The British historical drama “Downton Abbey” had an episode with a pro-life theme that many are praising.

As LifeSiteNews.com reported, the story featured a woman who was pregnant out of wedlock who visited a back-alley abortion facility and ultimately chose life.

Downton Abbey is in its fourth season.

  • nc ✓s & balances

    Libbies will start calling it right wing propaganda now.

    • http://whatandever.blogspot.com/ Osumashi Kinyobe

      But it’s well-acted propaganda.

      Seriously, though, it was refreshing to see this matter dealt with the honesty and gravity it deserves. Abortion kills children and maims women. It’s done by hacks and defended by lunatics.

  • WhoDat

    There is nothing to romanticize about abortion. It kills.

    But, it needs to be legal and safe.

    • Chase Crosby

      Holy sh!t. Do you really not see that you admit that abortion is KILLING but then say it’s needs to be legal and safe? Yeah every once in awhile you make a comment that makes sense but then you say something that stupid. You need to rethink life and stop pretending that you know what you are doing.

    • hillplus

      Now, pray tell, Why does killing need to legal and safe?

      • Chase Crosby

        He is going to say something about the constitution. But we all know liberals don’t know sh!t about the constitution.

    • Chase Crosby

      So according to this moron, killing in one form is fine if it’s safe. How do these brain dead liberals even survive?

      • des111168

        He’s pro-gay too. Ask him what other liberal cause he loves, so we know what the trifecta is.

    • Scott Carroll

      You have my respect and upvote for eschewing the hoary euphemisms surrounding abortion. Couching the practice in rhetorical niceties like “reproductive rights” or “family planning” is a disservice to the women who struggle with this decision.

      • Julie the Jarhead

        In UK, they use the word ‘abortion’, and they use it a lot. — whether they oppose it or support it.

    • Elizabeth Bennett

      There’s no way to romanticize slavery, it enslaves.
      But it needs to be legal and safe.
      There’s no way to romanticize rape. It violates.
      But it needs to be legal and safe.
      There’s no way to romanticize euthanasia. It kills.
      But it needs to be legal and safe.
      What a convoluted worldview you have.

      • WhoDat

        No, slavery and rape are illegal. And should be.

        I suppose you are against capital punishment, then?

        • William2010

          WhoDat said, “No, slavery and rape are illegal. And should be.

          I suppose you are against capital punishment, then?”

          Don’t try to go there, WhoDat. They don’t fit together.

          Slavery was legal.

          A man, a slave and his wife were slaves. The man sued for freedom, after spending time in Free states.

          Perhaps you have heard of the case. The Dred Scott Decision in the case, “Dred Scott v. Sanford.”

          In a truly convoluted exercise in tortured logic The Supreme Court sided with slavery, seeing black slaves, even in free states, as non citizens and as property and slaves, and that they had no right to become citizens, and were not free, even in those free states. The Supreme Court created the concept that slaves were property, that slave owners had rights to their property, and that government must not interfere with that right, kinda’ like President Obama claiming that a baby who survived abortion has no right to life because the “Doctor” and “mother” who want the baby butchered have rights to the property, the item, the baby, and that no one should interfere with the intentions of the woman and her doctor.

          That decision and the lack of logic in that decision, in and of itself, is sick and perverted. That is no different from saying that no one should interfere with the intentions of the rapist or the kidnapper. it is sick, and betrays Obama’s lack or reasoning skills, his vindictive, malicious nature, and his support for infanticide.

          In that case the “Doctor” who is the abortionist, actually, is virtually NEVER the woman’s doctor. The abortionist is usually a sick pervert who never saw the woman before in his entire life, and, therefore is not really her REAL, authentic medical doctor, but a medical rapist, baby butcher, who is part of the abhorrent culture which contributes to exploitation of women and girls in the sex trade – kidnapping, forced prostitution, rape, coercion, beating and harassment of women, and murder of women who refuse abortion, as well as the protection of rapist, statutory rapist, kidnappers who turn women out to do “tricks” keep women drugged and helpless as they are exploited, and also violently, sadistically inflict cruel, torturous abuse on new, innocent, defenseless babies.

          The cases of Roe v Wade, and Doe v Bolton are cited as justification for unlimited slaughter of babies via abortion. They are such a violation of Freedom, Liberty, and Life and the Pursuit of Happiness that it is shameful.

          They are not based on real, solid legal grounds.

          Judge Blackmun, in his majority opinion proclaimed that we do not know when human life begins, but that it is up to the fields of Philosophy, Theology, and Medicine to answer those questions for us.

          That is absurd, and factually incorrect!

          Wilhelm Hiss, the father of modern Human Embryology, knew more than 100 years ago, that a human being’s life clearly begins at first contact of sperm and oocyte, re sexual reproduction, in vivo – inside mother’s womb.

          The Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development, divided into 23 stages of embryonic development in human beings, have been catalogued and kept up-to-date for more than 70 years, clearly showing that the baby inside the womb is alive and human.

          The Roe v Wade case and Doe v Bolton cases were exercises in exploitation of two different women by attorneys out to push an agenda, and a miscarriage of justice by ill informed, scientifically ignorant Supreme Court Justices.

          Philosophy cannot tell us when a new human being’s life begins. They are not Human Embryologists, they are not scientists. They are mental masturbators who engage in mental masturbation, sitting around thinking about things, and purporting esoteric “philosophies” accomplishing nothing, and not telling the world when a new human being’s life begins, any more than they can tell Bryce Harper how to throw a baseball from the outfield and cut down a runner at the plate as he tries to score, or trying to tell Bruce Lee, when he was alive, how to generate so much power and speed in his techniques.

          Theologians? What can they tell people about the beginning of a new person’s life, scientifically, empirically?

          It is not there field of expertise. Also some think it comes when there is the “quickening” in which mother can feel baby’s movements. That is clever, but ignorant.

          Why?

          Baby moved from the time she began her life in the fallopian tube, then continued to travel down to the womb, implant herself, and continue her development. Mommy did not necessarily feel baby move, but she moved from the very beginning. Just because mother did not feel the quickening, does not mean it is not there, any more than a totally blind man not seeing something does not mean it is not visible, or a totally hearing impaired person not hearing something means it did not make a sound.

          In modern technology mothers and daddies can see baby move inside mother’s womb, and STILL she cannot feel her baby move, and won’t for a few more weeks, yet, again, there is baby, moving.

          Medicine can tell when a new person’s life begins?

          No, it cannot, and does not.

          Medicine deals with the use of technology to repair damage in human beings. There are also health enhancement methods, and therapies, involved, but there is not help from medicine in knowing when a new human being’s life begins. That is the field of Human Embryologists, who actually have stated that the new person’s life is already begun when she is aborted, otherwise there would be no one there to abort.

