I can't disagree. A little while ago I might have called you an anti-abortion extremist, but I have seen how things really are headed. Terri Schiavo died in order to educate a few more of us; she educated me. She showed me how we are heading to a very Naziesque future.
I can't disagree. A little while ago I might have called you an anti-abortion extremist, but I have seen how things really are headed. Terri Schiavo died in order to educate a few more of us; she educated me. She showed me how we are heading to a very Naziesque future.
*****
This post made me want to cry. A glimmer of light in a very dark future. ONE person is finally seeing things for what they are. (I know there are probably more, but your's is the only post I've seen.)
This country has sown murder, it will reap death. May God have mercy on us all.
It is so much more than the pro-death crowd. I said years ago that they were making this out to be a pro-choice and pro-life (abortion) battle in those Euthanasia groups and in the media. The media has lied about this from the beginning,and they bear a tremendous responsibility for her death. They failed Terri because they think if she lived they would be even farther behind in their pro-choice brain washing of people.
=== A little while ago I might have called you an anti-abortion extremist,
Fair enough.
It's interesting to me how Condi Rice can come out and state she has a libertarian-style "mildly pro-abortion" stand. That's not a problem because most "pro-lifers" are themselves mildly pro-choice ... particularly if they cotton to the Rape/Incest exemption by which the GOP maintains the conceit that the right to life is premised on circumstances.
Can you imagine the sort of uproar that might have ensued were Rice to state that she had a libertarian-style "mildly pro-choice" stand on drug use?
ANATHEMA!!! She'd have been crucified.
All a matter of education, education, education ... such that our priorities have become totally skewed. The War on Drugs has net us a federal police force, Waco and a steady erosion of our liberties and rights to due process. But any objection to the War on Drugs is somehow subversive in a way that being "mildly pro-choice" is not.
Why?
Beyond the facts (as I've posted time again) which evidence not only the utter duplicity on the part of those passing themselves as "pro-lifers" but the self-delusion of those who think human life is a matter for compromise, I think the subject of abortion points up in a very real way how impotent and enslaved we've become.
I'm not one to pretend for a moment that (1) the War between the States had jack to do with slavery or (2) that the real Americans won that war BUT ... it is the conventional wisdom nowadays to frame the injustice of human slavery as grounds for not only breaking the law but going to war and killing those who fought on the side of the southerners, among whom were some slave owners.
It is even the conventional wisdom nowadays that it's morally justifiable to invade another nation so as to liberate it from genocidal human rights abuses such that it can be "democratized" like our nation where genocide of the unborn -- over one million each year -- is a sacrosanct right coming under the heading of "Women's Health".
I don't really understand that.
Something's not quite right with this picture. I don't think one should be labeled an extremist simply because they don't compromise the right to life like the "mildly pro-choice" First Ladies and Condi Rice.
I think we can thank those who've set themselves up as Exhibits of Extremism for (1) the instant impugning of any staunch pro-lifer and (2) the paddling-in-circles style of the utterly impotent pro-life movement as controlled by the potemkin NRLC and those who would keep pro-lifers busybusybusy passing bum legislation like "parental consent" and other pipe-dreams which neither accomplish nor change anything.
For all the good research one can find in LIME 5 and other works, I am not myself a Randall Terry fan. It's my strictly personal opinion that he -- like David Duke, for example -- is one of those charged with muddying the waters by serving as instant impeachment of just about any truth which does issue from his mouth or action he takes.
But the fact that there are Randall Terry's in this world or that plenty of pro-lifers are over-zealous in their language or actions is no reason to seek to remain "neutral" on a subject like human life. We don't pretend to do so when avenging the lives taken on 911. We have no qualms about liberating Arab women from what we're told is a uniform oppression ... measured primarily by the fact they still have normal-sized families and rear their own children.
But as much as I disagree with the pro-choice crowd and am dismayed by what I think are purposeful plants in the pro-life movement, the folks who disgust me the most are those who pride themselves on being neutral.
"Oh, it's so wrong" they cry ... but they refuse to take a stand because they don't wish to be associated with any zealots where abortion's concerned. Is there some reason this refusing to take sides with "zealots" doesn't apply to Neocons, the IRS, the War on Drugs or the Federal Police Force who've literally gotten away with coldblooded torture and murder of women and children, even?
"Mildly pro-choice."
It's interesting, the mindset they're cultivating. And, from all appearances -- such as the WPPFF thread -- it's really like taking candy from a baby ... or life from an invalid ... getting folks to cluster in the tepid middle of the Mildly Pro-Life and/or Mildly Pro-Choice where any and all extremes ... save those put to the service of the State and its Personalities ... are eschewed.