Skip to comments.'ALL LIFE IS NOT EQUAL'
Posted on 01/26/2013 8:56:05 AM PST by jimluke01
First, on a personal note: Thank you, thank you and thank you, Mary Elizabeth Williams! What a glorious service youve done the pro-life cause. I know, thats not what you intended. But thats precisely what youve accomplished.
Did I say thank you?
In her jaw-dropping article, So what if abortion ends life? Williams a mainstream, though uncharacteristically honest pro-abort scribe for Salon.com has inexplicably broken from the Orwellian lefts ministerial script. In so doing, shes severally undermined the very cause for which she would gladly sacrifice (dismember alive that is) her very own daughter. A daughter, mind you, whom she coldly acknowledges to be a human life.
But enough with the pleasantries.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/all-life-is-not-equal/#4K87WfRLcjqFfocW.99
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
yeah well they think it is fine, they are total reprobates. watch this evil “celebration” of the 40th anniversary of legalized infanticide
So what if abortion ends life?
“At this point, what difference does it make?”
The Left is emboldened. They are not holding back. They think they have a blank check for creating the world of their dreams.
Liberals believes themselves superior to the common man.
Abortion is for the common man, and, for those rare occasions, where the elite choose to fornicate with the common folk.
Aborted babies are undesirable and have no chance to rise from the gutter of their common existence. After all, peasant children do not go to Harvard or Yale nor are they accepted into the best apartments in New York or LA, regardless of how much money they have.
Elite liberals are superior to the rest of us, hence, it makes no difference if the common man abort their children. If they grow up, they will be used as cannon fodder in our military or sacrificed in some other way for the benefit of the elite.
In the nineteenth century, powerful members of the Southern gentry had come to the conclusion that all lives were not equal, and used that as a rationalization to enslave fellow human beings.
That did not end well.
In the twentieth century, a gang of National Socialists came to the conclusion that all lives were not equal, and used that as a rationalization to exterminate human beings of Jewish, Slavic, and gypsy blood.
That did not end well.
In the twenty-first century, Ms. Williams and her ilk have come to the conclusion that all lives are not equal, and are using that as a rationalization to justify the destruction of the lives of pre-born human beings.
That will not end well either.
While I certainly can see how you might have reached such a conclusion given popular media portrayals and the state of public education, this is incorrect to the point of being laughable.
Slavery in one form or another had existed for all recorded history up to that point, with abolition sentiment slowly taking root among certain Protestant Christian groups in England, gradually spreading to some colonies and then states. There were slaves in every one of the original thirteen colonies thst became the first states. There were slaves in every one of the original states.
Outlawing slavery in the United States was a gradual thing, occurring over the course of early nationhood right into the nineteenth century, state by state.
The south as a region was far more agrarian and less densely populated. The institution of slavery was therefore much more difficult to abandon. However, I will point out to you for your edification that the self-same southern gentry you seem to view as some sort of evil force produced many of our Founders. Some freed their slaves. Some didn't.
Perpetuating ahistorical stereotypes on a forum that values traditional, Constitutional conservatism should be discouraged.
That statement was not made to imply that the acceptance of slavery originated with southern plantation owners, was limited to southern plantation owners, or was universal among Southerners in general - I’m well aware that significant regions in the South (most prominently the Appalachian regions) provided little support for the slave-holders.
And I’m well-aware that slavery has been a part of all of human history, that it is mentioned routinely in the Bible, and that it continues even today, most prominently in Muslim countries.
But like it or not, the price that was paid in this country for the sin of slavery was the blood shed in the Civil War (and yes, I realize state sovereignty and other larger issues were wrapped up in that sorry episode as well).
Decades of conflict over the toleration of slavery in the US came to a head with the election of Lincoln, and while there were many in the South who had little interest in slavery, and many who fought for the South who fought only for the the right of their states to manage their own affairs, to deny that the conflict hinged on the question of slavery would be just silly.
My point was (and is) that anytime one group of human beings decides that another group of human beings is less than human based on some externality (skin color, ancestry, stage of development) and uses that distinction as a basis of mistreatment, that sort of enterprise ends in disaster. If you can personify those responsible for that sort of travesty in the form of slavery in US history better than I have, great - go to it.
You framed your condemnation in terms of language written largely by those you condemn, Stosh. It’s not an ideal example for the point you sought to convey precisely because it is not nearly so a stark contrast as you depicted. Slave traders were New England shipping concerns. The north bought the goods produced by slave labor or profited via tariff for goods sold overseas. Slave owners themselves descended from bound men in some instances. The Constitutional language was for the most part penned by southern gentry, including the part about all men being created equal. If you would like to hold forth upon the seeming hypocrisy of that, you certainly would not be the first. But, again, as an example supporting the point you hoped to convey, it’s a poor one.
Reasonable points, and well-made.
Some arguments are readily reduced to bumper stick form, others - maybe not so much. I’d still argue that (whoever shares in the blame), there was a price to be paid for the acceptance of slavery, and in this country, that price was paid in rivers of blood.
And just as a side note, I most certainly didn’t mean my original formulation as a perpetuation of cheap stereotypes of Southerners - I spent the best years of my life in the Deep South, and if there’s any hope left for this country, that’s where I expect it’s likely to come from.
Thanks for the civility of your response.
Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail
UK Daily Mail | Januari 25 2013
Posted on 01/26/2013 8:52:21 AM PST by knighthawk
“Abortion is for the common man, and, for those rare occasions, where the elite choose to fornicate with the common folk.”
and for imperfect babies after all the libs want a master race.
All life is not equal.
All speech is not free (conservative talk radio = hate speech)
All protests are not valid (Tea Party = terrorists)
Liberals have been doing this for decades. WAKE UP!