The Peter links reproductive freedom advocates to The Homosexual Agenda

It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

LaBarbera has been churning out some really freakshow columns of late. The latest obsessive diatribe, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade , is about connecting-the-dots between The Homosexual Agenda and the fetus-destroying, baby-eating reproductive rights movement. 

Joe Solmonese (left) went from helping to elect pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats at EMILY’s List to advancing the pro-homosexuality/ -transsexuality agenda as president of the Human Rights Campaign. The twin evils of homosexuality and abortion share a common foundation: the elevation of self over transcendent truth and God’s revealed will for men and women. Homosexual activists have been in the forefront of “defending” abortion centers against pro-lifers whose aim is merely to save innocent babies from destruction and persuade women NOT to make a decision that will haunt them the rest of their lives.

Below is a photo of a fetus’ feet at 10 weeks.

Folks, the issues of defending life and sexual morality are joined at the hip: each of the evil movements they oppose — the abortion and homosexuality lobbies — elevates mankind’s selfish desires over God’s will. Is it any wonder that the two greatest sin lobbies of today have as their sworn enemies the preservation of life and natural marriage and the God-ordained family? And this is not just theoretical: front-line, pro-life veterans such as Joe Scheidler tell me that over the years homosexual activists have been in the forefront of defending abortion “clinics” (killing centers) — to block the life-saving efforts of people trying to witness the truth about life to pregnant girls and women going into the death-centers to abort their own children.

 Peter mentions that the issue of abortion is a personal matter:

The life issue is close to my heart, as my younger brother, Jimmy, has Down syndrome –placing him in a group of people who are singled out for extinction in the womb by doctors because they are, well, not perfect. Thankfully, my mother never even considered the prenatal test that could have been the prelude to an abortion, and Jimmy has blessed the lives of me and my extended family, and many others, for decades.

And that's wonderful, Peter. In all seriousness -- that situation was about a choice your mother made based on her beliefs and personal circumstances - she wanted a child and it didn't matter if her child was born with special needs. However, that situation cannot be compared to, for instance, a woman who is raped. According to people on the forced-birth side of the fence, a rape survivor shouldn't have a choice other than to have her rapist's baby. Is that just and right?

Abortion is too complicated a matter to make black and white or good and evil. People have views all along the spectrum all with good intentions from their POV. The problem is forcing women to yield control of their body to the state. What's next? From the fundie extremist POV, they want to eliminate abortion rights AND access to contraception AND reality-based sex ed in schools. I hate to break it to you, but that's a recipe for disaster that will increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and cases of STDs. Is that God's plan? Quite frankly it doesn't matter what the man upstairs thinks because we are talking about civil law, not the relationship between a woman and whatever deity she believes in, if she's a believer at all.