It takes a special kind of arrogance for a person to turn a religious view into a critique of medicine. The statement in the bill could be describing a person, a dog, or a fish, but not a fetus. And the insistence that this bill is for women’s own good is so dishonest that I wonder how these people put up with themselves.Which statement is Reeves referring to? This one:
"The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”This is language which some Kansas legislators hope abortionists will be required to say to women considering abortions.
Apparently, Reeves thinks dogs and fish could be considered whole, separate, unique living human beings.
Also note Reeves' argument for why this statement is wrong:
It codifies a fringe view: that an embryo or a fetus is a living thing having, apparently, nothing to do with the body in which it’s being carried.Now which part of the statement does Reeves' reject. That the unborn are living things? Or that they having nothing to do with their mothers (an assertion which is nowhere in the statement)? Or the combination of the two?
Regardless, she brings no evidence to bear which indicates the unborn aren't whole, separate, unique living human beings. This is par for the course for the vast majority of abortion advocates. They believe the unborn are not living human beings because.... well, because they just aren't.
Reeves then goes on to argue it's offensive to women (like her) to tell them what abortion does.
But will anyone stand up and say that it’s offensive to all women seeking abortions, and to all women, period, to say that we just don’t understand abortion?What's obvious is that Reeves doesn't understand abortion. She thinks it doesn't terminate the life of a living human being because she erroneously thinks the unborn aren't living human beings.
Her post (which shows her ignorance regarding biology, what the unborn are and what abortion does) proves the thesis of her post (all women understand what abortion does) wrong.