There are few things I hate more than when pro-lifers, and especially people who I think of as friends, turn their intellectual disagreements into personal attacks on one another rather than figuring out how and where they agree. This issue is too important to turn personal.
I so wish that, instead of launching Twitter broadsides, we could all focus on the brutal reality of abortion, the gruesome truth of what exactly happens in each procedure, and remember that these horrors are far more important than personalizing fights over legal philosophy.
What is all of this really about: those poor babies, and their mothers, and the fact that they deserve so much better than abortion? Is it about sincerely trying to end this evil together? Or is it about who’s has the correct view of originalism?
At the risk of giving stupid fights far too much airtime, I’ll leave it at this: Let’s strive to think first and foremost about the victims of abortion, when we must disagree on strategy let’s do so with charity, and let’s forget the rest of it.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alexandra DeSanctis

Alexandra DeSanctis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @xan_desanctis

3 Mar
Cancel culture is an outgrowth of the idea that the articulation of certain views or phrases causes literal harm and therefore must be silenced. I can’t understand that thought process at all. It can only end in state-policed speech and systematic punishment of wrongthink.
This idea is so far from my natural inclinations that I have a hard time fathoming it. I could name all sorts of views that I think are evil, but I cannot imagine trying to cope with that by demanding that people who articulate those views be anathematized.
I think people who advocate legal abortion are defending the killing of human beings. That’s about as evil an idea as I could imagine. But never in a million years would it occur to me to respond to that by demanding those people be silenced or fired or otherwise punished.
Read 6 tweets
22 Feb
At no time in its 2000 year history has the Catholic Church determined its teaching based on public-opinion polling, but naturally “Catholics” for Choice doesn’t care about that!
We’ve shifted from pretending that polls dictate Catholic teaching to pretending that the Catholic Church is trying to control everyone in America
The lack of coherence makes sense though because Catholics for Choice recently hired a world-class Twitter troll and Human Rights Campaign alum as their comms director
Read 4 tweets
15 Dec 20
Trying to do some casual reading about saffron tonight only to discover that @TheBabylonBee seems to have taken over @bonappetit’s editorial staff Image
@TheBabylonBee @bonappetit Not even the history of spices can be free of the toxic nonsense of identity politics and related guilt-mongering, apparently
And in case anyone was worried, there are an additional two paragraphs in the editor’s note explaining at great length how the U.S. sanctions against Iran have ruined saffron, possibly forever
Read 4 tweets
12 Oct 20
This is not unlike how Harris tried to redefine court-packing during the debate as having too few African Americans on the circuit courts. Democrats are so far off the deep end that they have to redefine terms on the fly to justify their radicalism.
Chris Coons literally said in an interview with a totally straight face that voting to confirm a president’s nominee to the Supreme Court is court-packing. That’s where we are at the moment.
If I were Chris Wallace I would’ve been like, “Senator, just how dumb, exactly, do you think the American people are?”
Read 4 tweets
26 Sep 20
For all those who continue insisting that no one is attacking Catholic judicial nominees for their faith, a thread, which will be updated as needed (and I expect much more often than I’d like): 1/x
The initial headline of a @Reuters piece that was later stealth edited several times to remove inaccuracies and soften the outrageous headline
Here is a former U.S. representative who believes that Catholicism “insists women be subservient”
Read 8 tweets
23 Sep 20
Wild how many people pretend they’re incapable of understanding that a religious person can be a judge without “imposing their views” on the country as soon as they suspect the religious person in question is against abortion
The Christian faith teaches that fraud, murder, and theft are wrong. Is it “imposing their religious views” for a Christian judge to uphold laws forbidding these things? Of course not.
If you can illustrate that someone has actually said “I belong to X religion and I want to use my role as judge to ensure that all of America abides by my religious principles” that’s one thing. But of course, that’s almost never the case, and in fact they say the opposite.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!