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 ...
As was I. FR is must be a little touchy tonite.
“One million babies per year are aborted ...”
From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition:
“baby: an extremely young child; especially : infant; an extremely young animal; the youngest of a group”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby
You can no more “abort” babies than you can abort grandfathers. Babies are already born.
Good grief! I’m wasting my time.
Hank
“This is nicely worded. It however doesn’t represent the reality of abortion. She didn’t decide not to deliver a child. She decided to have the child murdered in her womb.”
I regard abortion in almost all cases a great moral mistake and oppose it on those grounds (just as I oppose homosexual practices, for example), but it is not my business (or anyone else’s) to impose by force on others my moral views, so long as their practices are no direct threat to me, my property, or anyone else’s.
Your obfuscation of plain English, in which murder only applies to the killing of another already born human being belies your real motives to put over an agenda to control other people’s lives by force and to promote that agenda by means of language intended to incite emotional reactions. It is both dishonest and evil.
Hank
>> Anyone who can equate the killing and beheading of an eleven-year old girl with abortion is as morally repugnant ...
If we all agree about the value and importance of the 11 year old’s life, where does that leave you regarding the killing of nascent human life?
The equivalence is legitimate - though, it may not be pertinent to the crime of witchcraft.
Also, a woman’s decision to kill the unborn child is not a choice that only affects the woman. Is the father irrelevant? Is the child’s life irrelevant? Are the concerns of the siblings relevant? Grandparents?
It is more vile to be betrayed and killed by a parent than a stranger.
Obviously, you don’t regard children in the womb as human. I do. There is nothing dishonest or evil about it. To end the life of another human being on purpose is murder.
So if babies are already born, with what are women pregnant?
At least I suspect that authorities in Swaziland will go after this murderer. Here in the U.S., our authorites give their sanction and the full force of their protection to abortionists who kill far more children in any typical morning at the office than the murderer in this story likely has in his entire life.
“Your obfuscation of plain English, in which murder only applies to the killing of another already born human”
The current law may regard murder as killing of another ALREADY born human. However, plain English and COMMON sense tells me that a preborn baby is a human being.
“so long as their practices are no direct threat to me, my property, or anyone else’s.”
The ‘practice’ of abortion is a direct threat to the baby that is killed. I have no desire to control anyone else’s life. However if their decisions are trampling the freedom’s of another then I have a moral obligation to oppose it. You may not want a child in the womb to have rights but they do. The rights come from God, the same place you got yours. The state is infringing on those rights with legal abortion.
Anyone who can equate the killing and beheading of an eleven-year old girl with abortion is as morally repugnant as any African witch doctor, only less forgivable
I will assume that you forgot the sarcasm tag.....no one, with an iota of intellegence would not equate the murder of an eleven year old with the murder of a six month old. A dead girl is a dead girl, 1 2 3 4 5 6 why does it matter how old she is???.Oh guess what...if you want to kill an eleven year old, you have to do it yourself...if you want to abort your child, you hire someone else to do it.....that makes it a hell of a lot easier, but the result is exactly the same, a dead girl......pathetic
“Your argument is flawed. Evil is NOT determined by the threat to society.”
I never said that evil is determined by the threat to society. (Good grief, I’m an independent individualist and regard all “social” views as collectivist and anti-human.)
The threat is only to individuals within a society, and no woman who has an abortion is such a threat. She’s to be pitied, not condemned. Funny, it is always “Christians” who are first to condemn such women. So much for mercy and forgiveness, heh!?
Now what do you mean by, “the atmosphere that allows abortion to continue in this country?” Do you think it is laws?
The atmosphere that allows abortions to continue is the atmosphere that teaches that individuals are not responsible for thier own lives and choices, that all they have to do is obey some set of rules and regulations, some government’s or some God’s, and everything is OK. They don’t need to find out what the truth is, what being a human being really is, why pleasure can never be an end in itself, that everything in life of value has to be earned, and whatever one has in life that is not earned will ultimately destroy them.
