Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes – Movie Review

I believe watching movies can help us reflect on current situations in our society. I recently watched the movie “Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes”.

The first thing I do when watching a movie is to identify the motivations of each character. It is also useful to identify what power each character or group has.

Malcolm is the main protagonist in the movie on the human side.His goal is to get the dam working again to provide power for the humans but also work with the apes for peace.

Dreyfus is the main antagonist on the side of the humans. He refuses to see the apes as intelligent or capable of reason. He is prejudiced against them as animals despite evidence showed to the contrary. His drive is to provide power to the city as they are running out of gasoline so their main goal is to restart the hydroelectric dam. He has power because he is ex-military and started the human city. He has provided protection for others so they trust him.

Caesar is the leader of the apes and the main protagonist of peace in the movie, even more so than Malcolm. He is constantly asked to trust the humans despite the continued disobedience of his conditions, by certain individuals, mainly Carver early in the movie.

Koba is the #2 ape, antagonist and main war monger. He refuses to listen to Cesar’s leadership and calls for peace. He is influenced by his past of being a lab animal and having humans do many painful experiments on him. His main flaw is looking at everything from a self-centered point of view and holding on to hatred from his past to a group of people (scientists) and applying that hate to the new group of people who had nothing to do with that. He eventually resorts to nefarious means to attain his agenda.

The humans main power comes from technology and knowledge.

The apes main power comes from being physically stronger than the humans. One of the characters also mentions that the apes are stronger because they “Don’t need electricity.” They are more resilient to nature.

The movie starts with a brief review of the history of how the humans were negatively affected by the testing that had been completed on the apes. Then it moves to the community in the woods that the apes have established. Caesar and Maurice (an orangutan and close friend of Caesar’s) are discussing the humans and how they have not seen or heard of them in 2 years.

Of course, the next thing that happens a few apes wandering around the woods stumble upon Carver, who’s with a party of humans looking to restart the hydroelectric dam to supply power to the city. Carver immediately feels threatened, because he is afraid of the apes and lacks knowledge about them. He ends up shooting Ash, one of the apes. The rest of the apes descended on Carver and the rest of the humans, Malcolm being part of that group. Caesar uses his wisdom to allow the humans to leave peacefully despite Koba’s insistence of punishing the humans. The apes retrieve Malcolm’s notebook and bookbag at the site of the attack.

Pondering what to do next the apes decide a show of force is necessary. They march down to the human’s city in a show of force. They return the bookbag to Malcolm and issue a warning for the humans not to return to the forest.

What follows from here is some trust building and breaking among the humans and apes as a small contingent, including Malcolm, return to the apes to ask them to be allowed to work on the dam. Cesar again complies in believing that working together is the only way to help both species.

It is around this point it becomes obvious that most of the characters on each side are quite trusting of the other side and willing to work together. It is also obvious that there are some characters on each side who are irrationally afraid of the other side. Carver being the human and Koba being the ape who are most guilty. This is an important point that should be considered and applied to the world at large. Most people are good decent people, but there are just a few violent or ignorant people who choose to make the world a bad place.

Koba eventually steals a gun and shoots Caesar. He makes it look like a human killed Caesar. With no investigation he works the apes up into a frenzy and they attack the city. This is another very important turning point of the story. There is absolutely no investigation by the apes to see if it was indeed a human who killed Caesar. They take Koba’s word because he was the 2nd in command, but he is a twisted individual and has chosen to use his power for evil. Can you think of any situations in the modern world where people jump to conclusions way before any evidence has been shown? Have you ever done this yourself?

Meanwhile, Malcolm has found Caesar and learned that Koba was the real killer. He starts nursing Caesar back to and brings him back to the city.

During his attack on the city Koba shows signs of a dictatorship. He imprisons any apes that are still loyal to Caesar and his ideals of peace. At one point during the attack one ape refuses to kill a human, saying that’s not what Caesar would have wanted. Koba responds by killing that ape.

Malcolm finds Caesar’s son, Blue Eyes, and brings him to see his father. Blue Eyes shares the information that “Fear makes the other apes follow Caesar”. Does Koba’s reign of terror remind you of any point in history? How about any current regimes? Nazis? North Korea? U.S.S.R?

