Who was she? Apparently the angel of death. "Kill your babies!" is her new slogan.
Posted on 06/14/2024 12:15:14 AM PDT by Morgana
This week’s issue of The Economist, the world’s most respected news magazine, features the iconic Rosie-the-Riveter under the headline “Meet America’s Most Dynamic Political Movement”.
Intriguing. What’s old Rosie up to now, 80 years after D-Day?
It turns out that The Economist is touting abortion activism -- not just as the most dynamic, but as the noblest, bravest, most altruistic, most democratic movement in the US in 2024. Its leader (editorial) describes it as: “a revolt of millions of Americans who think government has little business inserting itself into private decisions … [a] movement [that] will restore or fortify the freedom to choose.”
Mercator never has and never will support abortion. But it has been debated for half a century and there are arguments on both sides. In such a controversial issue, the business of the mainstream media is to report on both and to assess them in its editorial columns.
What The Economist has done is to step over the red line separating opinion from propaganda. At least on the topic of abortion, it has become more like China’s Global Times or Russia’s RT News.
The difference between the two lies in acknowledging the possibility, however remote, that the other guys might be right. And this The Economist does not do. A classic definition of “propaganda” notes that “to maximize effect, [the propagandist] may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda.”
In its cover story, The Economist ignores completely the possibility that there is another side to the story. Those heroic women with clipboards collecting signatures for abortion amendments are foot soldiers battling mysterious aliens. We learn nothing about how many of these malignant beings exist (at least half of America), or why they oppose abortion (human rights), or whether they are women (half are), or whether they are the privileged elite (the poorer and less educated they are, the more likely they are to be pro-life).They have been cancelled.
The magazine’s lack of curiosity is scandalous.
The Economist became just another unreadable globalist Gaia worshiping yurp rag over 20 years ago. The last time they endorsed a Republican for President was Dubya....in 2000. I stopped reading it sometime around 2002-2003.
I subscribed in the late 1970s.
I thought it was brilliantly written, and I learned more about Classical Liberalism, European history, business, and technology, than I learned in the previous twenty years.
For me, The Economist started falling apart in the mid 1990s, at almost the same moment that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal started claiming that Hispanics were natural Conservatives, aggressively endorsed mass Amnesty, and aggressively endorsed Open Borders for immigrant labor.
1995-2000 was a political horror movie for Main Stream Conservative publications.
The Economist, the Editorial Page of the WSJ, and National Review, all moved sharply to the Center and the Center-Left.
Who was she? Apparently the angel of death. "Kill your babies!" is her new slogan.
I concur. During Dubya’s first term, the editorial staff took a sharp turn to the left. Their gushing support for “carbon schemes” was the final straw for me and I let my subscription lapse in the early 2000s as well. Every now and again I would flip through one in the airport and it only reinforced my decision to stop reading. They’re educated lunatics promoting the same bad ideas that dominate mainstream media - they just write for a well-read, mature audience.
Even if someone you invited into your car or house secretly brings a child with them without your consent, then you simply do not have the right to exterminate that life, which is not a lethal threat to you. In some states, you cannot even shoot suspected burglars unless they manifestly endanger lives, much less a lost vulnerable child who finds a way into your house since you left the door open.
And even more unjustifiable is to kill a child resulting from your choice to engage in a behavior which most naturally produces offspring.
And 98% of abortions are due to reasons other than rape, incest:
And a study of approx. 64,000 out of 3,664,000 births in 2021 found that only 1.7% may be due to ectopic pregnancies, and with a total of approx 4% being due to health reasons:
"Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6] Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7] Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8] - Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute (and accommodating doctors can use "Other physical health concerns" liberally).
So in order to justify the “pro-choice” position - which is denying the subject of extermination any choice in the matter, and is contrary to the normal course of nature - then one must deny that what is inside the womb is a human person (unless pro-choice promoters are willing to be classed as murderers, which they are).
And thus the pro anti-infant choice promoter must justify their basis for determining that.
Will it be the ability to function on its own, though it rather shortly will be able to? If so, then you had best not be laid up for a while if needing life-sustaining support.
And of course, most aged in nursing homes could thus be turned into sources of protein.
Will it be based upon location, meaning outside the womb killing the infant would be murder, but before that it is open game?
Or will the unborn human life be valued at least as much as protected migratory birds are, for due to the procreating nature of the egg of a protected migratory bird and the value placed upon it, then crushing the life of such is outlawed.
The fact is that, as a 1.6 birth rate testifies, children overall are increasingly not desired nor seen as needed, or at least not if they require much sacrifice, while typically spoiling the one or maybe two children parents have on average, and with children being often replaced by pets, which are seen as more worthy of care and cost.
Meanwhile, fornication costs the country greatly.
Biblically, and as a Christian, you either live a celibate, continent life in devotion and service to God and to others, (1 Corinthians 7:32–34) or you prayerfully marry an eligible spouse of the opposite sex, for life. And together, in joint devotion to God and His word, you have all the children God will give you, with temperance being the only birth control. (Genesis 1:28; Psalms 127:3; Psalms 128:3–5; 1 Corinthians 9:25)
And in which stable family the children usually have a few siblings, with whom, as with parents, they can learn to share, communicate, resolve conflicts, and delay gratification, and overcome difficulties, thus better preparing them for life in this world.
