Out of Focus?

The Columbus Dispatch today ran a story about the Personhood initiative's arrival in the land of the Buckeyes. The article also referenced other recent Ohio efforts against abortion, such as the Heartbeat Bill.

What leaped off of my screen, though, was the first comment following the piece:

It's unfortunate with 9% unemployment, children and adults starving in the street, people losing their homes, crime rates increasing, and corporations buying our politicians, these people are fighting to make abortion illegal. We have freedom of religion in this country, but they want to impose their religious ideology on us, in this secular nation. People can't find jobs, and children go without food. The most important thing on their mind is making abortion illegal. Jesus would be appalled at these people. Don't believe me? Read the Holy Bible. Jesus never spoke about abortion. But he did speak a lot about helping the poor and the homeless.

- Toni Goodman

Here's an experiment. What if, instead of using the word "abortion" in the above, we were to replace it with its definition?

Here's a simple definition of abortion: killing young humans. (Note: This definition says nothing of the morality of abortion. It merely clarifies that which we are referencing. If someone has scientific evidence to the contrary of this definition, I'd be interested in seeing it.)

Let's take a second look, then, at that comment:

It's unfortunate with 9% unemployment, children and adults starving in the street, people losing their homes, crime rates increasing, and corporations buying our politicians, these people are fighting to make killing young humans illegal. We have freedom of religion in this country, but they want to impose their religious ideology on us, in this secular nation. People can't find jobs, and children go without food. The most important thing on their mind is making killing young humans illegal. Jesus would be appalled at these people. Don't believe me? Read the Holy Bible. Jesus never spoke about killing young humans. But he did speak a lot about helping the poor and the homeless.

Does this strike anyone else as odd? The only way Goodman could stand by these assertions is by believing the preborn are not human. But what has led her to that belief? Certainly it is not scientific evidence (the preborn have unique human DNA, are offspring from living human beings, etc.).

It must only be her own prejudice--against the very young.

Who, then, is truly out of focus?