The end of the movie includes the triumphant return of Caesar to power and his ousting of the evil that is Koba.

Overall I thought this was a great movie when thinking of how it applies to current situations such as when groups of people react irrationally and with a lack of information.

It also shows how a few bad people can really affect humanity negatively by using misinformation and hate to lead good people to do evil.

I encourage you to start thinking in these types of terms both when you are watching movies and in your own life. What power do you wield? How do you use it to affect those around you? When you learn of a situation, do you jump to conclusions quickly or do you take time to think through rationally and understand what is really happening?

Ross Elliott – cover photo, Flickr Creative Commons

Smoking. Why It Should Be Legal.

I am not a smoker, but I think it should be legal in certain places. Many people I have talked to have been more than happy that smoking has been outlawed in public places, at least in the midwest for around a decade now. I am going to tell you why that’s not a good reaction.

Lets start by saying this is not an article promoting smoking. I understand that scientifically there is a lot of evidence that says smoking is unhealthy for the smoker. There is also evidence that says that smoking is unhealthy for those who regularly breathe 2nd hand smoke. For that reason I do not advocate that anyone should smoke in their home if they have any non-smokers in the house, this meaning anyone with kids. There is not evidence, that I know of, that says that someone who walks within 20 feet of a smoker once a month will develop significant lung problems. I personally have asthma so I think I qualify in the group that is hard of breathing.

Why do people smoke in the first place? Usually it’s started as a way to be “cool”. The older kids smoke. Your parents don’t want you to smoke. Naturally the thing to do is smoke. Later people can become addicted to the nicotine. At this point it gives them a relaxing feeling to smoke, as they are getting their “fix”.

How to stop cigarette smoking? Like most things, I think the most effective way to stop smoking is through education. If you show kids pictures of smokers lungs they are pretty unlikely to start smoking. Have you seen the scary  anti smoking commercials? Effective. It’s probably not common knowledge that most smokers actually want to quit. But it’s a difficult road to break any addiction.

So now that I’ve thoroughly painted the picture that I am not advocating smoking, let me tell you why I’m also not trying to outlaw it. Smoking was outlawed because it was unpopular. Not because it was unhealthy, but because it was unpopular. This is a bad precedent to set. People wanted to go to a bar, restaurant or bowling alley and breathe clean fresh air. While that is fine and dandy, I have yet to read in the Constitution where you have the right to go to a privately owned restaurant. The people who want to go to those places have a choice. They can go to those privately owned places or not. They are not entitled to it. The key here is privately owned establishments. Don’t write me telling me how it should be illegal to smoke in a hospital, I agree, because there is a captive audience there who can’t choose to leave and medical equipment that shouldn’t be smoked around.

People have more power than they recognize. While they have demonstrated that they have the power to band together to ban things they don’t like, perhaps we should step back and think if this is a good road to go down. Think of things you like. Alcohol? Soft drinks? Burgers? Riding a bicycle without a helmet. Driving a motorcycle without a helmet. Driving a car without a seat belt? All of these things can be dangerous and I’m sure you can tell me why I shouldn’t do any of them, but I am here to tell you that me wanting to do any of these things doesn’t inhibit your ability to choose to not do them. Some of these things have been made illegal and come back from it. Prohibition. Some are currently illegal in certain places, riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Some are not yet illegal but certain people are trying to make them illegal, drinking more than a certain volume of soft drink. Thanks Michael Bloomberg. Basically by outlawing things you are running to the teacher and telling on someone. That’s childish.

So what do I think would have been a more effective way to get people to stop smoking in a place you wanted to be? Perhaps talk to the owner of the establishment. Tell him directly that if he doesn’t choose for his place of business to have it smoke free, you won’t give him your money. Money talks. Now this being the owners place, he could comply, if he thinks he’d get more business that way, or if he thinks he’d get more business by allowing patrons to continue to smoke that’s completely fine by me also and it should be ok with you also.

So what do you think? Will you continue to make criminals of people who aren’t doing anything wrong? Or will you continue to advocate to outlaw things as long as you disagree with them?