          As slavery was once considered legal, even by the Supreme Court, but was eventually overturned, so, also, must legal butchering of babies by medical rapists – abortionists be ended and overturned.

          WhoDat,

          Your last condescending, foolish statement, “I suppose you are against capital punishment, then?” is absurd.

          Opposition to abortion is the same as opposition to rape, murder, theft, assault and battery, pedophilia, and so forth. it is the opposition of violence and aggression and killing of innocent people, not the punishment or elimination of violent, vicious, malicious people.

          In capital punishment an extremely heinous, violent crime has been committed. A person has been violently slaughtered, not just a knocked on the head, or pushed down the steps, or hit while driving.

          Seldom is capital punishment even employed or given as a sentence. When it is, it is only after guidelines are met which call for capital punishment as a punitive measure. The accused is granted a fair trial, which follows jurisprudence guidelines.

          The accused can defend himself, and have a qualified legal professional defend him or her. if found guilty the defendant can appeal, and appeal again to higher courts, etc.

          The rapist never gets the death penalty.

          How can you mix the fair use of capital punishment in cases such as the kidnapping, terrorizing, rape, sexual and painful torture of a little girl, a female college student, a married mother of children, a man, anyone, with their murder being the final outcome, and opposition to the slaughter of an innocent baby who gets not one day in court, no defense, no appeals, and has committed no crime?

          It is a sick, perverted, unjustifiable stance to take, and it is absurd that you would sarcastically bring up such a false and not defensible statement, “I suppose you are against capital punishment, then?” when one, capital punishment is justified after the severely, sadistic taking of a person’s life, and the opposition to the butchering of an innocent baby, times 55 million since Roe v Wade in the USA alone.

        • tops116 ✓Quipper

          By your last question, I suppose you equate an unborn child with someone like Timothy McVeigh?

          In any case, thank you for demonstrating a severe flaw in the pro-choice crowd’s argument with your witless comparison.

          • http://amandakmelson.wordpress.com/ GreenEyedGal

            Well, tops116, we all know that just like McVeigh, each unborn baby, before its abortion, is given an attorney to defend it, a jury to decide on its guilt or innocence, a judge to preside over its trial, and an appeals process. I mean, we don’t just take the termination of children lightly…

            Oh, wait… Hold on a minute. I’m being told we only do that for killers and NOT innocent unborn children.

            May God have mercy on us for what we’ve done to our children.

        • MarcusFenix

          Capital punishment is legal, and done properly, can be safe for everyone involved. You stated earlier that was ok.

          Of course, the ethical and moral problem when comparing CP against abortion is incredibly glaring and obvious, but who cares right?

          • TJCrane_NCC1701

            Nailed it !

    • John Castigo

      TROLL ALERT. Flagged for stupidity.

    • tops116 ✓Quipper

      Apparently, it also needs at least 21 weeks (if not more) to decide if it should be done or not… because women can’t find a clinic in only 5 months?

      • AlCashier

        it’s gone far past 5 mos. babies are being killed at birth now. in IL, 4 times obama voted YES, TO kill infants AFTER they were BORN alive, TOO. also these Communists (aka these godless obama democrats) are pushing “post-birth” so much so, just a matter of time before obama rewrites it to read legally (what they want) it can come about that even if a toddler is up to 2 YEARS old, if you hate your child and do not want him to be alive, you can legally murder him as a ‘post-birth abortion’. yes, they want to be able to kill their children up to 2 YEARS old.
        after that, just wait until the ‘democrats’ rule, since they believe ‘all the children belong to the state’ , that ANYONE’s child can be deemed unworthy of life and killed.

    • Zach Brewer

      Murder kills … so let’s make it legal and safe!
      Permits for murdering people! Yet another way the government can raise more funds.

    • kayakingfatso

      I am going to agree with you on abortion.

      While I do not believe abortion should be a method of birth control, as a victim of rape, had I ended up pregnant, I would have appreciated the option for a legal and safe abortion. I understand it is not the fault of the unborn child, but at 17 years old, I can honestly say that I would not have been strong enough to carry to term a child created from a violent attack, even to hand the baby over to a loving family.

      Overcoming the extreme brutality of what happened to me at 17 years old was difficult enough.

      • kayakingfatso

        Wow. Seriously. A down-vote for being brutally raped at 17 years old and admitting that had I ended up pregnant, I’d have had an abortion. Lovely. I would have loved to met you the next day just to show you the bruises on my stomach and inner thighs. Also, so you can see the rips on the corners of my mouth from biting the crap out of the man who violently attacked me. Oh, and to show you how I bled, you know, down below, from being ripped apart. And the bruises on my arms and wrists from him holding my 98lb. body down as he raped me. This was a lovely way for an innocent 17 year old to lose her virginity. And I’m glad you are understanding of the mental anguish, aside from the physical wounds, I suffered, that haunt me. even 24 years later.

        • rainman

          I’m sorry to hear your story. The down vote? Who knows, a troll, a mistake? You’ve learned at a young age some people are hateful. I hope you spend the rest of your life learning the good people in this world outnumber the bad. Good luck.

    • Ryan Schneider.

      How’s this for a rape punishment compromise: when the rapist is caught, she gets to decide his punishment. She can opt to have him castrated with a local, but is forced to watch, and is then kept on permanent probation. But she must have the baby and give it up for adoption. Or she can have the abortion while he is forced to watch, and the gory remains are shown to him, and he is put on permanent probation as well, but left intact. And prebirth will not be the limit. If he is caught years later, but before the statute of limitations is up, she can still have the child legally murdered in front of him. What does birth matter? If we give a mother arbitrary power over life and death over her child for one set period, why not extend it? That is where the eugenicists have always wanted to go. This comprise will instead eliminate the hypocrisy roe v. Wade has instituted, and will force society to swallow the ugly truth while giving the victim an opportunity to put the kind of justice she really needs in perspective. Especially since many rapists are sociopaths who wouldn’t give a rat’s hole if she kills the kid.
      As for other motives, it never ceases to amaze me how so many women have allowed the conventions of modern urban life to so utterly destroy all hope and imagination, not to mention patience. This diseased way of thinking was sown by Margaret Sanger and her ilk among the poor to trick them into destroying themselves, and it is too cruel to even be a punishment in hell.

  • waltermitty2012

    How could PBS allow this to happen?

  • Maryland_Malcontent

    The dramatic irony and the psychopathic “backgammoner” ultimately pushed me away from this show but this unexpected burst of common sense from it has raised it in my estimation.

  • Chase Crosby

    It was the supreme court that allowed not the constitution jackass.

    • WhoDat

      Exactly. They ruled it fell under the 14th amendment.

      • Chase Crosby

        You really need to educate yourself. Quit relying on wikipedia for you info. One suggestion, go read the Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin. Abortion is taking a life away which in the 14th amendment life is protected. You said abortions kills(taking away life).

