So is it a child or just a blastocyst? Pro-abortion folks try to get our minds off the fact that the contents of the pregnant woman's womb is a child by calling it a "blastocyst" or some such obfuscatory term
But do they really believe the propaganda they're foisting on the public...or do they really understand what's at stake?
LifeSiteNews reports that Senator Barbara Boxer made an interesting admission during discussion in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about counting the dollar value assigned to human life as a consequence of EPA decisions.
Despite the fact that at other times Boxer has denied the humanity of the unborn child, and that pregnant women are even carrying a child, Boxer said something different in the committee meeting:
At one point during the meeting, Boxer said, in reference to pregnant women, "You can talk about it any way you want, but she's carrying a child." A second time she said, "I would just like to state the obvious. When a woman is pregnant, and I was, you're carrying a child and if you protect the pregnant woman, you're protecting that whole entire pregnancy."
Being the strong abortion supporter that she is, I'm sure Boxer simply meant that if the woman wants the child, then it's a child.
Otherwise it's just a blastocyst.
Perfectly logical in the liberal world.