Posted on 08/30/2011 3:00:44 PM PDT by topher
WINNIPEG, Manitoba August 30, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A young man who admitted to downloading explicit pornographic images since he was 12, has been sentenced to two years supervised probation after he was charged for possessing photos and videos of children as young as 4 being sexually abused.
Dr. Judith Reisman, a researcher on pedophilia and an expert on the insidious effects of pornography, told LSN that she is unsurprised that such a young man would be involved in child pornography. “Our government leaders allow pornography to pollute our once great nations and act surprised that we are breeding inhuman men, women and children unlike any that have existed before,” she said.
In a 2008 international sting against child pornographers Austrian police followed an IP address to a 15-year-old boy in Winnipeg, MB.
When Winnipeg police came knocking at his door, the boy readily admitted his involvement, said Crown attorney Terry McComb to Winnipeg Sun.
The police confiscated the boy’s laptop and discovered images and videos featuring girls as young as 4 being sexually abused by adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
160 should say that George W. Bush and I have the same position on abortion. Obviously you and President Bush do not. You’d liken him to someone who supports stoning rape victims because he supports a rape exception? Anyway, what did this have to do with the thread? Yes, I support a rape exception and I don’t apologize for it.
I don't consider a single member of the Bush family to be pro-life.
They have a long history of claiming to be pro-life and then killing the innocent and they love to hide behind their support of "and then you can kill the baby" laws.
With regard to my position on abortion, I support overturning Roe v. Wade and passing a constitutional amendment to force all 50 states to ban abortion.
Why should the states be involved at all?
We already have several amendments that prohibit the taking of innocent life.
Punishing an innocent person for the crime of another is barbaric. Especially when you're talking about killing them for the crime of another.
The Founders thought so, too.
"...but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
-- Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution
I thought you said you supported the killing of rape victims.
Haven't you said repeatedly that abortion should be allowed in rape?
Is it that you don't consider the baby a person or that you don't consider the baby a victim?
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Exactly what part of the words "NO" and "ANY" do you fail to understand?
Especially when you consider that under Coker v. Georgia capital punishment is prohibited for rape.
Very interesting. Well, the National Right To Life Committee endorsed President Bush in both of his campaigns. I hope you don’t mind if I take their word over yours.
I don’t think the federal government has a right to ban it without a constitutional amendment, but I do support such an approach. I don’t think that any of the declared Republican presidential candidates are on board with that analysis either .
I consider the baby to be a person, but it is a person put there against the mother’s will. I don’t support forcing the mother to relive her rape every day of her pregnancy. Like I said, if you want to call me a pro abort for that belief, fine. You’ll never convince a majority of Americans that forcing a rape victim to have her rapist’s baby is a good idea, however. Still, your ideological purity is intact.
I don't care whose word you take.
Any pretense that the Bushes were pro-life died on the morning of March 31, 2005 (which you might note is AFTER any pro-life group had endorsed any of the Bushes).
I don’t think the federal government has a right to ban it without a constitutional amendment,
The Constitution ALREADY PROHIBITS the killing of innocent persons.
If the baby is a person then abortion is illegal (Roe v. Wade even acknowledges this). If the baby is not a person then what is it exactly?
NRTL abandoned their no exceptions platform to support GW Bush in 2000. They've been a useless appendage of the Republican Party ever since.
Instead, you support her having to relive her allowing the butchering of her own child for the rest of her life.
National Right to Life.
No other single organization can lay claim to influencing the passing of ObamaCare as can NRTL.
Without them there would be no ObamaCare.
The woman is going to relive the rape for a long time NO MATTER WHAT.
You’ll never convince a majority of Americans that forcing a rape victim to have her rapist’s baby is a good idea, however.
What does that have to do with anything?
You seem to have adopted the belief that we are a democracy where any law is nothing more than a majority vote away.
The "rape exception" is the left's ultimate red herring. AT MOST there are 4000 children per year conceived during rape in America. Yet every time abortion is brought up the first thing that's talked about is rape.
It isn’t a red herring. I know abortions stemming from rape are incredibly rare, just as abortions to save the life of the mother are rare. This country is a republic, not a democracy. Still, with less than 15% of Americans opposing a rape exception, you’d think that you’d prefer not to make the perfect (perfect in your eyes anyway) the enemy of the good, and focus on eliminating the 99% of abortions that are elective.
Do you support an exception to save the life of the mother? If so, why?
Right. You support the stoning of rapists, and the chemical burning and dismemberment of rape victims.
No, I support her right to decide between reliving the rape and reliving the abortion. You don’t.
You want to add the atrocity of murder to the atrocity of rape.
Like I said before. Barbaric.
All that will happen with a "rape exception" is a massive increase in the number of babies claimed to be conceived during rape.
I don't care about public opinion, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of America was fully prepared to do nothing about slavery for a long time too.
Wrong is wrong, no matter how a majority feels about it.
And this is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.
"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right...."
-- James Madison, letter to James Monroe, 1786
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.