        • des111168

          He’s here to troll. Period.

      • mike_in_kosovo

        Um…no. There’s *nothing* in the 14th that speaks re: abortion.

        Try again… *AFTER* you (for once) do more research than skimming through the latest talking point papers.

        • WhoDat

          The right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the decision should be left to the mother and her physician is what SCOTUS ruled with Roe v. Wade.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision

          http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/roe-v-wade-fast-facts/

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Which does NOT make abortion protected under the 14th….they used the 14th to apply the privacy aspects to the States.

          • Ryan Schneider.

            That still needs to be understood as privacy being a means to a right, not a direct right unto itself. Someone in witness protection needs privacy to maintain his right to life, for example, but beyond such indirect parameters, privacy is either a legal contract, or a privilige freely given out of courtesy, but not legally required.

          • QueenB

            Now that you need to give your doc medical info that has nothing to do with why you’re seeing the doctor so it can be put into a database, as required by Obamacare, that point now seems to be moot and it would seem someone could now easily challenge the court on the subject.

          • Ryan Schneider.

            Oh ho, brilliant. Fight legalese with legalese, eh?

          • Ryan Schneider.

            Due process has no direct link to privacy whatsoever, and to claim direct privacy is anything more then a privilege is legalese smoke and mirrors. We have a right to LIFE, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness. It can only be said that privacy is an indirect right, insofar tit is an essential means to those ends; for example, a man in witness protection needs privacy to stay alive, in that context it is a right. A man on trial cannot be forced to reveal things to the prosecutor that would give them an unfair advantage, thus privacy protects his liberty. If a celebrity does not want to be so hounded by paparazzi that he cannot enjoy his life, then privacy becomes essential to pursuing happiness. But what does it have to do with a “medical” procedure? Hospitals maintain paitent confidentiality to the extent that they do not talk to non doctors about a particular person. But they still need to talk freely among themselves, as well as use certain cases as teaching opportunities, without needing consent. In short, privacy is either a contractual agreement, or a privilege given kindly, but not always required…except at abortion clinics. There, privacy is as sacred as in a priestly confessional. Yet there is no legal reason they should be any different then any other sort of medicine. It is a culture of denial, self deception, subtle insanity, blatant hypocrisy, and plain primal evil. A culture of death.

      • rennyangel2

        It was not a ‘right’ for 200 years and surely no ‘right’ is suddenly discovered hiding in the constitution just because it is politically inconvenient, eh?

      • http://amandakmelson.wordpress.com/ GreenEyedGal

        No, they ruled it legal under the 4th amendment, not the 14th. Read the 4th and tell me where it says abortion is protected. What the Supreme Court did is purposely twist the 4th beyond all rhyme or reason.

        I’ll also point out to you that the Supreme Court at one time ruled that slavery was constitutional. Do you admire the court’s reasoning and handiwork in justifying slavery? Didn’t make them right then, anymore than they’re right about abortion.

        • Brian

          “I’ll also point out to you that the Supreme Court at one time ruled that slavery was constitutional…Didn’t make them right then, anymore than they’re right about abortion.”

          At the time, it was. They were completely right. Doesn’t mean that slavery is good.

          • http://amandakmelson.wordpress.com/ GreenEyedGal

            No, they weren’t right then. They were just as wrong about slavery then as they are currently about abortion. Legality never means something is “right” or moral. It simply means something is legal. Don’t confuse the two.

          • Brian

            You said they were wrong when they found it constitutional. They were not. It was constitutional. The Constitution had to be amended to fix that.

          • http://amandakmelson.wordpress.com/ GreenEyedGal

            There was no justification in the Constitution for owning another person. There never has been. Just as there is no justification in the Constitution for murdering the unborn and never has been. The SCOTUS can pervert and twist the Constitution all kinds of ways till Sunday to make it say something it doesn’t say, it still doesn’t say it. And they’re still wrong.

          • Brian

            “There was no justification in the Constitution for owning another person.”

            Then how do you explain “…which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”? Slavery was written right into the Constitution. If it was unconstitutional, as you claim, why the need for an amendment to remove it?

          • http://amandakmelson.wordpress.com/ GreenEyedGal

            Brian, I stand corrected (but don’t tell my husband; he’ll never let me live it down.) I don’t know what I was thinking. I actually visited Monticello a year ago and listened to the tour guide discuss Jefferson’s feelings about slavery, including it in the Constitution, and how he believed that God would not withhold His judgment against this country for so great a wrong.

          • Brian

            That much is true. Jefferson and Washington were very interesting in regards to their views on slavery, in that they were privately opposed, but as wealthy landowners in Virginia, nonetheless were participants in the same system. Jefferson actually wrote an attack on slavery into the Declaration of Independence, but removed it due to pressure from the conservative Southern states, who would have refused to vote for independence if it had been left in. Those states also never would have ratified the Constitution if it did not contain protections for slavery. Interestingly, they wanted slaves to fully count as people, so their states would be overrepresented in the House. The anti-slavery writers compromised by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person.

      • CHHR

        Man how I wish folks would actually go back and read the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade… it wasn’t about abortion, the central argument was about when life started… PERIOD.
        FACT: even Ginsburg, one of those voting in favor, now says “we never expected” abortions to be carried out past 12 weeks.
        FACT: the issue of viability has been proven to be well before the normal 40 weeks of pregnancy.
        FACT: because the argument could not answer the issue of viability, the SCOTUS granted the privacy of the decision to the woman through states.
        One thing is for sure, we know much more today about both life and viability then we did in 1973 and making murder “safe and legal” flies in the face of empirical science.

        • Ryan Schneider.

          It only deceptively “wasn’t” about abortion. It was a legalese Trojan horse with abortion on demand hiding inside it.

          • CHHR

            Oh, I agree… however, instead of arguing the difference between choice & life, shouldn’t we be arguing the premise of that ruling instead? I for one would welcome a revisit by SCOTUS… they would have an even harder time discussing life in the face of empirical evidence understood due to modern science today.

    • Part138

      Yes, the American people themselves didn’t even get the chance to vote on it*, not to mention not being able to elect the members of the Supreme Court either.
      *who knows which way the vote would have gone, but we as a people had no say.

      • WhoDat

        We elected representatives who confirmed those Justices.

        Should we have direct voting on everything the government does?

        • lainer51

          No just a pen & phone like stompyfoot

        • tops116 ✓Quipper

          Actually, given that Roe v Wade was 41 years ago, I’d be willing to wager that the majority of people who weigh in on abortion today weren’t allowed to vote in those elections (assuming they were even alive to begin with).

          And fun fact: Representatives don’t confirm Justices, Senators do.

        • badbadlibs

          What part of “we the people” don’t you understand?
          So, when the government says “whodats” all must report to the nearest government camp, will you be wishing you had a direct vote, comrade?

