She is taking the discussion away from a statistically safe, relatively-simple, ten-minute, medical procedure and moving into the area of religious beliefs.

She is into her personal belief about reality.   She is assuming to know the ultimate reality regarding what  life is, where it comes form and what it means.   In spite of the fact the for a couple thousand years nobody has been able to produce a provable answer to these questions , she is telling us:  1) what  a human being actually is and 2)  what a fertilized egg actually is.   She is assuming that a fertilized egg (biologically known as a zygote) is a complete and total child who simply has not yet been born.   This is based on her personal religious belief that God,  by an act of instantaneous, supernatural, transcendental magic,  creates a brand new human being every time a human sperm and egg unite.

The references below refer to the book, An Interview With "The Devil"."

         Ref: Topic # 05a, Life Begins When?

         Ref: Topic # 14, Egg Rights Versus Human Rights

         Ref: Topic # 15, 
                      Proving When Life begin / The Basic-Seven-Belief Package

The words "I believe" are very common in anti choice statements.   When you hear those two words, know that what follows is a belief about reality, a belief that all too often has absolutely no relationship to reality.

One could say, "I believe that the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy are living in my attic,"  and most people would simply smile and look at that person with raised eyebrows.   However, if he/she were a Unites States Senator and proposed legislation protecting rabbits based on that belief, you'd be wise to question his/her capacity as a senator. 

With her “I believe” statement, Ms. Pullen discounts everyone who doesn't believe as she does and leaves no space for any one else's beliefs.    Her belief is not simply a personal statement, its a public appeal in support of legislation to translate her personal, religious belief into government law, law to be enforced by police power.   If you don't believe as she does, then what are you to do in the face of threats, intimidation, and men with guns and tear gas?   Separation of church and state is ignored, as are the religious beliefs of billions of other human beings.

The references below refer to the book, An Interview With "The Devil"."

         Ref: Topic # 36 The Little Green Men Are Coming

         Ref: Topic # 23, The Relationship Between Church and State

         Ref: Topic # 133v   We Pledge to Honor God, Freedom, 
            and the Truth.

Once again, she is into her personal beliefs about reality.   Because she believes something, does that make it real?   If I believe the Earth is flat, is it flat or is it round?

How many of you want to live under laws that ignore the factual evidence (or lack of evidence) and are based solely on Penny Pullmen’s personal religious beliefs?

         Ref: Topic # 16, I Believe... Therefore...

The statement that medical science backing her up is a totally erroneous, unsubstantiated assertion.   Even the United States Supreme Court (Roe versus Wade) could not find any research data or any scientific evidence to indicate when an individual human life begins.

Regardless of what she believes, we need to base our laws on what the medical and scientific evidence indicates is the truth and  not on what she believes about abortion or about medical science.

This is a purely personal,  religious belief.    It's highly debatable;  it’s completely unprovable;  it disregards non-Christian religious beliefs;  and it’s in direct defiance of God’s own word as written in Genesis 2:7 in the Christian Bible.   Genesis 2:7 clearly say life begins with the first breath. 

Her belief is based upon the Fundamentalist Christian proclamation that God performs an act of instantaneous, supernatural, transcendental magic every time a human sperm and egg unite.   According to this declaration, at conception, God changes the egg into a separate, independent, human being who did not exist prior to His magic act, but who will continue to exist forevermore.  

There is one little problem with this proclamation.   There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up.   Its origin dates back into antiquity.   It comes to us from the same people who believed the Earth was flat.**   Some say it's P.F.A.  (plucked from air)

**Reference:  http://www.all.org/issues/ab99x.htm

Who can say with absolute certainty when an independent, individual human life begins?   To quote the noted embryologist, Clifford Grobstein:

There is a lot of subjective and religious opinion on what constitutes a human life, but there is no scientific evidence of any kind whatsoever that proves one way or another what a human being actually is.   

Are you: 1) a soul with a body, 2) a body with a soul, 3) a clump of dust that has magically acquired consciousness, 4) a divine being who simply inhabits a physical body, or 5) are you something else entirely?     Most humans would say that question is the ultimate mystery of life.   

So why are we listening to a bunch of wood-be-do-gooders telling us they have the one and only true answer to that question?  And why are we allowing them to force their religious beliefs down our throats?

.

