Thankfully the author of the NY Times article below gets the point:
“Put simply, [pro-lifers] asked why a procedure done to a living baby outside the womb is murder, but destroying a fetus of similar gestation before delivery can be legal.”
To be fair, pro-abortionists would likely maintain that the difference is that the one in the mother’s womb isn’t a human being, but the one 8″ past the birth canal is. If the Kermit Gosnell trial has taught us anything it is that it’s fine to suction the limbs off an unborn child inside the mother’s womb, heck, snip a spine if you’ve got to, but don’t dare do any of those things a mere 8″ more south. Then, and only then, are you guilty of murder.
NY Times: Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Guilty of Murder in Late-Term Procedures
BBC: Kermit Gosnell guilty of three murders in late-term abortions
IB Times: Abortionist Kermit Gosnell Found Guilty Of Three Murder Counts
In light of the manufactured excitement over the non-event that was the “coming out” of NBA player Jason Collins and the instantaneous attack on ESPN commentator and Christian Chris Broussard for daring to have a different opinion (on TV no less), this fantastic quote deserves to be considered…
“In truth, the extraordinary rise of gay marriage speaks, not to a new spirit of liberty or equality on a par with the civil-rights movements of the 1960s, but rather to the political and moral conformism of our age; to the weirdly judgmental non-judgmentalism of our PC times; to the way in which, in an uncritical era such as ours, ideas can become dogma with alarming ease and speed; to the difficulty of speaking one’s mind or sticking with one’s beliefs at a time when doubt and disagreement are pathologised. Gay marriage brilliantly shows how political narratives are forged these days, and how people are made to accept them. This is a campaign that is elitist in nature, in the sense that, in direct contrast to those civil-rights agitators of old, it came from the top of society down; and it is a campaign which is extremely unforgiving of dissent or disagreement, implicitly, softly demanding acquiescence to its agenda.”
- Brendan O’Neill, excerpt from his article Gay marriage: a case study in conformism
Before posting comments, please read my comment policy. I have been too lenient in the past, a mistake which enabled bigotry and insults to mar an otherwise fun learning activity.
If someone does leave a comment that I think is worthwhile and on-topic, I will approve it. If they don’t, I won’t.
If you have any complaints, maybe find a new hobby. If you’re looking for a place to rehearse your bigotry, please go to another blog. If you are suffering from an I’m-an-atheist-so-I-can-look-down-my-nose-at-a-Christian-because-I’m-morally-and-intellectually-superior complex, then I’ve really got no time for you. May God bless you by forcing you to actually hear yourself.
On the bright side, I genuinely hope that the enforcement of my policy will free up time for yourself and for me.
And here’s a preemptive strike on the more emotional of the readership: Just like forcing children to raise their hands in class before speaking, this is not an attempt at censorship, but to restore some order to the comments section of my blog. Keep it on-topic and we’ll be OK!
Joshua / NAA
Are aliens actually demons (evil, spiritual entities)?
Listen to this presentation by Guy Malone in Roswell, New Mexico. For more information, click [ HERE ].
click on image to enlarge
Increase your appreciation for the down-to-Earth-ness of the Old and New Testaments by studying Far Eastern esoteric, religious texts like the Dao De Jing! Some sentences from it sound so philosophically yummy. But when you try to analyze their actual meaning, you’ll find that all its sugary goodness is void of any meaningful nutrition. But it sure sounds “smart”! As always, the figuratively obese people of the West rush off to buy it to satisfy their sweet tooth. As with Buddhism, they usually only eat what they want and throw the rest away.
A cringe-inducing quote from one of the many evil end-products of moral relativism…
Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ [...] …if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring — the strength of character — to throw off its shackles. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited.
And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’?”
- Ted Bundy, excerpt from tapes