Thursday, January 24, 2013

"Happy Anniversary Baby. Lookin' good for Forty."

A charming ad celebrating Roe vrs Wade, from the Center for Reproductive Rights.



This helps clarify things, just in case you were beginning to forget that the abortion movement is pure evil. 

31 comments:

  1. Roe versus Wade is a gift that keeps on giving.

    I enjoy seeing you get hypertensive and stressed blogging ad nauseum about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Killing children makes Bachfiend happy because it bothers the rest of us. The fact that it doesn't bother him tells us a lot about his character. The fact that you would make such a shit-heel comment is pretty base, don't you think?

      The Torch

      Delete
    2. Bach,

      You enjoy seeing someone upset by the killing of the unborn?
      That is a rather sadistic mindset, and on more than one level. I would give you the same advice that I would give a fellow serviceman exhibiting the same kind of symptoms after a traumatic tour: Seek help.
      Not only for the benefit of others, but for yourself.
      Revelling in the misery of others - even enemies - is just not healthy.

      Delete
    3. No, I don't enjoy 'someone' getting upset. I enjoy seeing Michael Egnor getting upset. I object to his 'liberal' use of words such as 'assholes' and 'bastards' to describe his perceived foes - who are just people with different opinions.

      Delete
    4. bachfiend has "fiend" in his moniker. Here is the definition of fiend:

      fiend (archaic the Devil)
      1-a wicked or cruel person
      2-a person causing mischief or annoyance


      Both are very appropriate!

      Delete
    5. Pepe,

      Fiend also means (informally) an addict. And I am. An addict for the magnificent music of my master PDQ Bach.

      Delete
    6. But a wicked or cruel person suits you better backfiend.

      Delete
    7. Pepe,

      I prefer to be wicked than an idiot, as you are.

      Delete
    8. Now you're being wicked and cruel bachfiend! And a liar...

      Delete

  2. So What if abortion ends life?


    Eye-opener from Salon today. This woman isn't even pretending that it's not killing. We should thank her for her honesty there. What she's saying is that it doesn't matter, abortion should still be legal.

    My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless.

    She can have a conversation with someone who wants to kill his teenage daughter because she's become an inconvenience and he doesn't yet accept her personhood? That's what's so frustrating about having a conversation with someone who's pro-choice. They act as if I'm imposing a line on them as to when life begins, as if they would never impose a line on anyone else. Everyone imposes a line somewhere! Peter Singer, by the way, really does argue that killing an infant is not immoral. The infant doesn't yet have the faculties of full consciousness, doesn't know who she is yet, doesn't have aspirations, and it's therefore acceptable to kill her.

    Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

    Not one iota!

    [Pro-lifers] believe that if we call a fetus a life they can go down the road of making abortion murder. And I think that’s what concerns the hell out of those of us who support unrestricted reproductive freedom.

    In other words, never admit there's a person growing in there or else the debate is lost and women will no longer be allowed to kill their offspring. Deny, deny, deny. And if that doesn't work, deny.

    --Francisca S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sick, particularly in light of last month's school massacre. Hey, those kids weren't in college yet. Maybe Adam Lanza just didn't accept that they were humans.

      The difference is that Adam Lanza killed other people's children. We call that mass murder. When you kill your own children we call that choice.

      You're right Francisca. It's not whether a line will be drawn, it's where that line will be. I hear that line bull all the time, "A woman's body! A woman's choice!" Then you ask a few more questions and the person tells you that he/she only believes in abortion through the first trimester, or through the second, or only in the case of rape or incest. That's when you realize that there are a multitude of conditions being attached. Huh?

      What a second, isn't it still a woman's body ten minutes before the child is delivered? Shouldn't it still be her choice? Isn't it a woman's body even if the child was conceived during mundane, consensual sex? Shouldn't it still be her choice?

      The Torch

      Delete
  3. Baby? What a sick, twisted mentality! I find it doubly distasteful they use a black man.
    Their contempt human life is naked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Sir. How dare the uppity nigger display such contempt for your lily-white superior God-given moral values.

      Delete
    2. What makes you so sure I am 'white', Troy?
      My objection to them choosing a black man is not because of my ethnicity, but because the black community has been a target market for the abortion industry and PP since frau Sanger founded it.
      Eugenics minded people are historically and intrinsically racist. They use divisive language just like you to describe black folks.
      My God given rights were granted to ALL men, regardless or race, colour, or creed.
      We were all created in His image.
      Even you.

      Delete
    3. What makes you so sure I am 'white', Troy?

      I didn't say you are. Read again what I wrote.

      My objection to them choosing a black man is not because of my ethnicity, but because the black community has been a target market for the abortion industry and PP since frau Sanger founded it.

      Interesting assertion, but what's your evidence?

      Eugenics minded people are historically and intrinsically racist. They use divisive language just like you to describe black folks.

      Pro-choice is not eugenics.

      My God given rights were granted to ALL men, regardless or race, colour, or creed.

      Your God doesn't exist.



      Delete
    4. "I didn't say you are. Read again what I wrote."
      You accuse me of having an issue about having lilly white morals, then declare you don't know what ethnicity I am?
      Very strange.
      How can those values be 'lilly white' when they were related to the faithful by middle eastern Jews?
      Stranger still.
      Maybe YOU need to read again what you wrote... or better still, maybe THINK before you write.

      "Interesting assertion, but what's your evidence?"
      Playing dumb now, Troy? Next you'll inform us you have never heard of Sanger, her pro-Nazi cronies, Nazi admirers, or the 'Negro Project'. Maybe you have never heard of Planned Parenthood, either?