Let me expose you to a speech by Martin Niemöller.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Now let me interpret that for you by substituting things you might care about.

First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a smoker.

Then they came for the soda drinkers and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a soda drinkers.

Then they came for the coffee drinkers, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a coffee drinkers.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And finally a thought by David Allen Green.
So my challenge to you is to think bigger. Don’t think “How will X impact me?” But think “How will X impact the world?”

Credit Francisco Karm for cover photo. Flickr Creative Commons.

Understanding. Can We Have A Reasonable Discussion?

Understand – Verb
perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or speaker)

Perceive – verb
interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as

interpret – verb
explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions).

If you take the time to type each of those definitions into Google, you will find that usually one of the definitions (there are usually 2) references one of the other words, which is very unhelpful.

As you drill down though, you see that understanding is an action that requires effort on your behalf that is supposed to help you know why something happens, how it happens or in the case of ideas, what someone is trying to explain to you.

Understanding is something that takes time. It is a process and is very difficult in today’s instant gratification society. We don’t take the time to explain things that we believe to others and we take even less time understanding what other people are trying to explain to us. One reason could be that we don’t actually have very well developed beliefs ourselves. Try a small thought experiment for me. Try to answer this question “My beliefs on homosexuality are….” Try to think beyond the “It’s wrong.” or “I agree with it.” Why do you think those things?” What other questions can you ask yourself about it? Do you support homosexual couples passing on their inheritance to each other after they die? Do you support homosexual couples being able to adopt children? Do you support homosexual couples having the right to having messy divorces when they decide it won’t work, much like many heterosexual couples these days? What is your definition of a marriage? Is it a spiritual bond? Is it a legal entity?

I’ll continue this thought later in the article.

In order for me (or anyone else) to determine if I am actually for or against your viewpoints, on anything, I need to understand your beliefs. I need to understand what drives you. This can only happen with discussion and usually pointed, deliberate, tough conversation. It is not always fun and often it gets cut short when people find a point they disagree on, or think they disagree on.

The problem is we each perceive the intended meaning of many things when we hear a word. I will explain my perceptions or what I think other’s erroneous perceptions are of 3 topics below.


When I hear the word feminism I automatically think of my own definition of radical feminism, which is hard to define and that cop out on my behalf is definitely not progressing understanding.  I will point to this video, that seems to try to shock people into thinking that if we teach young girls to swear and act in ways that wouldn’t be acceptable in a school setting or at home we are somehow empowering them. That seems radical enough to me.

Now I think you can agree that many people will be turned off by this vulgar display which from now on could be the idea that I would when I think “feminism”. Trying to work past my biases, and looking up the definition of feminism “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” I think we get a much different message and we can ask ourselves some questions.

Do I support women being paid equally, assuming they are equally qualified to perform any task. Of course.
Do I support women being giving the same backing on political issues and same doors to be a candidate if they so choose. Of course.

Do I support teaching kids it’s ok to say bad words to sell T-shirts. No.

So if you ask me if I’m a feminist, I’d argue, yes. If you ask me if the FCKH8 people are feminists, I’d argue no, because they are alienating their cause to the public. They are being bad stewards of feminism.

Another topic that is rampant with misunderstanding.

Gay Rights. Homosexual Agenda. Gay Marriage.

Whatever other terms you want to describe this.

This is a topic that has much of the world split into about 100 different factions, as evidenced by my not knowing what to call it even without being unbiased. There are those who are promoting gay marriage as the exact same as heterosexual marriage. You have those who insist that gay unions will ruin heterosexual marriage. You have those that just oppose it because they feel it’s wrong. (This one I have no argument for, it’s completely illogical, at least provide some argument!) You have those that oppose gay marriage on the basis of religion.

There is so much misunderstanding in this debate it’s not even fun to laugh at.

Speaking to several homosexual people and to several who are opposed to gay unions I see they are working on such different premises it’s no surprise that there is so much debate on this topic.

Let me present the arguments as I think each side wants to see them.

Homosexuals –  We want validation that our unions are legally binding. This is the most simple explanation. Here is a question from this article.

