Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood Scared by Tea Party Success
Posted on 09/23/2010 3:09:13 PM PDT by topher
click here to read article
Alamo-Girl is one of my favorites, logos is too but is also a good friend.
Funny story that logos told me, I didn’t remember the thread but logos does. The thread was titled something like “Who is your favorite Freeper?” Alamo-Girl came in first, logos came in second. He still remembers that.
Thank you oh so very much, dear Jean S!
I've only posted on one of those threads. I was always afraid I would forget someone or my list would get too long. lol
I remember that thread. The results surprised me because I mostly did support work and there are so many brilliant correspondents on Free Republic who deserved recognition.
Laz would probably win :-)
“Yeah, tens of thousands are marched into US abortion clinics and treated the same way Auschwitz internees were”
Tens of thousands?
Try millions. 1 million a year in America.
What do you think happens to the children? Do you think they get a choice? Or do they not count as people?
I think you just asked the pivotal question.
As a libertarian one doubts that Eagle Eye views any one of these infants as people, inspite of their abilities to react to and to attempt to flee the device designed to rip them limb from limb. As anyone who has ever viewed the film "silent Scream" knows, the infant senses the imminent harm and attempts to flee the D&C.
Daniel Pearl gets his head cut off and we say the people who did it are terrorists who practice terrorism.
PP sticks forceps into an infant's head and sucks his brains out, but because Eagle Eye, the "libertarian" Eagle Eye, that is, doesn't consider the infant a person, because of supposed terms of legal art and finesse it doesn't count as terrorism.
Eagle Eye's definition of "terrorism" is conveniently too narrow.
The Princeton dictionary (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) defines terrorism as: "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature"
The ideology which calculates the violence is just another legal euphemism called "Freedom of Choice."
Abortion is the profitable, legal killing of human life.
Yes, I’ve been reading the thread and it really strikes me the same as it did BenKenobi. I understand and respect your commitment to precise definitions, but consider the mapping of roles here. The equivalence is not between the victims of Auschwitz and the mothers who enter abortion clinics, but between the victims of Auschwitz and the unborn victims of the abortion doctors. They are indeed “marched into” the abortion clinics as completely helpless victims, not by SS in gleaming helmets, but by a motley crew of actors who are the moral inferiors of the SS, i.e., the I-don’t-want-to-be-a-daddy-so-kill-the-baby boyfriends, the its-a-subhuman-so-I-can-kill-it mothers, the self-appointed women-must-be-free-to-choose-so-kill-the-baby escorts, the I-can’t-take-care-of-you-both-so-kill-the-baby parents, and on and on. Death at Auschwitz was arguably more dignified. At least there was a real war, driven by competing visions of some grand utopia. But modern abortionists kill for mere money, and the supporting cast kills for mere inconvenience.
As to a proper definition of terrorism, you are betting the farm on a technical difference while overlooking an essential similarity. From the perspective of the victim, there is no meaningful difference between death by a politically motivated terrorist act and death by murder in the womb. As shown in the film “Silent Scream,” and as supported by a larger body of modern research, a child living comfortably in mommy’s womb experiences pain, terror, and death in a place that had been safe for them.
As for the element of coercion, I will grant you your technical difference, in that the typical coercive objective of a bombing or a YouTube beheading is to use fear to condition the survivors for some political effect. However, even in that difference there is still a strong and legitimate thread of similarity, in that we who are the survivors of abortion are indeed being conditioned by observation to devalue life, which effect is essential to the Nietzschean political paradigm that might makes right, the vile core of leftist ideology.
And it is fair to say that those among us with a more tender conscience may well experience a coercive fear as a byproduct of this conditioning, depending on our individual vulnerability. It is reasonable to fear a government that can declare by fiat that a particular group of humans is subhuman and therefore expendable without due process. Is that not the lodestar of the keepers of Auschwitz? And is that not perhaps the real reason all these good folk contending with you are so incensed with your position? To any sensitive, intuitive mind, the essential similarity totally eclipses the technical difference between murder by terrorism and murder by abortion, and it would help the conversation to recognize the genuine difficulty in making that separation without falling into the trap of unnecessarily personal critiquery.
How much of the unborn infant’s alive body do you think the mother made in her womb? How much pain and misery is too much to be tolerable for your calculus? What value has the human soul to your calculus? Do you even believe these alive unborn children are yet fellow human beings? ... I suspect you enjoy being disgusting on a conservative forum.
Libertarians are merely users of conservatism, not believers in conservatism.
While I’ve always supported the Tea Party, this makes me want to travel the 50 miles their demonstrations are from me, to join them.
Over 50 million innocent unborn babies, killed by abortion since Roe.