With regard to when to accord human rights to a newly developing human body, humans have been drawing that arbitrary line at birth for centuries.   That "line" is stated clearly in Genesis 2:7 in her own sacred Bible.   The same line is indirectly stated in the Koran (the Muslim sacred text).   It's even clearly written in the Jewish Torah (The ancient sacred book of Judaism) and Penny Pullman, bless her little "pea-pickin" mind, just can't seem to find any place to draw that line other than at God's invisible, unprovable magic act.   One might wonder how she found her way home after this interview.

Once again, she is making another assumption based on her personal religious belief and on her very limited view of the world around her.   Where is the beginning of a circle?    How do you draw "the line" in a continuous process other than by an arbitrary subjective judgment?   Where do you draw the line between hot and cold?   Where do you draw the line between slow and fast?  or between soft and hard?   When does day turn into night?   At what point exact point does a caterpillar become a butterfly?   Exactly when an individual human life begins is unprovable.   Those who say they know are only expressing a personally-held, arbitrary, made-up, religious opinion.   

Is that a reasonable basis upon which to create laws that will be enforced by intimidation, by open threats, and, when necessary, by force from men in black uniforms with guns and tear gas?

The topic of discussion is a continuous, ever-moving, bio-chemical, bio-electrical, minute-change-at-a-time, cyclical process in which there are no distinct dividing lines.   The closest we can come to any clear dividing lines are at the birth and the death of an individual life form, and these, too, are processes and not instantaneous occurrences.

Here she is implying that the human egg (a single cell so small that it's almost invisible to the unaided human eye) is the same as a separate, sovereign, independent human being.   (A newborn baby has about three trillion cells and an adult human has fifty to eighty trillion cells.)** 

Her phrase is an example of an invisible but implied "Therefore."   She uses the word "if" and implies that all her prior assumptions  (her “ifs,” and her personal religious beliefs) are all true and factual.  She is taking another step up on a make-believe foundation.   

Here's the problem.  If  her suppositions and assumptions are erroneous, so are her conclusions.   If her foundation is false, so is her declaration.

And now the unspoken, but implied “therefore. ” is followed by an assumed-to-be-reality (punch line)  conclusion.

Here she ties her fairytale to a concept that most people would agree with; that taking a human  life is wrong.^[2]**   Because the egg has been declared to be a sovereign, independent human being, then doing anything to interrupt the life of that egg is, in her mind, "taking a human life."   

Here are a couple more questions:   If the advocates for a Christian-controlled government really believe it's wrong to take a human life, why are they such staunch supporters of military violence and the weapons of mass murder?   Why do they tacitly endorse the killing of doctors who provide abortion services?   Why do they allow 40,000, already-born babies to die each and every day for lack of food and basic medical care?

Is it a pro-life act to save an embryo if a thousand already born children die in the process?   If someone consumes  the resources needed for their care of thousands of already born children and spends that money forcing unwilling women to birth still more unwanted babies, is that really pro-life?   How is to pro-life to take  millions of baby-saving dollars and spend those dollars promoting ultra-conservative Republican candidates for political office?

Why are we blind to the fact that anti-choice activities merely transfer death to other being at other times and places, and in the process, create misery for millions and exert additional pressures on the ecosystem of our already overpopulated world?   There are two answers to that question:

         1)   The anti-abortion leaders may look like like wonderful people
                 and some of them are, but we also know that no devil worthy
                 of the title  would ever come out as an evil one.  He would
                 present himself to the world as a purveyor of what seemed like
                 a worthy and noble cause.  As Jesus said,  "Be wary of wolves
                 in sheep's clothing."

         2)   The abortion issue is filled with huge, hidden, long-term costs
                and a few, minimal, but very obvious and highly emotional,
                 immediate benefits.

         Ref: Topic # 27, Pro-Life is a Grim Fairy Tale

         Ref: Topic # 28, This War is About Far More Than Just Abortion

         Ref: Topic # 29, At What Cost

And now standing on her make-believe foundation she equates abortion to murder, and says "public policy" should criminalize abortion and make it punishable by fines and prison terms.^[3]**      

Ms. Pullen has publicly stated that she will vote to make abortion illegal.   We ask one question:   "What place do her personal religious beliefs have in government law?"

          Ref: Topic # 17, Who Has What Rights.