        • MarcusFenix

          With the way things are going….a “Yes” answer might not be a bad alternative.

          Just because we elect people doesn’t mean they’re going to do the right thing, or what the majority wants, all of the time.

          If that were the case, abortion would still be illegal, Obamacare would have been repealed, and so on.

        • Ryan Schneider.

          No, but we should be able to cast a vote of no confidence whenever a majority feels like it.

  • Kate

    Abortion is what it is. Killing a baby. Pro Abortion people still cannot explain how when a baby is wanted, losing it at 3 months is devastating, but aborting a child at 3 months is getting rid of a few cells that mean nothing.

    • William2010

      Kate said, “Abortion is what it is. Killing a baby. Pro Abortion people still cannot explain how when a baby is wanted, losing it at 3 months is devastating, but aborting a child at 3 months is getting rid of a few cells that mean nothing.”

      Kate, as a matter of fact anyone who claims that a baby already living, from the first moment of contact of sperm and oocyte, at the point the sperm penetrates the “jacket” of the oocyte, the zona pellucida, onward, be it one hour, three days, two weeks, three weeks, six months, and so forth, is a not alive or human but is just few cells, or just a clump of cells, or a blob of protoplasm, or not alive, not human, but only potential life or only a potential human, is anti-science and a flat earther who does not know science and is more ignorant, that is, less educated, than a jungle boy raised in the wild by wolves or chimpanzees or gorillas.

      Of course the sperm and oocyte scenario, the most common form or reproduction, is classified as sexual reproduction, because it requires intercourse and/or sperm and oocyte. Assexual reproduction does not require sperm and oocyte and occurs in vivo – inside mother’s body, or ex vivo, outside mother’s body. Examples – identical twins, triplets, etc., and IFV, Artificial Reproductive or Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, and so forth.

      So, we begin either sexually or asexually, and either in vivo, or ex vivo, inside mother’s body, or outside mother’s body, but we do begin, and once we begin, we are immediately alive and human, not just a useless, unorganized clump of cells or blob of protoplasm, or delayed in becoming human, or alive.

      I wouldn’t waste my time with them. Debating with them would be like talking to a wall, or a rock.. Nothing there to respond to you and your reason and facts.

      You cannot reason with irrational, ill advised, uneducated people like that, especially when they think they know something that they clearly do not know.

      Those people are likely to believe little green aliens from outer space visit the earth, but not know the facts of Human Embryology and Fetal development, or related issues.

      They probably think that “life,” or a new person’s life begins in the womb, which it does not. In sexual reproduction this occurs in the fallopian tube, not the womb. Place a sperm inside the womb, nothing happens. It deteriorates and is flushed out of the body. Place an oocyte into the womb, nothing happens. It deteriorates and is flushed out of the body. Place a new person in the early developmental stage of human embryo inside the womb, she will implant and continue her development, eventually be born, and develop into an adult human being, a woman (or a man if a male) and eventually reproduce more human beings, like him or herself.

      Ignorance, and malevolence are two contributing factors to the rampant slaughter of new human beings by abortion – baby butcher advocates.
      Violent, cruel, sadistic aggression and slaughter of innocents comes from those who are sadistic, cruel, aggressive, and violent, without respect for life, rights, freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or those who just have not awaken to the horrific, life destroying act which elective, induced abortion is.

    • dba_vagabond_trader

      Never heard a woman announce she was pregnant with a fetus either!

    • MarcusFenix

      Well, then don’t go scouring the internet. I’ve been arguing with a guy off and on for 6 months who believes that pro lifers are out murdering people. Even something as simple as falling asleep is murdering live, born babies, children, and adults. Of course, he also believes that a multi-billion dollar operation is out to discredit and silence him…and people like me are spearheading it. For free, of course.

      Don’t ask them for facts, logic, or a consistent argument. You won’t find it.

  • Morgan

    LOL…..for crying out loud, get over it people.

    • Elizabeth

      Get over what?

  • YesterdayzNewz

    The fourth and final season season of Downtown Abbey is currently being aired. Especially, after The Left™ hears about this.
    There is a certain script you must adhere to, if you’re going to make it big. Just ask Pajama Boy.

  • 3seven77

    There is no Constitutional “right” to abortion. None.

  • nibblesyble

    The producer and writer of the show, Julian Fellows is from the Conservative party in England so that may have a lot to do with it. Plus they had to come at it from that time when abortion was considered evil and wrong..too bad that has changed so much now-a-days!

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Which allows it, in a way, to be “of its day,” so people can think, “Well, of COURSE that’s what they’d say in the early 20th Century! But then, these people probably approved of the Empire, too!” Which is, y’know, a non-sequitur, but it allows all the “modern-day” people to console themselves with the thought that those British aristo’s, for all their pretense, were just “barbarians,” anyway. If that’s how you’re predisposed to think of them in the first place– as many in the UK and US are.

  • Part138

    If I hear “you can’t be prolife and for capital punishment” one more time, I’m going to scream. Exactly WHO did the unborn child plot to kill?

    • William2010

      Part138 said, “If I hear “you can’t be prolife and for capital punishment” one more time, I’m going to scream. Exactly WHO did the unborn child plot to kill?”

      Part 138,

      People think they are being reasonable, tolerant, and compassionate in proclaiming “I personally oppose abortion. I think it is wrong, but I do think it should be allowed in cases of rape or incest” have not through the process through.

      In the USA and Europe rapist NEVER, NEVER EVER get the death penalty for rape. Unless there is a heinous crime committed, such as kidnapping, torture, and sadistic murder, etc., and the rape is also committed, then the rapist does not get sentenced to death.

      Where is the rationale in slaughtering an innocent baby whose mother was raped, but letting the rapist live?

      How about we do the same when a woman is raped but she does not become pregnant. Take a woman passing by with a new, tiny baby in her arms, or a woman who is pregnant, and just kill one of their babies to resolve the rape of the woman?

      Oh, of course people will say, “William, that is absurd. The pregnant mother’s baby did not do anything, and the little baby who is already born did not do anything wrong, the rapist did. Besides, we are not talking about that. We are talking about killing a baby who is the result of rape.”

      Okay, then, if it is unjust, violent, and unfair to kill a baby inside another woman’s womb, or a baby who is brand new and tiny and defenseless after a woman is raped, then there is value in such a life, and there is no real justification for killing a baby who is innocent, but happens to be inside a woman who was raped. None of those babies did anything to the woman. Why is baby getting the death penalty, and not the rapist? What does that make all the millions of babies whose mothers were raped, but who did not have baby put to death, but chose instead to raise and love baby, who turned out to be a wonderful human being?

