Pollaro’s Point: We All Could Have Blood On Our Hands

Stock Photo: Wolfgang Moroder / CC BY-SA 3.0

In a press conference Tuesday in Albany, Democrat leaders touted one of the most aggressive abortion bills in the nation. They celebrated the death of millions of unborn humans and they have blood on their hands.

Supporters of abortion continue to tout it as a “reproductive” health issue, but they never explain what is being reproduced when an unborn baby is killed.

The latest abortion bill would allow an abortion at any time for any reason, including minors aborting without parental consent.

“My body, my choice” is one of the mottos used by the pro abortion forces. Perhaps it should be “my Baby’s Body, My Baby’s Lack of Choice.”

People will argue that a baby isn’t a viable human until birth, but it is always a human, it’s not going to turn into a Buick, a coconut or a Fender guitar. That fetus is a human fetus.

In a paper published several years ago, Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D., clearly said that fertilization creates a human being. The sperm is, she explained, a part of a human and an egg is a part of a human and when the two combine, they are changed from two parts of humans into a human.

Pro abortion people often argue that those who oppose it want to crush women’s rights. The argument to that is that killing an innocent baby, or fetus, if you prefer, takes away that baby’s rights.

Also, half of the babies aborted every year are females, so isn’t killing an unborn woman an attack on her women’s rights?

Another argument is that if abortion is outlawed or limited, more women will be at risk from illegal abortions because they will still get abortions. Okay, should we legalize assaults because they are going to happen anyway?

In addition, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), admits that he and other abortion industry leaders invented figures to claim that “thousands of women are dying annually from unsafe abortions.” They did this in order to win public sympathy for legalization.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t oppose abortion based on religion. Before we get too far afield, separation of church and state only means the U.S. government will not favor one faith over another or have an official religion like the Church of England.

Now, laws against murder and theft are based on the 10 Commandments. Which of those would we favor legalizing?

Another argument is that we should have compassion for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. The pregnancy, apparently, ends her chance to attend college, work or have a convenient life.

If, in fact, a fetus is a human and not a mass of tissue anymore than we are, we cannot choose to ignore the inherent right to not be killed for the sake of someone’s convenience.

What about abortion in the case of rape?

The Supreme Court has already ruled the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for rapists. If so, why is killing a baby created by rape not cruel and unusual? Why should the baby be punished for the sins of the biological father? The answer is, the baby shouldn’t be killed because of the act of a scummy, miscreant rapist.

I’m sad that the speakers were in such a celebratory mood about killing babies. They were celebrating eating their own. It should raise shame upon New York.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie called it a great day for everybody. Really. How is this a great day for babies about to be murdered?

A woman has the right to attend to her own body without people telling her what to do. But who considers the baby’s body or the baby’s right to live? Perhaps women should consider doing no harm. And men should have a say because the woman, like it or not, didn’t create that precious human by herself.

One assembly member said abortion is a medical procedure, not a crime. So is lethal injection, just so you know.

If a human fetus isn’t a human, why can a drunk driver face multiple manslaughter charges if that driver kills a pregnant woman and her unborn baby in a crash? In that case, the state law recognizes the person hood of that baby.

Supporters often argue that it is solely a woman’s issue and men have no right to discuss it. They only say that about men who oppose abortion, never about men who support it.

If men have no say, we must repeal Roe V. Wade because the Supreme Court that approved it was all men.

In addition, under that logic, people who don’t own guns shouldn’t discuss gun rights and people who don’t drive should not care about potholes.

I find it ironic that before voting on whether to approve the death of unborn babies, the Senate opened with a prayer.

Protecting the rights of all citizens is the first job of government. Certainly there can be debate in an open society, however, I find it very incomprehensible how someone could celebrate and espouse the death of millions of unborn Americans.

Not to bring religion into it too much, as everyone believes differently and has that right, Christ said that whatever we do to the least of His, we do to him. If we allow this abomination, there will be blood. And it will be on our hands.


  1. What about the children born unwanted with no responsibility on society to take care of these kids. Funding is cut every year for services and programs. Why aren’t we more concerned with the kids in our system because parents are unable to take care of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.