“Why do we need governments and courts to involve themselves in creating rules and tax codes for some provisional alliance between two (or three or 57) adults who merely wish to live together (or apart, or whatever they want) and ‘love each other?”

This gets to the root issue many people have with gay marriage. They want a definition of what is and isn’t included in the marriage. But what comes with legally binding? Do they get tax breaks or tax increases, as some married couples get? Do they want to right to adopt kids? Do they want hospital visitation and and the right to pass on belongings to spouses after they have passed.

Heterosexuals – Many I have talked to simply disagree with gay marriage because it’s not something they are familiar with. I think that’s a cop-out, a bad argument, etc. But that’s why we need to foster discussion.

Marriage as it happens in many churches is both a religious and legal contract. Many feel that if they legally validate gay unions and call it a marriage, it somehow degraded the sanctity of their religious marriage.

I find it a bit humorous that as many heterosexual couples choose to not get legally married that many homosexuals are looking for a legal marriage. Why don’t homosexuals choose to live together and not get married, much like many heterosexual couples. Then when they break up it’s not as big a deal. No lawyer, etc. Many who argue against homosexual marriage argue on the basis of religion. They don’t want their church to have to perform homosexual marriages in their churches. You might think, “that sounds silly, the state can’t force the church to do something.” Yet. Is my reply. Read about this happening elsewhere in the world. Good work Denmark.

Getting to a completely different topic which is being used to demonstrate the the importance of understanding.

The Catholic Church. I can’t imagine there is anything that has been so misunderstood in history as the Catholic Church. I recently read a book, Muscle and a Shovel, which I wouldn’t recommend. Based on it having completely incorrect information. Multiple times in the book it uses an argument that “The Pope is seen as God by the Catholic Church so it can’t be the church of Jesus.” To put it bluntly, this is completely and utterly false. I read this book because a good friend recommended it to me. After I reached that point, about ⅓ of the way into the book, I was tempted to put it down, but in the interest of understanding where he got these thoughts, I pushed through, and was exposed to the same thought at least 2 more times. Each time I thought, this is completely illogical, why is this book able to be sold at all?

The point being, obviously the author of that book (and anyone who reads and agrees) took a total of no time to understand the Catholic Church. He had an opinion, he wrote it down, sans thinking or understanding. If you have an opinion about something, take the time to discuss with people who hold views opposed to yours. You might find that you don’t actually understand the circumstances or that you actually even have the same views, just you didn’t take the time to understand it.

In all these situations, and many others around the world, there is rampant misunderstanding that I think with a little conversation and effort by both sides, could be cleared up. One thing we need to be aware of is that disagreement is not equal to hatred. I am allowed to think you are doing something wrong without hating you as a person. I think that that is something that has been lost in the world. If you aren’t for us you’re against us, seems to be the rally cry,and that just isn’t the case. I hope anyone reading my articles can engage in understanding and not just argument.

credit Nick Webb, cover photo

“Love, No Matter What” – A Rebuttal of Andrew Solomon’s TED talk

In this post I’d like to discuss the TED talk given by Andrew Solomon called Love, No Matter What. (See the link for the YouTube video). I enjoy TED talks very much because they offer a perspective on topics that you often haven’t thought about or if it is a topic you think about it could offer a different perspective. This talk titled “Love, No Matter What” seemed to have potential. I was hoping he’d talk about the good that can come from love. What I found was not exactly that. There were some good points, which I will let you listen to the talk to find, but one small point near the middle (11:56 minutes in the transcript) which caused me to seek the transcript, listen multiple times and finally rebuke Andrew’s comments with this post.

Here’s the YouTube description of the talk.

“What is it like to raise a child who’s different from you in some fundamental way (like a prodigy, or a differently abled kid, or a criminal)? In this quietly moving talk, writer Andrew Solomon shares what he learned from talking to dozens of parents — asking them: What’s the line between unconditional love and unconditional acceptance? – Youtube description TED talk “Love, No Matter What”

This talk was good in that it talks about how it can be hard for a parent to understand a child who is different from the parent. The examples Andrew uses are a child who is deaf, has dwarfism, is gay or has Down Syndrome. This group presents an interesting, and seemingly completely arbitrary smattering of different things that people can be identified as, which brings up an interesting thought on identity, that I have made a note to think of at a later date. But I digress,

Here is the point that confused me at starting at 11:56.