      It would be more fair and just for society to shut up about “I support the death penalty for innocent babies because the mother was raped,” and, instead support the woman, help her through her pregnancy, help her through delivery, help her get the means to support baby or to place baby in the care of those who want to give baby a home, but nothing is accomplished by slaughtering an innocent baby, while the perpetrator of the aggressive act of rape against baby’s mother, but the killing of one of the two innocent parties in the entire situation. She is not to be blemished or shunned because she will not agree to the butchering of an innocent child who did not aggress against her, while the aggressor, the rapist, gets to live.

      If someone wants to justify killing a baby of a raped mother as some justification and resolution to the rape, then let’s agree to torture the miserable rapist-assailant to death. First HE dies, then baby dies.

      How would that work out for people?

      Sound fair?

      It is possible that some abortion lovers would agree to the death penalty for the rapist, but it is also possible that many would not, which indicates how irrational and unjust abortion advocates, and abortion of baby but life for rapist advocates are.

      Real, consistent Pro-Life reasoning and compassion would NOT and cannot include the butchering of the innocent child. It can only call on the humane, compassionate path, support for both mother and child, otherwise it is not really Pro-Life.

    • tops116 ✓Quipper

      Yeah, it’s ridiculous, as is their inability to grasp how it can be turned around them. I could just say in response “You can’t be for pro-choice and against capital punishment.”

    • dba_vagabond_trader

      Excellent comeback, I will use it.

  • http://www.GONINERS.com/ Kristine ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    I really shouldn’t have clicked on this page since I haven’t watched tonight’s episode yet. Oh well, I couldn’t exactly un-read the headline as I was scrolling through.

    Oops! My bad. 😀

    • Hotlanta Mike

      There’s quite a hilarious scene involving pigs and mud as well as tense moment’s involving Anna’s attacker.

  • rennyangel2

    Good to see on Downton Abbey.

  • dba_vagabond_trader

    Thank goodness my guilty pleasure is not quite as libral as I feared it was becoming. The token homosexual is a sh*t heel, Edith rejects abortion and Lady Rose does not continue her silly romance with a black man.

    • redstilettos

      I have no problem with interracial couples, but the character Rose is a ditz. I believe she only wanted to be with the singer to freak people out and not because of him (he seemed like a nice guy).

      • dba_vagabond_trader

        Agreed, why I called it silly. He did have more common sense than Rose.

  • John Castigo

    One of the ignorant trolls of the left has come here saying it is a “constitutional right” for a woman to choose abortion, even though abortion kills. Um…what’s that, now?

    So if it is my Constitutional right to be able to kill, then why would I go to jail if I murdered a liberal? And why are murderers charged with double-homicide if they kill a pregnant woman whose unborn baby also dies?

    The left is making it too easy for us to tear their hate-filled and death-loving mindset to pieces. Derpity derp derp. Morons.

  • AlCashier

    but it’s not over, it seemed like they are setting it up for the young promiscuous blonde teenager to have an abortion because now she’s having sex with the black guy.

  • AlCashier

    The Margaret Sanger Infanticide & Black Genocide Corp (aka Planned Parenthood) is having a screaming fit at PBS for airing that in America, land of the 3400 Federally-taxpayer-funded jars of mutilated babies a day.
    (and that is just PP’s numbers, there are independent infanticide mills all over America that we will never learn THEIR numbers of jars of cold-bloodedly murdered infants. )

  • H50 ✓RAT

    This should send the abortionists into orbit. Leave it to the BCC, do you think an American show would follow this storyline? I dont.

  • rainman

    It’s a matter of perspective. You see it as Edith realizing it’s a mistake. Others see it as a change of heart only because of the conditions under which she was forced to have that abortion. (illegal dangerous back alley.) If it was legal and regulated, Edith would have rejoiced to get rid of the “inconvenient clump of cells. ”

    We keep acting like society mores would force women today to seek back alley abortions such as these if abortion were not legal, but that’s not the truth. Most abortions performed today are for convenience, not the desperate circumstances faced by Edith, or the maid who was forced into prostitution in a previous season.

    Of course these views leave me open to death threats from the tolerant liberals.

    • Brian

      “Of course these views leave me open to death threats from the tolerant liberals.”

      The liberals aren’t the ones who are prone to murdering their political opponents in this area. No one’s ever thrown a nail bomb at a “Crisis Pregnancy Center”.

      • sambar2

        No, they’re just prone to murdering innocent pre-born life.

        There is not a rational person alive who would condone the bombing of an abortion clinic. Even the most noble of movements can have their lunatic radicals.

        • Brian

          I know it’s not a mainstream view on your side, and I didn’t mean to imply that, but it is just stupid to say that one must fear death threats for opposing abortion when in real life, the opposite is true. It’s almost as as stupid as saying something like “most abortions performed today are for convenience,” which is an inherently meaningless statement and far from reality.

          As for your first comment, we can debate whether or not abortion is justified, but we do both agree that the murder of born, adult people is wrong, and only one side has people doing that.

          • rainman

            Please, Brian, enlighten me. The number of abortions performed for health reasons or rape is pretty low. The other categories can all be grouped into “she doesn’t want it/he doesn’t want it.” If that’s not an abortion for convenience, please tell me what it is.

          • Brian

            It’s a matter of classification. I’d call someone who doesn’t want to put their body through the physical and emotional stress of pregnancy as doing it for health reasons, you’d call it convenience. I’d call someone who can’t afford a pregnancy and even more so a child as being responsible, you’d call it convenience. I’m not really sure why you’d bring up rape, as I’d have thought not wanting to carry a rapist’s pregnancy would also qualify as ‘for convenience’ to you, but I’m glad to hear otherwise.

          • rainman

            Get off it, Brian. Putting your body through the physical and emotional stress of pregnancy? It’s about not ending up with a baby. Unless you feel there’s no physical and emotional stress involved with that abortion. And more abortions are performed on higher income women than the poor, despite that compelling picture you paint of the impoverished mother of six, who just can’t feed that seventh child and tearfully walks herself down to Planned Parenthood. It’s more likely like Sinead O’Connor who felt the physical and emotional stress of pregnancy would interfere with her concert tour.

            You don’t like the word, but convenience it is.

          • Brian

            Of course there’s physical and emotional stress involved with abortion, but definitely less physical, and in nearly every case less emotional. It’s not just about not ending up with a baby. There’s a lot more to it than that. “Convenience” is the word you use to shut down empathy.

          • rainman

            I have so much empathy for people like Whoopie Goldberg who had six abortions and feels woman like her should be revered. You don’t like my description of “Convenience.” I don’t like the pro-abortionists’ description of “clump of cells.”

  • TxRedMom

    “safe, legal, and rare.” that always confuses me and i’ve never had a pro-abortion person be able to explain it to me. I get that they want it to be safe and legal, but why rare? if there isn’t anything morally wrong with it, why not advocate for more abortion? And they will say they are “pro-choice” but almost never will any of them admit to having one- why not??? Why the shame and secrecy?

