Posted on 06/21/2009 8:12:30 AM PDT by presidio9
Last winter, the Boston College security policeman phoned me to warn me that someone had placed a sign on my car in the parking garage that suggested I might be in danger. It called me a bunch of foul names, including "baby killer!"
I have just returned to Jersey City after a year at Boston College writing a book on Rev. Robert F. Drinan, S.J., the B.C. law school dean elected to Congress from Massachusetts in 1970 who campaigned against the Vietnam War and called for the impeachment of President Nixon on the basis of his illegal bombing of Cambodia. Drinan was elected five times, but was forced out of office in 1980 by Pope John Paul II, largely because of his support for legalized abortion.
The anonymous vandal in the Boston garage had no idea whose car it was. He or she seems to have been enraged by the rear bumper sticker, put in place during the presidential campaign, which read: "CATHOLIC DEMOCRATS/Blessed Are the Peacemakers." In his/her warped mind, since I was voting for Barack Obama, I must be the kind of fellow who kills babies.
Somehow this rhetoric has made its way into the abortion fracas. I have to call it a fracas, since it certainly is not a civil discussion nor a dialogue. A letter to the editor in the latest Brooklyn Tablet, the Catholic diocesan newspaper, calls President Obama a "smooth-talking baby killer."
The term has become the verbal equivalent of that four-letter obscenity angry people blurt out when they can't think of anything
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
LMAO!
***********************
Unfortunately, there are other forums in which that would be not only acceptable, but encouraged.
I don't know, even the DUmmies and KosCommies typically mimic the "I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't impose my beliefs on another" line.
But then, any number would be of concern.
The only place where there is “debate” concerning abortion is in the weak minds of those ghouls wanting to continue the wholesale slaughter of the innocent unborn.
Abortion is the murder of an innocent, end of debate.
mrmeangenes says, "God gave us all free choice, and I am not arrogant enough to insert myself into the relationship between a woman and her Maker - much as I might dislike her choice."So any choice a women makes is her choice alone? Murder of an unborn child, murder of a born alive child maybe? Murder of a husband? A neighbor? Arson? Where do you draw the line? More important, where does society draw the line? And why are women privileged and not men in this moral free fire zone you want to postulate?
********************
It really is that simple.
Excellent post, narses.
And the child? Where is their choice?
:) You are very kind, thank you.
Excellent post!
“And the child? Where is their choice?”
That is the natural question. Reality check, the ‘choice’ ends up being between a LIVE BIRTH and a DEAD BABY, right? Isn’t that the ‘choice’ that gets defended as “pro-choice”?
We might also ask what about God but let us wait until that NATURAL questions are dealt with before we venture above nature into the super-natural, shall we?
bump!
We might also ask what about God but let us wait until that NATURAL questions are dealt with before we venture above nature into the super-natural, shall we?
Precisely, there are plenty of things about the God's Will that we don't understand, whether or not it is okay to kill innocent human beings IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
The belief that it is wrong to try to dissuade someone from committing the mortal sin of taking human life is patently absurd.
The belief that it is wrong to try to dissuade someone from committing the mortal sin of taking human life is patently absurd.
**********************
Well said, wagglebee.
Mr. meangenes says that he has left, but I still want to chime in on a couple of particularly egregious pieces of sophistry.
Unfortunately, liberals have had great success with these against decent people who weren’t ready for them. Here’s my take on how to reply when a libtard whips them out.
“God gave us all free choice, and I am not arrogant enough to insert myself into the relationship between a woman and her Maker - much as I might dislike her choice.”
God did not give us the freedom to kill innocent people. There can never be a legitimate “choice” to kill an innocent person. When such a killing is deliberate, the law refers to it as murder…except when the person in question is in the prenatal stages of human development.
“Conservative values ?? ;When did trying -via harassment, intimidation, and occasional murder- to force your viewpoint on others become “conservative” ?”
The punctuation is almost as lousy as the logic.
This argument rests solely on the deliberate conflation of means with ends. Setting theology aside for the moment, the means by which leftism is fought and the worldview of the fighters are two different realms. And yes, I know that evil means are not legitimate even in pursuit of noble ends. However, the left constantly bawls that any means used to oppose them are evil, whether that is true or not. This sometimes makes it difficult to see whether or not they have a point.
Most of the time, they don’t.
When libtards lobby for a law—for instance, a law regarding endangered species or the prohibition of chlorofluorocarbons (Practice saying that word until it rolls easily off your tongue. That alone can knock a libtard off balance.) —this is called “the democratic process.” When their opponents lobby for a law, this is “forcing your viewpoint on others.”
All legislation consists of forcing our viewpoints on others. If we weren’t doing that, we wouldn’t need a law.
If hypocrisy is an issue, it is true that the left has made a practice of using harassment, intimidation, and more-than-occasional murder to achieve its goals.
I’m sick to death of the “her choice” argument.
Her “choice” is simple. Avoid getting pregnant or relinquish your right to choose for nine months, because there is no choice any more. There is another Homosapien involved who has new rights above and beyond her “feelings”. Because short of the life and death situation (not I’m not using ‘health’ because that is arbitrary) it’s really about how a woman “feels” and not an actual choice. Who gives a rat’s behind what she does with “her body”. She can cut off an arm for all I care. BUT as a member of a civilized society, we need to protect the Homosapien inside her who has no “choice”.
At the end of that nine months, choose.
Keep him/her or adoption.
There is no choice for nine months and this should be as simple as a dog who doesn’t eat her pups.
Take God out of the mix for all I’m concerned. It’s not a choice about whether we believe in God or not but whether we are better than animals or not. If not than really, we don’t want to go there.
Last I checked, Free Republic was still pro-life. I don’t understand why you’ve been allowed to blatantly promote abortion. Hasn’t anyone notified the moderators?
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.