“We live at a point when social acceptance for these and many other conditions is on the up and up. And yet we also live at the moment when our ability to eliminate those conditions has reached a height we never imagined before. Most deaf infants born in the United States now will receive Cochlear implants, which are put into the brain and connected to a receiver, and which allow them to acquire a facsimile of hearing and to use oral speech. A compound that has been tested in mice, BMN-111, is useful in preventing the action of the achondroplasia gene. Achondroplasia is the most common form of dwarfism, and mice who have been given that substance and who have the achondroplasia gene, grow to full size. Testing in humans is around the corner. There are blood tests which are making progress that would pick up Down syndrome more clearly and earlier in pregnancies than ever before, making it easier and easier for people to eliminate those pregnancies, or to terminate them.” – Transcript.

Read the last line again or better yet watch the video.

“There are blood tests which are making progress that would pick up downs syndrome more clearly and earlier in pregnancies than ever before making it easier and easier for people to eliminate those pregnancies or to terminate them. So we have both social progress and medical progress.” – Andrew Solomon

This prompted my thought to change the title of the talk to “Love Your Child No Matter What, (Unless They Have Down Syndrome, Or Any Other Disease Or Deformity That I think Can’t Be Cured At This Time)”

Here are my thoughts and questions on this.

Later in the talk Andrew says

13:35 – “We have to think about how we feel about cures altogether. And a lot of the time the question of parenthood is, what do we validate in our children, and what do we cure in them?” – Andrew Solomon

Why is the only thing he mentioned that he’d validate in your child was homosexuality, although he didn’t actually say that, it was more implied. In fact, he didn’t mention homosexuality at all in the talk (at 11:56) about how he’d “fix” the issues that could be detected in a child.

He mentions BMN-111 treat dwarfs to make them “normal”.

He mentions hearing implants for deaf children to make the child “normal”.
And then his solution is to murder (abortion) a child who MAY have down syndrome. We can share numerous stories of people who were supposed to have been aborted, Tim Tebow for one, whose parents were brave enough to tell the doctor’s “Abortion is not an option.”

Andrew mentions a total of 0 “cures” for homosexuality. I’m not promoting that he should be or shouldn’t be promoting a “cure” for it, but when he goes through all the other situations he presented but doesn’t mention homosexuality that’s raises questions in my head of what his motives are for the talk. It seems his thoughts are 2 fold.

  1. Normalize homosexuality. I really think this is the underlying point of the whole talk, and if Andrew wanted to disagree with me on that point that’s ok.  (I am not trying to be biased for or against that, I have complex views on homosexuality and haven’t researched enough to form a complete arguing opinion. Look for future articles. This in not what I want to address in this post.)
  2. Promote abortion of children who could have developmental disorders. I honestly think this was not high in his mind at all while writing this talk. I think Andrew could have left this point out completely and he would have been just as happy. I think that he so nonchalantly mentions it, and then that people applaud him, show the state our society is in. I have researched a great deal on abortion and I am adamantly against abortion.

It seems Andrew is biased. I wonder what the Robart’s (the people he interviewed for his book who’s son has Down Syndrome) thought about that statement. Here’s what Tom Robart had to say.

“I think if we lost everyone with downs syndrome it would be a catastrophic loss.” – Tom Robart

So why then, is Andrew’s solution for children (who are people definitely by the time the fertilized egg has implanted in the uterus wall, and really in my mind likely at conception, but I’ll save that for a future post after more research), to abort them at the chance of an issue, when even the father of one of those children said that it would be a “catastrophic loss”? I have enjoyed many TED talks, but this one has caused concern for me. If you want more thoughts on abortion, please read and share my post related to the subject.

Thank you to Amy Entwistle at Flickr Creative Commons for the cover photo.