    • Brian

      “i’ve never had a pro-abortion person be able to explain it to me.”

      I’d be glad to. The reason ‘rare’ is included in the statement is that pro-choice advocates believe that through a combination of sex education, easily available and reliable contraception, and a suitable social safety net, people would ideally get pregnant only when they want to.

      “if there isn’t anything morally wrong with it, why not advocate for more abortion?”

      Because we advocate for people making the choices that are right for them.

      “And they will say they are “pro-choice” but almost never will any of them admit to having one- why not??? Why the shame and secrecy?”

      Well, Ockham’s Razor would indicate that the people you’re referring to have never had one. There’s also still a stigma attached to it, which is part of what the pro-choice movement is combating, because it is often used to intimidate and shame people. Many people don’t discuss their medical history in general, of course. And finally, there’s also the fact that lots of people do discuss their abortions, and you seem to have not noticed.

      I’m glad I could answer your questions.

  • Brian

    And they were correct. Back when abortion was illegal, it was a risky and dangerous procedure, even for the upper classes who could afford to have a doctor perform it. As usual, Downton shines a light on one of the uglier parts of the past. The world is much better now.

    • rainman

      Back when abortion was illegal, it was also shocking to be a baby momma. You couldn’t finish school and were shunned by “polite” society.
      Thank goodness that’s no longer the case, and as such, the desperate need for a back alley abortion is no more. Now we can get an abortion just for convenience. The world is NOT so much better when we are aborting so we can wear a bikini on vacation this summer.

      • Brian

        Yes, that is correct. It is also good that being a single mother is no longer a source of degradation and misfortune, and single mothers can now live full lives. The number of people who get an abortion simply to fit into a bikini is precisely zero, and your dismissal of people who can not afford a baby or do not want to be pregnant for medical reasons as doing it for “convenience” is cruel, privileged, and obnoxious.

        • StateofFranklin

          …and because they are legal, we should also force insurance to pay for contraception, because we wouldn’t want to foster an environment that teaches our youth a little responsibility or accountability for one’s own actions, right?

          smdh

          • Brian

            Insurance companies aren’t being forced to pay for contraception, they want to. It’s significantly cheaper than paying for a pregnancy, which is also covered. I notice you don’t have a problem with that. Wouldn’t forcing women to pay for their own pregnancy also teach them responsibility and accountability? Anyway, the people who don’t want insurance to cover contraception are the people who don’t really seem to understand how insurance works, and who think that paying into the same plan as someone else gives them moral authority to deny them certain medications.

          • StateofFranklin

            Brian, that is a gigantic supposition for someone of your caliber to make. I have an extensive knowledge of how insurance works.

            Here, I’ll explain the short version. Insurance = money paid in advance of any need for money to be paid, in hopes that costs can be limited. Insurance is the world’s 2nd largest scam, behind only credit rating.

            No, I object to contraceptives being covered by insurance because I believe, in the current social climate that is the United States (not to mention future social climate that will be created) this will further enhance a lifestyle of “lack of accountability for one’s actions”. You see, sexual intercourse is an option, not a necessity. Insurance, if the need for it exists, should cover necessary requirements.

            Since we still live in an age that accepts and encourages sexual exploitation of one sex by another, where the whims of a group can label people as sluts, whores, studs, etc… peer pressure still plays a decisive role in the pursuit of the sexual achievements of our youth. Our society creating more avenues for enabling promiscuity is not the correct message to send to following generations.

          • Brian

            “You see, sexual intercourse is an option, not a necessity. Insurance, if the need for it exists, should cover necessary requirements.”

            So you are, then, in favor of insurance not covering pregnancy and childbirth? That’s a very odd position to take, but at least it’s consistent.

          • StateofFranklin

            Incorrect, again with the suppositions. You see, pregnancy is a side effect of a natural event and while it is an option, it is an option that is necessity for natural procreation. If one wishes to naturally reproduce, then one must engage in heterosexual intercourse. It’s the natural order of things. You’re no dummy, I know you know these things.

            Abortion is an uneccessary event. Sexual intercourse for pleasure is also an unnecessary event. If one would like to avoid the risk of pregnancy, all one needs to do is simply avoid sexual intercourse.

            Your argument would be similar to an argument to make suicide illegal.

          • Brian

            “If one wishes to naturally reproduce”

            Indeed. If one wishes. You said that health insurance should not cover options.

          • StateofFranklin

            Natural reproduction is an exercise of free right and free will. Insurance would be wise to cover it because it guarantees their own continued livelihood.

            Alternatively, intercourse for pleasure (i.e. without the intent to procreate) and without proper protection is irresponsible, back to my first point. By providing the outlet, you encourage the behavior.

            By the liberal point of view, assault weapons kill people, right? so contraceptives cause people to fornicate, then, right?

            your point will never be valid, not matter how hard you try.

            The right to abortion (and thus the enforcement of contraceptives paid by insurance) invariably not only permits, but teaches irresponsibility and lack of accountability, and encourages indulgence in self destructive behavior. Activity which is precisely what a socialist society desires. The inferior, weak, meager, lazy, irresponsible and unaccountable will prey off of the hard work of the labor.

            Regardless, the federal government cannot exercise enforcement over an institution or incorporation that bases itself in specific religious beliefs and force it to provide benefits against its religious beliefs.

          • Brian

            “Natural reproduction is an exercise of free right and free will. ”

            So is sex for fun. You might not like it, but it is. More importantly to this conversation, it’s not a necessity. So if you think insurance shouldn’t pay for medical expenses related to optional activities, that should logically include pregnancy and childbirth. Unless, of course, you want to be honest and admit that rather than “necessary” procedures, you just think that insurance should cover things that your personal morality approves of. Me, I think preventative medicine should be covered, end of story. A thoroughly consistent position.

            “Regardless, the federal government cannot exercise enforcement over an institution or incorporation that bases itself in specific religious beliefs and force it to provide benefits against its religious beliefs.”

            So far that hasn’t happened, so I guess you’re okay.

          • StateofFranklin

            I do appreciate you going against your will power and maintaining at least some cordiality. I do, however, see the slight little underlying insults. But it does speak at least a little to your character that you can reign it in, somewhat. Thank you

            Back to the point…except for the slight inconvenient truth that, as we know it…our species is the only one on the planet that does engage in intercourse for fun. However, the phrase “natural reproduction is an exercise of free right and free will”, in no way can be rephrased into “sex is for fun” – as that statement, changes its purpose entirely. I would say that is a very liberal interpretation.

            Insurance coverage shouldn’t logically exclude pregnancy and childbirth, because those are procreation…a natural effect of life. Contraceptives, pleasure sex and abortion are simply not procreation and thus not a natural effect of life, thus an action in which engagement is optional and not for good cause, hence the “indulgence in self destructive behavior”.

