Posted on 08/22/2010 11:52:06 AM PDT by LibWhacker
An 11-year-old albino girl from Swaziland was shot dead in front of her friends and then beheaded in what police believe was a ritual murder.
The child had been washing clothes and bathing at a river with friends and was returning home when she was grabbed by a man wearing a balaclava.
As her friends looked on, the man shot her in the back before dragging her away. Her headless body was found upriver a short time later.
The murder is the latest in a series of albino killings in Sub-Saharan Africa, where sufferers of the rare skin pigmentation condition are concentrated.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I don’t think you can STOP a woman from having an abortion just like you can’t stop a burgular from stealing. However, we have laws against stealing.
The first step would be outlawing abortion in all cases except for the LIFE of the mother.
“The first step would be outlawing abortion in all cases except for the LIFE of the mother.”
And if a woman breaks that law, what is the penalty?
Hank
That would be up to a judge to decide. However, it would take many years of stiff penalties for abortion doctors before you could come up with an appropriate punishment for women that broke this law. Women have been lied to and many now believe that they have a right to kill their offspring in their womb. They needed to be educated with the truth. The abortionists know better already.
“However, it would take many years of stiff penalties for abortion doctors before you could come up with an appropriate punishment for women that broke this law.”
So you believe the government ought to be involved in the practice of medicine, requiring doctors to report to the government what they do and don’t do. I guess you would have no concerns with Obama Care then.
See how principles work? You either believe in individual liberty, or you don’t. If you believe a government has the right to interefere in some medical procedures, you have no grounds for rejecting its interference in other medical procedures, or all medical procedures.
I you require private information between a doctor and patient to be reported to the government about some procedures you have no grounds for objecting to the government demanding reporting of all procedures.
The issue is not the morality of abortion, which is definitely immoral, but whether a government should legislate morality.
Hank
I am done with you.
Abortion is murder. The government has a right to protect the individual liberties of the human baby growing in the womb.
Being able to kill a child in the womb should not be legal and it doesn’t take away ANYONES individual liberties to protect that child. Just like it doesn’t take away a murderer’s individual liberties for murder to be against the law.
You are really in need of a course in logic.
BTW, abortion is not medicine. Abortion is murder.
And the Kenyan usurper wants us to look just like them.
Why am I not surprised to once again see you pushing abortion; all the while hiding behind Clintonian double-speak by saying you believe it's immoral but don't want it to be illegal.
Here is something that you and your liberal/libertarian ilk have NEVER understood and that is that governments have ALWAYS legislated morality, in fact that is one of the reasons for their existence. At their core, laws against murder are nothing more than legislated morality and such laws have been around since laws were first codified (i.e. the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi).
Here is what our Founding Fathers had to say about the right to life and the legislation of morality (added emphasis is mine):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- The Declaration of Independence________________________________
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
-- The Constitution of the United States
“Why am I not surprised to once again see you pushing abortion ...”
Why am I not surprised to once again see you slandering people. You know I never “pushed” abortion, and have always been opposed to it. I doubt the honesty and integrity of anyone who cannot make a point without telling a lie.
I thought Christians did not lie. As a matter of fact they don’t. What does that make you, “bearere of false witness?”
Hank
LOL, you’re an idiot.
It is more vile to be betrayed and killed by a parent than a stranger.
*********************
Excellent post.
I thought Christians did not lie. As a matter of fact they don’t. What does that make you, “bearer of false witness?”
Perhaps you missed the rest of what I wrote and by that I mean the part you replaced with an ellipsis. Here my complete sentence again for you:
Why am I not surprised to once again see you pushing abortion; all the while hiding behind Clintonian double-speak by saying you believe it's immoral but don't want it to be illegal.
You see, I acknowledged from the start that you claim to think it's immoral. The problem is that nearly all abortion supporters (the Clintons, Pelosi, Romney, etc.) CLAIM to oppose abortion, but they also oppose any laws restricting it. Opposition to something is meaningless if a person believes that nothing should be done to prevent it. You have a long history of claiming to oppose abortion, all the while opposing any laws restricting it.
**************************
Good question. It is, after all, murder. Is it not?
Do you believe it is immoral to blaspheme God?
Do you believe it is immoral to reject God’s offer of salvation?
Do you believe it is immoral to lie.
Hank
“Good question. It is, after all, murder. Is it not?”
No! It is not murder.
just another chapter in the Africa as Garden of Eden saga
and how some were ripped from that veritable paradise by evil subhumans not from the circling calypso mothership
i’m just learning
It’s the intentional killing of a human being. What else would you call it?
Yes. Do you believe it is immoral to reject God’s offer of salvation?
Unwise, but not necessarily immoral. Do you believe it is immoral to lie?
Generally.
Nevertheless, I still fail to see what this has to do with your claim that you believe abortion is illegal coupled with your opposition to any laws restricting it.
A person who opposes laws is typically called an ANARCHIST.
I do notice that you seem to be avoiding the point I made in post #108 that governments have ALWAYS legislated morality.
Do you believe that there should be laws agains murder? After all, this is a MORAL ISSUE.
Do you believe that there should be laws agains rape? After all, this is a MORAL ISSUE.
Do you believe that there should be laws agains incest? After all, this is a MORAL ISSUE.
If abortion is not murder, what is it?
Is it simply the removal of a "clump of cells"?
If this is the case then why do YOU claim it is immoral?
***************************
Yes. Limited government is ideal, but no government is chaos. The Founding Fathers believed in limited government, not anarchy:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~The Declaration of Independence
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.