Replies

"If you examine my remarks, you will see that I neither argued for nor against abortion." opinionater ... I don't have a problem with reading comprehension. I read your comments as defending the 'status quo'. That makes you an apologist (as in apologia) for the holocaust running 1.2 million serial killings annually.

You want calm in the face of a holocaust, reason in the face of insane inhumane slaughter. I'd say that reveals a lot about you and your perspective. Are you so dead spiritually that you have not the ability to be outraged at the evil slaughter of innocent alive sensing children purposely pulled from the protection and life support of the placenta each built for their earliest ages of their inidividual lifetime? Take your calm and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine ... I'm not the least bit interested in your brand of reason, in your dissembled serving of rational. Readers can easily see your 'reason' is aimed at an agenda laden rationale which sustains the current kill process.

Perhaps you are so dense that you do not comprehend the service you offer to the holocaust of infant slaughter. I don't intend to give you the benefit of doubt after reading your smarmy inferences to other posters (looking like purposeful diversions, to me). I accept the moniker of zealot. I am one, where the endangered little ones are discussed.

The democrat party wants so badly for the American people to disconnect the democrat party from their service to the abortion slaughter. Where will the democrats turn when the American people awaken to the evil the democrat party has chosen to serve in order to empower their vote potential through the abortion blood of innocent alive children?

Fifteen years ago, perhaps there was room for calm deliberation of the abortion on demand blight. With the democrat party purposeful defense of partial birth infanticide (and fetal tissue harvesting for profit), the time for unemotional discussion has passed. The democrat party is now purposely supporting and defending an evil so heinous it must garner outrage in order to strip bare the rhetoric of dissembling people like you who try so hard to obfuscate the facts and divert the discussion.

Your technique of diversion is not obscure at FR. We see flourishes like yours often, with serial killing apologists sneakily addressing the emotion or 'color' of pro-life posters' comments. Jill Stanek has seen with her own eyes the evil you assert must be considered with calm, must be discussed rationally, must be addressed as if the process has some redeeming quality that you can uncover if only there were no outrage over the slaughter. That smacks of the democrat's desire to wiggle out from behind their purposeful support and defense of this holocaust which has gotten them so many fear and hate driven votes.

There is nothing reasonable about partial birth infanticide for profit and votes. There should not be calm to be found when the horrific truth about politicial manipulation of life and death is exposed. What would we Americans be if such an horrible slaughter for empowerment of politicians activates only calm discussion?

If a person wants the current slaughter to continue, calm disconnected discussion aides the status quo. If the heinous truth of this slaughterfest promoted by the democrat party garners only rational debate, the hearts behind the debate are dead to the truth of what the democrat party has so consciously promoted and defended with obfuscation, manipulation, and open lies even on the floor of the U.S. Senate!

Serial killing of alive, growing individual human beings is not something to contemplate with standoffish calm. The promoters of abortion on demand have too long succeeded in focusing America's attention upon the woman giving life support while completely disenfranchising the alive growing child because they support the unopposed killing of those disenfranchised beings. Imagine what would have been accomplished regarding the heinous practice of slavery had the nation bowed to your premise of only calm, rational, reasoned debate.

Why change a societal behavior feature if there is no outrage or disgust quotient connected to the behavior? If a behavior is benign, it begs no change or intrusion in a Constitutional Republic. As long as your ilk can divert attention from the aliveness of the little ones being slaughtered on demand, there is only a benign behavior, a supreme court granted right not found in the Constitution. BUT those beings killed at such an horrific rate are alive individuals! If a behavior is wrong, and causes the continued slaughter of 1.2 individual live fellow humans, THAT deserves outrage to this ol' boy, especially when there are sneaky apologists cruising discussion sites trying to divert and defuse the emotional discussions. It is revealing that abortion apologists cannot agree with the necessity to see the horrible truth because it bespeaks their desire for the status quo of 1.2 million serial killings per year to continue.

I had to check in on this thread because I noticed my computer smoking as I passed by...

The "click" that told me that rational discourse is pointless was the moment the Democratic Party wedded itself, not merely to abortion, but to "partial birth" which as we know in many cases is performed on the table outside the womb. Once you have clarity as to what the procedure is, you have clarity also who these people are.

No one here could do such a thing, under any circumstances, with a gun to our heads we couldn't do it. Even those among us who are pro-abortion, could not themselves, with their own hands, kill a child in such a fasion or any fashion for that matter.

We are dealing here with people who can.

We are dealing here with people who can and do, on an assembly line basis, and do it for money day after day. On that, the power that they hold over the powerless, they build their careers and their fortunes.

We are dealing with people who have sold their souls already. And we are dealing with a Party that has made that the litmus test. There was once what we might have called the "baby-killing wing" of the Democratic Party; but no longer, the baby-killers have taken control completely and if you have a conscience, if you reject the slaughter of the powerless by the all-powerful, by the walking dead who are only powerful in the presence of the totally powerless, if you reject that then your future in the Democratic Party is at an end.

The abortionists present their case on libertarian grounds that no government should have the power to control a woman's body; no government should have the power to force a woman to bear a child.

There is an attraction to that argument if you believe in freedom. But it ignores the fact that, in this transaction it is not the woman who is powerless before the all-powerful, it is the child she carries. He, alone, faces an industry that exists only to snuff him out, and he has only his mom to protect him. If she won't do it he is dead.

I am often cold when the subject of abortion comes up. I compare the million abortions and the million new immigrants and I say, why get upset if the Democrats commit suicide and replace themselves with Mexicans who believe in God, believe in life, believe in families; its a good bargain I often say. But the infant doesn't deserve death.

No, you can't force a woman to have a child, you can't force her to care for it, you can't force anyone to do anything. All we can do is keep flying the flag, keep pushing for people to think before they turn their babies and their souls over to the soulless who have made a business of it, having lost their own souls they must feed on the souls of others.