            Yes, contraceptives are preventive in nature and I applaud those who use them responsibly for their intended purpose, but they should use them at their expense. However, stipulating the requirement of all preventive medicine will at some point infringe upon the right of the citizen’s liberty and pursuit of happiness.

            In regards to the final statement, I included that because this administration has targeted (and currently still is) religious incorporation’s by forcing businesses to adopt this overly inclusive, abysmal policy.

          • Brian

            “I do appreciate you going against your will power and maintaining at least some cordiality.”

            It takes literally no effort. I wish I could appreciate your not taking a smug, presumptive tone in an attempt to assume superiority. I wish it dearly.

            “Back to the point…except for the slight inconvenient truth that, as we know it…our species is the only one on the planet that does engage in intercourse for fun.”

            Bonobos. Dolphins. Lots of others.

            “However, the phrase “natural reproduction is an exercise of free right and free will”, in no way can be rephrased into “sex is for fun””

            Didn’t say it could. The phrasing was “so is sex for fun,” not “so sex is for fun”. You misread it. I was saying sex for fun is also an exercise of free right and free will. Unless you think people have to be brainwashed to do it.

            “Insurance coverage shouldn’t logically exclude pregnancy and childbirth, because those are procreation…a natural effect of life.”

            But not a requirement of life. You said insurance shouldn’t cover optional activities, and that should logically include pregnancy.

            “However, stipulating the requirement of all preventive medicine will at some point infringe upon the right of the citizen’s liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

            No, because no one’s forced to use them. Nothing is being infringed on.

            “I included that because this administration has targeted (and currently still is) religious incorporation’s by forcing businesses to adopt this overly inclusive, abysmal policy.”

            You said ‘institutions and incorporations based on specific religious beliefs’. The only thing that applies to are churches and certain religious charities. For-profit businesses are based around selling product, no matter what the religion of the owners.

          • StateofFranklin

            Wow, first of all, show me proof that Dolphins engage in sexual intercourse for fun. I’d love to see this. You speak to dolphins? I suspect one has told you this?

            Now, that was a genuine ‘Thank you’. Sincerely, for at least trying to disguise them and keep the conversation somewhat civil, but if you can’t read it right, then oh well.

            I am not assuming superiority in anything other than thought process. The thought of forcing insurance to cover contraceptive is a sign of a degenerate society. That’s simple. Under no circumstance should we, the insured, be responsible for paying more for other insured people who choose to be careless in their personal choices.

            It speaks volumes that the progressive mentality in this country is against killing known murders, but for murdering the unborn, inciting racism, wanting to take away rights of law abiding citizens, wishing to disarm the patriots and giving away the hard earned money of those who worked to earn it for the sake of the irresponsible, nonchalant & those who are otherwise held unaccountable.

            I didn’t misread anything. The statement “So is sex for fun” is not an exercise of free right and free will. It’s an exercise in poor judgement IF one is incapable of handling the natural result of it. Don’t want the result, don’t perform the act. I don’t drink gasoline and expect it not to cause internal injury.

            Everyone and everything has the right to procreate. No one and nothing has the right to UNJUSTLY kill.

            No one is being forced to use preventive medicine, really?Actually, yes they are, forcing companies to provide insurance to cover contraceptives is infringement on religious freedom of the privately owned company. That being said, people who have never worked hard to achieve something, don’t hold any value in that, so…

            Now, if f you really think religion isn’t a for profit business then you are a complete fool. It’s quite possibly the oldest for profit business in the world, despite prostitution getting all the credit. They are so similar, so…who really knows?

          • Brian

            “You speak to dolphins? ”

            No, they have been observed in nature. I notice you can’t debate the bonobos, though.

            “Now, that was a genuine ‘Thank you’. Sincerely, for at least trying to disguise them and keep the conversation somewhat civil”

            No, it was you saying that my instinct is to be rude and uncouth. It was an insult disguised as a compliment. “Thank you for being cordial” would be sincere. “Thank you for suppressing your insulting nature” is not.

            “I didn’t misread anything. The statement “So is sex for fun” is not an exercise of free right and free will.”

            Yes it is. I had the right and free will to write it. You quoted me as saying “sex is for fun”, and said that was my reading of what you said. You misread what I wrote.

            “It’s an exercise in poor judgement IF one is incapable of handling the natural result of it.”

            IF they can’t afford a pregnancy and childbirth without insurance?

            “Don’t want the result, don’t perform the act. …Everyone and everything has the right to procreate.”

            The right. Not the obligation or the biologically autonomic process. Remember, you’re the one who thinks optional activities shouldn’t be covered. Unless you can come up with a scenario where choosing to have a child is not optional, no amount of bloviating will change the hypocrisy of that statement.

            “No one and nothing has the right to UNJUSTLY kill.”

            Agreed, but totally irrelevant to the topic of birth control.

            “No one is being forced to use preventive medicine, really?”

            Unless you have some stories of people being force-fed pills or something, yes, I’m comfortable saying that.

            “Actually, yes they are, forcing companies to provide insurance to cover contraceptives is infringement on religious freedom of the privately owned company.”

            A company can’t have religious freedom, and the religious freedom of the person in charge of the company isn’t at all infringed by the act of being a go-between for the insurance company and their employees. None of the employer’s money goes to the contraceptives, and if an individual finds them religiously objectionable, they don’t have to use them.

            “Now, if f you really think religion isn’t a for profit business then you are a complete fool.”

            Some specific religious bodies are. but religion in general certainly isn’t. It’s an abstract concept, it can’t be.

          • StateofFranklin

            It’s not that I can’t debate the bonobos. I chose not to. I will though. It’s a simple debate, really. Same as with the dolphins.

            We, as a species, may believe we have it figured it out based upon observation and our scientific research, etc… but we don’t matter-of-fact, without a doubt, K-N-O-W, know that they do. We know that humans do, because we take part in it.

            I’m just as much a believer in science and evolution as the next guy. It is a belief, just as though the belief that a god exists. If you “know” that it does, then you’ve convinced yourself and that is all that needs to happen.

            In regards to the “abstract concept of religion”…no concept is so abstract that man cannot manipulate for financial gain.

            You can sit and quote and re-quote my sentences all day long. The simple truth is, what you haven’t attempted to debate… providing contraceptives through insurance will encourage an increase in sexual activity. An increase in sexual activity will undoubtedly cause an increase in pregnancy, and thus unwanted pregnancy, and thus abortion.

            the more people that have cars, the more drivers are on the roads. the more drivers on the roads, the more accidents will occur.

            this is the self-destructive behavior i speak of.

            Do you have children?

          • Brian

            “I’m just as much a believer in science and evolution as the next guy. It is a belief, just as though the belief that a god exists.”

            Except one can be directly observed.

            “In regards to the “abstract concept of religion”…no concept is so abstract that man cannot manipulate for financial gain.”