Now that I’ve gotten your attention with a title that screams controversy, I hope you’ll stick around while I pose some rational questions. I recently watched the Andrew Solomon TED talk which I wrote an article about. In the article I was disputing his “solution” to women who are pregnant with children who have been identified as potentially having Down Syndrome. His solution was an abortion. I completely disagree with that as a solution. Delving into research there was much more information than I could fit in that one article, so I will share some of it here. I looked further and found another TED talk about abortion by Diana Whitten which I can only call radical and also feel the need to address later.

Definitions are important so I will share a few before I get to the meat of this article.

Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. – From Planned Parenthood

Abortion – the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. – Google

Using these 2 simple definitions should allow us to avoid all conversation about moment of conception, implantation, fertilization, zygotes, fallopian tubes, etc. and other things that come up  before the point of pregnancy, defined by Planned Parenthood.

So working with this definition of pregnancy and abortion we can look at some facts of this pregnant woman and her baby. Technically called a blastocyst at this point but from here on out we will understand that when I say baby, I am referring to a fertilized egg that has been implanted in the uterus.

One of the main arguments that anti-life people use if that “It’s my body It’s my body and I’d rather not have anyone telling me what to do with it.” – As this anti-life advocate put it so eloquently. I agree. Do what you want with your body. Unfortunately that baby in you is not your body. The baby has it’s own DNA. That’s enough evidence for me right there. Of course there are many other arguments showing that the baby is in fact it’s own entity, such as the development of measurable brain activity, eyes, heartbeat, etc.

The baby is protected (from everyone but it’s own mother!) by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) which basically says that if anyone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with 2 murders. But if the mother chooses to kill the baby (abortion), it’s not murder? That’s just ridiculous double-speak legal jargon. You tell me why that makes any sense.Hopefully you are reasonable enough to say that you’d never kill your already born child at least? Apparently I can’t even make that as a blanket statement if you consider the document published by the Journal for Medical Ethics. (seems they need a rename to the Journal of Questionable Ethics). While I completely support their right to publish an article like this, I completely disagree with their findings, but it (hopefully) helps me make a case to end abortions.

“They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

As far as I know it’s always been illegal to kill a child once they are born. Working back from birth, what is fundamentally different for the child at 1 day before he or she is born? Nothing. There is the discussion of viability. What is the definition of viability? From my understanding it’s a pretty general term of when the baby would have a chance to survive outside the mother’s womb (with no life support, etc). The reason this has no importance in the discussion of abortion is there is no reason the child would need to be outside the womb. The baby is right where it needs to be in that phase of it’s life. And also, the baby isn’t viable by itself once it is born, iit still needs someone to care for it once it’s outside the womb, which is what the Journal argues above is a good reason for infanticide! In fact, very few people in the world are viable all by ourselves. You are? Did you build the car you drive to work every day? Did you make the computer you are reading this on? Did you grow all the food in your house? Did you build your house? No. Civilization is founded on community, not killing anyone who can’t take care of themselves. So if viability is your argument for abortion, please reconsider your stance.

One question I’ve always had for the abortion people is “Why is abortion the solution?” In our society we know what happens when 2 people have sex, you can get pregnant. Shouldn’t we focus on having strong families that will raise and love children, instead of having as much sex as we want and destroying any life that comes from it?

I’d like to highlight some abortion statistics from the Guttmacher Institute below.

Women in their 20’s account for more than half of all abortions: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.

Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).

Here are some statistics from the CDC.

In 2010, unmarried women accounted for 85% of all abortions (CDC).

Black women were 3.7 times more likely to have an abortion in 2010 than non-Hispanic white women (CDC)

Do you fall into any of those categories?

Do you think you might actually be being targeted for abortions?

Abortion happening any time after pregnancy (as defined above) is wrong.

I want to close with a few quotes

“It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times before than to believe a fact that one has never heard.” – Robert Lynd (Maybe, quotes are notoriously misattributed, but that doesn’t take away from their truth.)

The lies I’m referring to here are

  1. Abortion is ok.
  2. A baby is not a person.

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

Ronald Reagan (The actor, and former President of the United States)

Thank you to Amy Entwistle at Flickr Creative Commons for the cover photo.