Sorry, your argument is wrong. Find some way for the government to use force to prevent women from having abortions, and you’ll only force women to perform that evil in much more devastating ways. You cannot make people righteous by law, Honey.
Hank
What exactly would you call what they do to the baby before it is removed from the womb? A spontaneous abortion by definition is when a pregnant women loses the pregnancy. The baby died and then the body ‘disposes’ of the baby.
In an induced abortion, the baby must be removed from the womb as well. Before they remove the baby they must end the life of the baby. They either use an instrument to grab the limbs and twist and tear them off the body to remove them one by one or they may inject a saline solution in which the baby is burned. What exactly wouldn’t you call that procedure. We agree that the removal of the baby is called an abortion but what about the part before the removal? The part when the heart stops beating and the ‘fetus’ stops moving. What would you call that part?
WOW. Really dont’ know where to begin.
Just because you have mercy and forgiveness does not mean you cover up the truth. If a woman seeks forgiveness in the church, she will find it.
The woman that runs our crisis pregnancy center had several abortions before she found out the truth. She is a close friend of mine.
The atmosphere that I speak of is the devaluation of life. Yes the legalization of abortion added greatly to this problem.
Sorry YOUR argument is wrong. You are basically saying if the government outlaws something people will still do it so what’s the point. Well I like the laws against rape, murder, theft etc. They protect our individual right. The rights of unborn children are being trampled because abortion is legal.
My goal is not to make anyone righteous by the law. My goal is to protect the rights of EVERY individual in our society especially the most vunerable among us.
You obviously believe that the imagined “right of privacy” to the woman trumps the REAL natural God given right of life of the unborn child. Pathetic!
“The rights come from God ...”
There can be no right to “have” anything. There is no such thing as a right to have something that must be provided by someone else; such a right would be the right to enslave others, who are forced to provide whatever it is such a supposed right is.
The right to life is not a right to have someone else provide it, it is a right to live by one’s own choices and efforts, not have it provided by someone else.
It does not matter where that right comes from, whether God, or the facts of reality, the nature of that right is the same. Perhaps you believe the right to life is the right to enslave others to provide you life. I do not, and regard such a view as the grossest immorality.
Hank
Well my three year old can’t live on her own. I guess I am enslaved to her needs. I will just quit feeding her tomorrow and let her die.
We have the right to life. IOW, no one can take this right from you. Human biology is such that a preborn baby and an unborn baby depend on others to provide their rights for them.
Your assertion is idiotic at best.
“preborn baby and an unborn baby”
That should read a preborn baby and a newborn baby.
“The right to life is not a right to have someone else provide it, it is a right to live by one’s own choices and efforts, not have it provided by someone else”
Then why are parents routinely tried, convicted and imprisoned when their children starve to death?
“... natural God given right of life of the unborn child ...”
Well, If God provided it, I’m sure not going to interfere in that, and I’m sure He’ll take care of it. I’m sure some people with feel compelled to “help” God with that, however. Perhpas you are one of them.
Hank
“Then why are parents routinely tried, convicted and imprisoned when their children starve to death?”
Because the state does not understand what you understand, that God controls everything, and when children starve to death it is His will. The state is always interfering with God’s will.
Hank
The God given rights that I am talking about are the inalienable rights defined in the Constitution. They are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The government of the United States is here to help protect these rights. These rights are not to be taken away without due process. When a woman goes to an abortion doctor, she has deprived her child of the right to life. The child has deprived the woman of NO right by being in her womb.
A parent that starves their child to death has deprived that child of the right to life. The child did not deprive the parent of any right by needing to be fed.
In the first instance (abortion), the government has determined that the child didn’t have a right to life even though our Constitution states that we all have a right to life therefore the legalization of abortion is unconstitutional.
In the second instance (child neglect), the government has determined that the child had a right to life and that the parents deprived him of that right and that they should be punished.
The ONLY difference between the two scenarios is the action of the government. The government protected the rights of the child in one instance and did not protect the rights of the child in the other instance.
I am not sure what you are talking about with God’s will and such but God has given parents the responsibility of caring for their children. A child starved to death by his parents is not God’s will.
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.