I woke up this morning to a picture of some ladies holding a bright pink sign which read LONG LIVE ROE V WADE.
And I thought–long live?
Then the WSJ wrote, in its explication of the situation, “Roe and its progeny…”
Could this be an accident? Could the ladies in their vagina cloches and the explicators at the WSJ both be blissfully unaware that the language of living and progeny is exactly what the unstoppable machine of Roe v. Wade has made untenable?
We have lost so many children through this law and its wake of carnage. There is nothing about Roe v. Wade which brings life or encourages progeny.
After all these years, let us at least make our language precise and appropriate when we talk about our deliberate legacy of death.
Elealee's Blog 
How does the existence of abortion stop people from having progeny of living? I feel like it helps people make decisions that lead to children who are wanted and cared for where overturning it will lead to untold suffering of children?
I would reiterate—using “progeny” and “living” in reference to a law that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of children is a shocking appropriation of life-affirming words to buttress a death-forward legal decision.
Roe v. Wade is about codifying and fortifying the legal killing of children.
Wanted? I have not always been wanted, but that does not and should not be the metric of the value of my life or any person’s life.
Allowing a person to live only because they are wanted? Highly subjective and dystopian way of separating the worthy from the unworthy (of life, no less!)
And can there be more suffering than the pain of death? Let us be clear, few if any abortions are painless procedures, especially for the little ones who have no voice, no protection, no way of proving their ultimate worth.