      "Pro-choice is not eugenics. "
      Aborting specific target groups is eugenics. Aborting babies with conditions (like Down's syndrome) or due to the sex of the baby is eugenics. But in one sense you're right: Aborting a baby simply for financial convenience is not strictly speaking an act of eugenics (at least from the perspective of the parents). It is simply barbaric.

      "Your God doesn't exist."
      Of course He does. In fact, He is existence.




      Delete
    5. CrusadeRex,

      You're almost correct. Man wasn't created in God's image. God was created in Man's image. What is this gibberish about God being existence? Does this mean that Man is existence too?

      Theists are just making stuff up as they go along being continually confronted with reality.

      Delete
    6. Bach,

      You make no sense, as per usual.
      Just the standard teenage-like piss and vinegar.

      I will break it down into terms you may be able to comprehend:
      Man did not create the universe, he is part of it. The universe, in turn is part of the greater cosmos, most of which we know little or nothing about.
      The cosmos was brought into existence and is sustained by God's will.
      God is existence.
      Living beings, specifically in this case human beings, are aspects of that existence created in His image and for His purposes.

      Making things up?
      I have no need to make anything up about a self evident God.
      The Lord has already made it all for us.

      Gibberish?
      Says the man with the penchant for sociology books with apish titles and who seemingly get's his philosophy from old AC/DC tracks.

      Delete
    7. CrusadeRex,

      If God is so self-evident, then why are there so many religions with different conceptions of him?

      Convincing arguments, to be sure, coming from a creationist, who thinks that even ID is suspect.

      I don't read sociology books full stop.

      Delete
    8. Bach,

      "If God is so self-evident, then why are there so many religions with different conceptions of him?"
      Choice, free will, and the various interpretations of His presence. Religions are man made.
      God is not.
      Also deception plays a significant role.

      "Convincing arguments, to be sure, coming from a creationist, who thinks that even ID is suspect."
      Thanks.
      You're a very polite chemical accident when you want to be. Must be your survival instincts kicking in.

      "I don't read sociology books full stop."
      Pardon me, indeed... 'Behavioural Sciences'.

      Delete
    9. CrusadeRex,

      'Also deception plays a significant role'.

      Three words; pot, kettle, black.

      You're deceiving yourself. How do you know your flavor of religion is correct, if all religions are man-made?

      Delete
    10. Bach,
      "Three words; pot, kettle, black."
      You completely mistake my meaning. Try to remember you are NOT having a dialogue with a fellow eliminative materialist.
      You assume I am talking about man made deceptions. Personality cults, delusions of grandeur, heresies etc.
      You mistake an observation of forces for a double standard because your model is fatally flawed. You make no allowances for any sort of deceptions than those authored by human intelligence.

      "You're deceiving yourself."
      Not about this topic. Perhaps about my hockey team, but not about my experiences or faith.

      "How do you know your flavor of religion is correct, if all religions are man-made?"
      My religion is a result of my cultural and religious traditions. I did not adopt a new religion. I felt no need to. I did not choose a flavour.
      It is a result of my embracing those traditions of my ancestors and adapting them to my current circumstance. It provides me with what I require while meshing well with my personal beliefs and understanding of the scriptures that are central to my faith. If it did not or was changed by the clergy, I would find a more suitable match.
      My faith itself is an entirely different matter. It is experiential and central.
      Is my religion 'correct'?
      The simple answer is that religion is not a theory or mathematical model.
      It is a path to truth - not a simple correlation and collection of data. You apply the wrong tool for the job. Yours is a category error.
      A religion that works for me may not hold enough guidance or (adversely) enough free movement of interpretation for the next Christian.
      That does not mean I am any less or more of a Christian than the next religious denomination - it just means it is the 'best fit' for me. Even then, it is not a perfect fit.
      My path varies greatly from other members of the same local church, but we seek truth together and support each other's search. We even extend that fellowship to other religions and even related faith groups that are accepting of it.

      Delete
  4. Honest liberals know that Roe v. Wade rests on specious judicial reasoning.

    Here's a slew of them saying so:
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/139828#.UQGNJ_JZCSr

    Kermit Roosevelt — University of Pennsylvania Law School

    “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.

    “This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  5. The main topic right now is gun control.

    Sheezzzz!

    Or, as we say in Québec: Fuckall!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You couldn't make stuff like this up.


    "In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people
    Lawsuit against Catholic Health Initiatives appealed to Colorado Supreme Court"

    http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people

    Talk about hypocrisy. Lawyers for a Catholic hospital are arguing that 7-month fetuses aren't 'persons'!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of the hypocritical Catholic Church:

      How the Vatican built a secret property empire using Mussolini's millions

      Funny how the Church never excommunicated a single Nazi but it excommunicated the nun Margaret McBride for allowing an abortion that was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

      Delete
  7. Predictable that the producers of this video chose a black man stereotype to up the pure evilness quotient for their target audience.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct, KW. Attempted race baiting is a tactic used so often by liberals that it's become quite predictable. The very post I'm replying to, for example.

      Tell me, is your self-parody intentional, or are you just that thickheaded?

      Delete
    2. Also predictable, the childish name calling and “I know you are, but what am I” response.

      -KW

      Delete
  8. The video, the D-list actor in said video, the blood-lusting Center For Reproductive Rights, and anti-life supporters as a whole are all being slammed in the comments section. Their arguments, if they can even be called arguments, are being ripped to shreds, and the video currently has a 23:1 dislike-to-like ratio. Awesome.

    It's nice to see that decent human beings still exist.

    ReplyDelete