per year and 150,000 adoptions per year, I am pretty sure most would conclude that adoptions will be rare. What then for the unwanted child? Nothing in your law helps that. You seem to live in the fantasy world where 500,000 unwanted children, per year, somehow, magically, transform themselves from unwanted status to being a cherished entity within a single Mom’s world. More from poverty than the rich. Anyone see a potential problem in that dream? I wish these so-called cherishers of Constitutional rights in the womb actually cherished the entire life and not just up until the first breadth is taken. And Larry, it’s a joint responsibility, only a sexist troglodyte pig would think different, and your law does nothing to make shared responsibility have legal ramifications to the male. Maybe that works for you, but I say it sucks dog dicks in Hell.

    • Ken

      So tell us Frank. If a parent decides that they don’t want the kids they are raising, should the law allow them to be killed?

      • Lewis

        Frank the account in genesis is about God bringing Adam to life after forming him from the dust of the earth. And yes, I believe that it happened that way. No, babies don’t breathe in the womb. They would drown. You are all over the place about abortion. First it’s pro life and next it’s pro abortion. You end up confusing yourself. You should stick to what you know. Which isn’t much. You come across as a confused idiot. You have too much time on your hands. So cut a hole in your pocket and you’ll have something to play with. Or stop and wait for your skin to crawl. Maybe your butthole will pass your nose again.

      • Thomas

        No Ben. The sign says no abortions. And the pro abortion crowd is crazy. So here we are

        • Ben

          I wonder how often ob gyn’s have had to fend off pro choice folks with guns.

          That’s just too funny.

          • larry Horist

            Ben … You miss the point. 99.9 percent of all medical facilities and doctors will NOT perform abortions. That is a striking statistic for something that is said to be a woman’s health issue. Apparently, most of the medical profession do not see it that way. Debating this issue on the basis of relative violence is a diversion. There are nutcases on both sides. Just last week a pro-life operation was fire bombed. We can mutually condemn violence and then deal with the issues of abortion, itself.

          • Ron

            First time for everything. Why do they show up at churches?

    • larry Horist

      Frank … you are like another fellow who got a fictional Larry Horist in his mind as a straw man against which you can raise your totally bogus arguments. You spend most of your screeds talking about that Larry of your imaginations with the usual mix of ad hominin insults. You seem more interested in fighting that fictional Larry than making cogent points about the subject. And the Larry of your invention is not at all like the guy who writes these commentaries. Before you provide another perspective of what Larry is … what Larry thinks … what Larry believes … what Larry is like … go check the dictionary for the word “obsession.”

  6. Ben

    To go to church?

    • Hank

      Usually to make trouble

    • Frank stetson

      It’s ok for you to have an obsession with me.making up what you think; it’s better than a discussion. Especially nice to see you apply “screed” to basically what are your own quotes. And to use the “screed” trope is just so conservative of you. Gotta have those dog whistles.

      Great discussion. You got nothing.

    • larry Horist

      Ben … Only when someone gets married or dies — and not always then.

  7. Hurricane Gun

    Larry, my wife needs a bone marrow transfusion. Imma need you to supply that for her. It will save her life!

    • larry Horist

      That would have to depend. We would need to be good match. I would have to be determined to be eligible since they often will not use marrow from a person my age. And location. And is this a sincere request? Makes me wonder by you changed your screen name from B4ACE to Hurricane Gun. Are you trying to pull a fast one?

      • Doug

        AKA Ben