An abortionist says that unborn children need a residence permit in the womb

@ElentirENG ES 11·29·2018 · 12:02 0

In the absence of solid scientific and moral arguments to support the killing of unborn children in the mother's womb, the abortionist lobby is getting used to launching enormous nonsense.

Scientific arguments against abortion
A feminist denies the right to live of the unborn because "he can not write poems"

Unwittingly she contradicts one of the most common abortionist lies

The last of these nonsense has been launched by Leah Torres, an abortionist from Utah (United States). In response to a pro-life twitterers, Torres said: "to become a fetus, one needs permission to reside in someone’s uterus and put that person’s health in jeopardy." You can see here the tweet in question, which has received an avalanche of criticism:

Torres seems to overlook one detail: residence permits are only required of human beings, which contradicts the most common of abortionist lies, the one that denies the humanity of unborn children to justify their elimination. But in addition, those permits are required of people who want to reside permanently in a country that is not theirs. A unborn child is in the womb of his mother: it is the place where nobody is a "foreigner".

"My birth mother gave me permission," says the abortionist

Abundant in her fallacious affirmation, Torres published another tweet affirming: "My birth mother gave me permission." The abortionist does not explain when and by what means she applied for that residence permit. In printed document and in duplicate, maybe? What is interesting is that she recognizes herself as the recipient of this permission. That is, she considered the same person who was in its embryonic stage. This clashes with another of the favorite fallacies of the abortionists, according to which a unborn child becomes a human being by magic at the moment when the abortionists do well (12, 14 or 22 weeks, or even at the moment of birth), without any of those moments science has been able to detect substantial biological changes in that human being. It is the great inconvenience of lying by system, that is to say, constantly saying the opposite of what one thinks with the intention of deceiving: one must always be focused on repeating that lie because at the slightest mistake, the truth comes to light.

Poses abortion as an early death penalty in case the child becomes a murderer

Finally, in another tweet published last night, Leah Torres resorted to another of the most common fallacies of abortionists: justify the elimination of a child to be born because of the possibility that he can be a bad person, that is, a death penalty dictated by in advance of any crime that human being may commit throughout his life. Torres put it this way: "The child could grow up to be Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer", referring to two of the most famous serial killers in the US. This argument, in addition to absurdity, is very dangerous. If we accept the fact that someone can be punished for crimes that he has not committed, in the doubt that there is the mere possibility that he will one day commit them, what will be the next? Ask that your neighbor be taken to prison because you think that some time he can steal you? Each abortionist fallacy inevitably leads to a society in which unreason prevails.

On the other hand, we must remember that one of the basic principles of law is the "in dubio pro reo", which protects the right to the presumption of innocence. That principle establishes that, in case of doubt, the judge must dictate a favorable decision to the accused. This principle is based on a very elementary approach: in the absence of evidence, it is better to take the risk of leaving a possible culprit free than to risk punishing the innocent. But what the abortionist Leah Torres suggests is exactly the opposite. Instead of respecting the presumption of innocence, which is a human right without which there can be no democracy, the abortionist wants the unborn child to be presumed guilty in order to justify the death penalty. It is a monstrous and purely totalitarian approach.