Posted on 05/16/2015 4:56:00 AM PDT by blueyon
These tweets are literally posted one on top the other in pro-abortion Democrat Ted Deutch’s Twitter feed: ***(Check out tweets at link)*** The practice of animal crushing is a sexual fetish of the sickest kind.
About his introduction of the PACT Act, Rep. Deutch wrote:
Too many animals are subjected to unfathomable cruelty and abuse, out of no fault of their own and no recourse for protection. These inhumane acts have no place in our society.
House Foreign AffairsYet, incomprehensibly, particularly by comparison – and on the very same day as he introduced his animal cruelty bill – Deutch, pictured right, blew off the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act as a Republican stunt in his floor speech opposing the 20-wk abortion ban
(Excerpt) Read more at jillstanek.com ...
Something I’ve noticed. In comments on cases of animal cruelty, people react with much greater anger than in cases of cruelty to humans.
I'm of the mind that if, poking a hole into an unborn baby's skull, sans anesthesia, and sucking its brains out is good enough for innocent babies, then it should surely be good enough for convicted murderers....
It would be entertaining (in the sickest of ways) to propose such a method of execution and have the baby-murderers try to explain why it's OK for the innocent and not for the truly vile.
For the most part, those who are pro-abortion are adamantly opposed to the death penalty. The convicted murderer doesn’t “deserve” to die but the innocent baby does. Welcome to leftist “thinking” 101.
I’ve noticed actress Wendy Malik who is very prominent in anti-animal cruelty ads is also a big abortion on demand proponent. I wonder if the contradiction ever occurs to her?
So a pregnant woman shouldn't harm her unborn child by smoking, but at any moment the woman should be free to "terminate" i.e. kill her unborn child for whatever reason she chooses. Makes great sense to me. /s
I recently made the same distinction on another thread some time ago. I was insulted because I made the connection as is done here in the original article. One Freeper’s response was “Don’t be an idiot. Idiots can only process one thought at a time. Can you only process one thought at a time?”
Absolutely brilliant suggestion.
More and more -the feminists display outright hatred and hostility towards the unborn.
Calling them parasites - describing their existence as an attack on the woman’s body.
It’s really sick stuff.
The whole pro-abortion rationale is built on lies and contradictions.
When they are glaringly obvious, as in this instance, we should point out the contradiction. Usually, there is a forum or comment section following articles—use them.
I’ve noticed that abortion advocates are not afraid to post their bilge in public places. No matter how egregious the particular practice under discussion is, they are there to gloat and celebrate the fact that another innocent baby died for no reason.
Every pro-life person needs to be unafraid to counter this bilge. A contradiction such as this—where someone who is trumpeting how much he cares about the suffering of animals then displays his utter disregard for babies subjected to horrific pain for no reason—is just begging to be highlighted.
Wow - excellent teachable moment:
Woman 1 (upon noticing that pregnant woman 2 is smoking/drinking):
“You know, it’s not good for the baby if you smoke!”
Woman 2: “Uh, no worries - I’m scheduled to have an abortion tomorrow.”
Woman 1: “Oh, Ok. No problem then.”
Doublethink
Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[
Maybe we could fool them into changing their minds, if we all had bumper stickers that read, “The ASPCF says, ‘Be Kind To Fetuses. Prevent Fetal Cruelty’”
Perhaps we just need to approach them on a different level.
Doublethink
Brought to you by Government School education.
“Something I’ve noticed. In comments on cases of animal cruelty, people react with much greater anger than in cases of cruelty to humans.”
I have to confess this is something I’ve noticed in myself. while I hate the thought of human suffering, I have a more visceral response to animal cruelty. I have never been able to watch the images of people jumping from the Twin Towers, for instance.I also cannot watch the ads for rescuing abandoned animals, but my reaction to these ads is more emotional. I have no explanation for this and have often wondered why this is the case. I don’t care less, I just react differently.
My facebook page profile picture is of a Unborn baby with the caption “Pretend like I am a tree and save me”.........so yes, you have a great idea :)
“Something I’ve noticed. In comments on cases of animal cruelty, people react with much greater anger than in cases of cruelty to humans.”
I have to confess this is something I’ve noticed in myself. while I hate the thought of human suffering, I have a more visceral response to animal cruelty. I have never been able to watch the images of people jumping from the Twin Towers, for instance.I also cannot watch the ads for rescuing abandoned animals, but my reaction to these ads is more emotional. I have no explanation for this and have often wondered why this is the case. I don’t care less, I just react differently.
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize an emotional reaction is not a valid basis for a coherent policy. :)
Of course. I award myself a 100% conservative rating. Lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.