And for service in which God will reward in the next, by His grace, for those who effectually believe on the Lord of all, in addition to salvation which is a pure gift, on God/Christ’s expense, by His sinless shed blood, and to His glory.
Here's your real problem Daniel. You don't understand the difference between trespassing and rape.
Women aren't buildings or cars. Women are people. And using a *person’s body* without their consent is rape, not trespassing.
Every time you use the trespassing analogy, you are admitting that you don't see women as people.
Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Here's real problem here in your attempted deflection, Amy. you still don't understand the difference between unlawful trespassing versus some lost vulnerable child innocently ending up on your property, and thus how they are not to be killed, nor btwn rape victims (which approx 1% I never mentioned), versus a child being in your body DUE to your choices/actions of consensual sexual relation - despite knowing the risks! (
And [it is] who you justify killing.
And rather than me admitting that you don't see women as people (due to your limited idea of analogy), it remains that it is You who refuses to see the unborn as people, which you desperately attempt to justify murdering.
Again, I think it is best to just give this up. The more you attempt to defend your infanticide here, then the more it becomes an argument against it.
However, let me say that I am not angry at you, though I do contend against your arguments. And may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” ((2 Timothy 2:25)
.Oct 23 It doesn’t matter if the entry is “unlawful” or if it’s a “ lost vulnerable child.” Women are still people, not buildings, and I still don’t have to “justify” a person’s right to not have their body used without their consent. Even if she had consensual sex. Even if someone will die.
You’re responding to the arguments you’ve memorized, not to the things I’m actually saying.
Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Now this is becoming irrational. How can you compare a child living within her body, due to her choices - and without the consent of the occupant - knowing of the risk of pregnancy, with someone who uses her body without her consent, as if this was like a case of being bought as a slave? “Property rights?”
Her “consent” was that of engaging in an activity knowing the risk, and she has no justification for making herself out to be a victim and murdering the actual “victim.”
I ask you for photos of your foster children and organ donation scars, and instead you give me quotes from your bible. That really says it all.
I never knew what photos you referred to, but I no longer have receipts toward the support of foster children, though I provide free repair work for bikes, and dispense food (pregnant women may go first) , and I at 71 I am willing to risk my life today to save my neighbors, But I would not murder my organs which are to be used for good.
Yet even if your attempted deflection of assigning a hypocrite label to me worked, for that also fails to prevail as justification for murdering the child in a mother's wombs, which is due to her consent to couple with another person, who was once in a womb himself, and shares responsibility of support.
Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide. And which responses I am saving, perhaps to post elsewhere, properly attributed. Thanks.
But I would still fix your bike, etc.
Oct 23 People have the right to not be pregnant without consent. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Even if someone will die. But you are certainly to be lauded for providing food to the needy.
“Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide”
I have no idea what this means.
Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Which is the same old refuted polemic you tried before, which is no more valid than it was then.
People do not have the right to not realize consequences of actions they consented to. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the risk of pregnancy. and moral responsibility to such is to be consented to. . Especially if someone will die. For no one has the right to escape responsibility for the consequences of actions they chose, which risk they choose to take.
And when the consequences involve life, then responsibility does not mean taking innocent life, but caring for it.
And thus it remains that the one quote from the Bible is more (in number) than any justification for murder that you have or can provide.
In conclusion, while I affirm both the unborn and the mother as human persons, and who thus are to be respected, cared for, etc. and with rights to such.
But as such, then insomuch as they are morally cognizant and capable, then such are responsible for consequences of their volitional actions.
And since the unborn are not morally responsible for their conception, location, nor needs, but are (in the cases at issue) the result of persons choosing to engage in actions, knowing of the risks, then they are not victims, but perpetrators, which are morally responsible for the care of the unborn, which is the “victim” party.
In addition, even though you do not like analogies which works against you via correspondence of principles, just as in the case of a lost vulnerable innocent child who seeks finds shelter in your house the door being opened, then you are obliged to provide care for such until another can. Even if you did not invite them.
For children of any age are not cars.
But again, may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Good bye.
https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2023/11/response-to-quora-post-im-currently-in.html
The funny thing is, they’ll promote the Gaia Worship claiming the “need” to reduce carbon emissions.
They’ll support abortion.
But then they’ll turn around and support mass migration - into White Western countries naturally. Ummm gosh, isn’t the reduced birth rate due in no small part to abortion? If you take people who are leading a virtuous low carbon lifestyle (by being poor and living in 3rd world chitholes for example) and bring them into the oh so “wasteful” West with its high carbon lifestyles, aren’t you in fact harming Earth Mother Gaia?????
Absolutely zero self awareness on their part that these Leftist shibboleths are directly in conflict with one another......Typical. They just support whatever their professional class, Gaia Worshiping, Globalist masters tell them to support with zero thought.
It was never a constitutional right and the federal government must stay out of it as dictated by the US Constitution.
Bad economics to kill off workers and purchasers. How much more can a fat lesbian eat?! Ho much clothing can she wear?!
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.