Posted on 01/31/2019 7:20:01 AM PST by Kaslin
I'm talking about the Virginia legislature, not US.
I can especially see that being the case once this country’s populace is placed under “medicare for all.” When the government owns health care, it owns the people.
I wonder what they do with an eight and a half month old baby that the mother decides to abort? Do they give it to the mother for burial? Can the mother sell it for body parts or do they just throw it in the trash?
Boy, if that ISN’T their end goal, they sure are doing a good job of misdirection!
I have heard multiple conservative pundits make that exact statement over the years...once they own your health care delivery, they have you by the short and curlies.
I’m not referring to the law.
What I mean is, even the very pro-abortion advocates have never publically called for this until...
Now.
What changed?
They also want to eliminate G-d in our culture. What does this remind you of? Look now at Communist China, who is outlawing people, even DEAD people, from observing religious rites, under threat of severe punishment. Libtards (commies is another term for them) want to eliminate G-d so that the commie doctrine becomes the item of complete devotion with no competition. Murdering children is also a manifestation of the destruction of the nuclear family. Again, so that the family does not pose competition for the commie doctrine. The commie leaders become your parents/grandparents/etc. Certain brain dead politicians like Cuomo and DumbASSio also want to seize peoples' personal property and real estate, claiming "they" know better how to utilize it. So the "government" will also replace personal holdings with government massed property.
In such a sick system, people are supposed to trade in their individual lives, preferences, possessions, children, etc. to become part of a Borg assemblage. No thanks!
" Dr. Kathi Aultman told a U.S. Congressional committee in 2017 that she referred to unborn babies as 'fetuses' when killing them in abortions but 'babies' when they were wanted; and she regretted the incongruity. She also said she was fascinated by the 'tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs' of aborted babies."
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free. Today, the individuals most denied their freedom are those innocent lives in the womb who, if wanted, are called "children," and if, for some reason are inconvenient at the time, are called "fetuses," as Aultman averred.
Why can’t Cuomo and the Va. Governor and this Tran person be charged with accessory to murder......they are nothing less than killers.
Very good! You know your history. You know where all this leads. The Socialist /Imperialist government has the last word about who lives and who dies. I wonder where they will build the new Coliseum, and from whence they shall bring the new Gladiators? And where will they get all the lions, who are not protected by PETA??
I trust you know who I am talking about.
I should have said greater authority in my post #97
Yes, God is not mocked.....they will reap what they sow....in the life to come. But we have to take action to stop this horror now.....legal action.
Sounds like a nightmare out of the old Twilight Zone...
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.