            Agreed. But that doesn’t mean the concept is a business.

            “The simple truth is, what you haven’t attempted to debate… providing contraceptives through insurance will encourage an increase in sexual activity.”

            I haven’t attempted to debate it, because it hasn’t really come up before now, and since I advocate insurance covering both pregnancies and contraception, the increase in sexual activity isn’t as worrying to me. Though the availability and increased use of contraceptives would not necessarily lead to more pregnancies. More to the point, you haven’t attempted to debate the act that becoming pregnant and choosing to carry it to term is optional, and you stated previously that health insurance shouldn’t cover optional things.

            “the more people that have cars, the more drivers are on the roads. the more drivers on the roads, the more accidents will occur.”

            Which is why we have car insurance. Great analogy.

          • StateofFranklin

            increase in sexual activity should be of significant concern. rather than enabling it, my point is we should do what we can to teach a little restraint. One more reason the US is considered the country of excess. family values have been replaced by monetary values

            I see your point with my term of “option” maybe i should rephrase…”optional and unnecessary to continuation of existence of species.”

            of which neither contraception, nor abortion do. carrying to term does.

            pregnancy and carrying to term is not optional for the continuation of our species, it is necessary.

            so do you have children? or are you going to continue to evade the portions you do not like and pick apart bits and pieces of sentences?

            p.s. we have car insurance to protect the monetary value of an asset. if you provide proof that you have enough cash on hand to cover minimum insurance requirements, some states don’t require you carry insurance.

          • Brian

            “increase in sexual activity should be of significant concern. rather than enabling it, my point is we should do what we can to teach a little restraint”

            And treating a pregnancy as a way of punishing people for having sex you don’t like is not going to do that.

            “I see your point with my term of “option” maybe i should rephrase…”optional and unnecessary to continuation of existence of species.””

            Any individual not having a baby is not going to wipe out our species. If Person X never has kids, the human race is going to be fine. Additionally, many people on this planet give birth without any formal health care. This is still an option.

            “so do you have children? or are you going to continue to evade the portions you do not like and pick apart bits and pieces of sentences?”

            I wasn’t evading it, I was ignoring it because it’s pointless. But if you can explain how the potential existence of my children is tied to my views on what should be covered by health insurance, I’d be glad to answer.

            “if you provide proof that you have enough cash on hand to cover minimum insurance requirements, some states don’t require you carry insurance.”

            Well, thanks to the state of health care in this country, there are extremely few people who have enough cash on hand to cover minimum insurance requirements. Certainly no one who works the register at Hobby Lobby.

          • StateofFranklin

            Having children naturally lends itself to the views of what should be covered by health insurance, because you would likely have a vested interest and significant concern for another other than self. Personally, I feel the question carries more credence than does ones age, wisdom or moral beliefs. I have children, of both genders. I do not and will not differentiate between the genders when educating them on life’s choices. There is no reason for contraceptives to be covered for them as they won’t need it. They use the ultimate contraceptive, abstinence. They also won’t be caught in a school shooting, (ab)use drugs or subject to any other plague of victimization that might be sweeping the country.

            A parent who is not making life better for their children than it was for them is not performing appropriately as a parent.

            LMAO, It wasn’t the health care in this country that caused extremely few people to have enough cash on hand to cover minimum insurance requirements. It was free market, capitalism, chasing the American dream, lack of ability to understand finances and a host of other issues. I won’t dare argue that health care has attributed, but it isn’t a major player.

            As a recommendation, you might want to look into Hobby Lobby thing. They pay almost double min. wage, provide a comprehensive health insurance plan and do right by their employees. As a matter of fact, their own health insurance plan provided access to 16/20 of the contraceptives that ACA requires. The other four are abortion triggering, not contraceptive.

            How’s this for manipulation…non-compliance with the contraceptive portion will result in a fine of $36,500 per day, per employee…whereas non-compliance to provide access to health insurance is only $2,000 per day, per employee. Agenda much?

          • Brian

            “Having children naturally lends itself to the views of what should be covered by health insurance, because you would likely have a vested interest and significant concern for another other than self.”

            I do have significant concern for others, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I have children. And I’m not sure how ‘significant concern for others’ would lead me to advocate for less insurance coverage.

            “There is no reason for contraceptives to be covered for them as they won’t need it. They use the ultimate contraceptive, abstinence.”

            Abstinence education has proven to be completely ineffective, and leads to a rise in teen pregnancy rates. I certainly hope you’ll be teaching your children about different birth control options, too, as you have literally no way of guaranteeing that they’ll abstain from sex, and it’s FAR preferable that they should know how to be safe just in case.

            “LMAO, It wasn’t the health care in this country that caused extremely few people to have enough cash…”

            True. I meant the health care industry, not the care itself.

            “As a recommendation, you might want to look into Hobby Lobby thing. They pay almost double min. wage, provide a comprehensive health insurance plan and do right by their employees.”

            Oh, I know they’re generally a good place to work.

            “As a matter of fact, their own health insurance plan provided access to 16/20 of the contraceptives that ACA requires. The other four are abortion triggering, not contraceptive”

            Assuming this refers to Plan B and such, those are not ‘abortion triggering’, they prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, which is significantly different. And regardless of what they don’t want to cover or why, they still can’t use the personal religious views of their executives as an excuse to not follow the law. That sets a lousy precedent. The steep fines are surprising to some, I guess, but all it says to me is that contraception is an area where people are more inclined to break the law, so the punishment is harsher as a deterrent.

        • NiceToMeetYou

          We need to reintroduce the notion of shame into single motherhood. Single mothers are the bane of a civilized society.

  • lazypadawan

    I was like that guy last night too. “Don’t do it, Edith!” Then it was, “Yay, pro-life happy dance!” The feminists are going to be so mad. Though the way Rose is going, they might get their wish.

  • ELC

    On a personal level…unless I was raped-I don’t believe in abortion. Its killing a person. However, I strongly believe every woman has the right to make that decision for herself. Downton Abbey handled the storyline very well. Lady Edith came to the conclusion she would be killing her child and chose not to.

    • sambar2

      Sorry, but how on earth can you admit abortion is “killing a person” and then say every woman has a right to do it?

  • Moue La Moue

    Cue the need for lube with all the liberal butthurt in 3,2,….

  • Hans Olo

    In the war against the superstitions and illusions of today’s progressives, knowledge is your most potent weapon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • sambar2

    I’ve been avoiding this article all week because I had yet to watch the episode (though the title kind of gave it away).

    This isn’t the first time abortion has been portrayed as a less than optimal choice in our liberal dominated entertainment world, but this is the first time I’ve heard a character actually tell the truth about the unborn life being a “baby”.

    Kudos to Downton for honoring the subject with the truth instead of spewing the left’s usual propaganda.