Pro abortion crowd emboldened; now stating lives have varying degrees of rights/value

Well we knew that's what they believed all along. That the vulerable don't have the same value or rights as the rest of them:

" Mary Elizabeth Williams in a Salon essay today:

" I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice. . . .

"Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.""

"By this same logic, isn’t infanticide also fine and dandy? After all, if we’re talking about autonomy, kids aren’t exactly independent as soon as they are born. No infant can take care of themselves. And even later on in childhood, children rely heavily on the adults in their life to provide shelter, food, and emotional support. What about kids and adults who become disabled in life? What about quadriplegics? They’re not going to be able to take care of themselves. Is it okay if we just off the lot of them? Heck, what about needy friends who seem to be falling apart unless we talk to them regularly and console them? Okay to just shoot a couple of them so that we don’t have the burden? Should we ship the grandparents that spent all their money and are now financially dependent on us to the local executioner?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...fine-even-if-fetus-human-life-katrina-trinko#

 

"Crowd"? What "crowd"....you gave ONE person's opinion......



Read the thread: Catholic Hospital Conveniently Claims Fetuses Aren’t People in Malpractice Lawsuit

 

It's all over...people on this board are stating the same thing, and on others.

It's the new pro-abortion stance. "Yeah we're killing babies, so WHAT?"

- - - Updated - - -

Which makes your handle oddly appropriate, lol.

 

What is wrong with giving a persons opinion. Pro-aborts on here throw out a lot of things like that. Someone just said 70% of Americans want Roe to stand. How the hell do they know? They have no way of knowing that.

Great post Allie......you hit the nail on the head with this one. These people DO NOT VALUE LIFE. It is cheap and expendable to them. They would squish out life on a dime...if they could. They have no consciences...no compassion....well except for themselves.

 

And look who's talking......

 

Guess the Catlick church has a new stance....didn't you want to read this thread???

"""Catholic Hospital Conveniently Claims Fetuses Aren’t People in Malpractice Lawsuit ""


And I never said it was killing babies.....where did a Pro-Choicer say it was killing babies??


AND there have been, and will continue to be, raving Anti-Choicers, who, having found themeselves pregnant have had abortions.....it's all relative

 

Yup, the best part about progressives is is their devotion to the belief that human rights violations are *relative*....

 

The worst part of regressives is their inability to understand big words and context.

 

Rather than blindly copy-and-pasting some thoughtless commentary, why not actually read the essay in question (and maybe watch the 2-minute video it refers to) and discuss the subject it's actually referring to, something you ironically managed to clearly demonstrate.

You don't have to agree with her position (I don't entirely) but playing the petty "us versus them" games, especially in reference to this kind or essay, just makes you look like an irrelevant fool.

Go on. It's linked right there in the article you copied.

 

I read the essay. As I said, it's just confirmation that pro-death cultists don't care if they're killing babies. And now they're admitting it.

 

Doesn't include me then I'm pro-choice, I certainly don't want to kill any babies they are after all independent sentient persons who have all the rights associated with that status.
I do however admit to supporting abortion up until 24 weeks, but that isn't pro-death or killing babies.

 

yes, it is.

 

you forgot to add, "in my opinion", unless of course you can prove otherwise.

 

We've all known what they've been about all along. Apparently some of them are finally coming clean about it. They know what they're doing when they have an abortion. They know they're killing an innocent life. They just don't care. They're sick people.

 

Because you think that you give the same value to EVERY LIFE?

Really? You give as much value to a fetus than to a toddler or an 8 year old? And you give as much value to an 8 year old than to a 95 year old person with Alzheimer?

And obviously you give as much value to the life of a Muslim than to that of a Christian, and as much value to the life of a "pro-choice" advocate than to the life of a "pro-life" advocate, right?

And. . .you obviously give as much value to the life of the victim of a crime than to the life of the perpetrator of a crime. . and you would NEVER dream of taking any life, not even that of a mass murderer, right?

And that is why you are "pro-guns," so that you can respect EVERYONE's life to the same value. . . even the home invader who might steal your TV and that is why you have that gun in your house. . .right? To respect HIS life to the same extend as you respect the life of your child. . .Correct?

 

Did you READ her statements?

Mothers health versus (possible and if the mother is suffering ill health then that possible becomes more remote) foetal survival - given a whopping 70% of fertilised eggs never survive to be born

No contest

 

So? Are you arguing that a 24 week old fetus is the same as a fertilzed, but non-viable egg?

<<< Mod Edit: Flamebait >>>

 

Yep just like the pro-lifer on here who wants to kill all babies with Downs Syndrome, or retarded as he likes to call them.
Just like the pro-lifers who only care when its un-born after that they don't give a fig for it
Yep they do know what they are doing when they have an abortion, they are exercising their right to choose, something you want to remove from them .. just like other regimes have done throughout history.
Define innocent, in biblical terms no one is innocent, not even the un-born.

pro-lifers = sick people

 

Eventually, I'm sure you'll get tired of dragging out the alleged site pro-lifer who wants to kill Down's syndrome babies. I think you've referenced that person about 15 times in the last two days with no name, and no link, included. As if that proves something. The only thing is proves is you don't have any real material.

 

He's talking about Anders Hoveland who mentioned in one of these threads that he finds it acceptable to abort and kill fetuses/newborns with Downs Syndrome. I can't remember which thread he said it in though and don't really feel like digging through his old posts.

 

So it's completely worthless.

Meanwhile:

"Definition of PROABORTION
: favoring the legalization of abortion
— pro–abor·tion·ist noun "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-abortion?show=0&t=1359304360

 

Quite frankly the fetus only has as much value as the woman carrying it gives it.

 

Typical death cultist comment.

Quite frankly, that's true among baboons and other animals.

We're human, and we have what we call *human rights*. And the #1 human right is the right to life. Those who refuse to defend others always maintain it's a dog-eat-dog world, and rights are just *relative*.

But the international community disagrees:

" Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, ....

"Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

^ Top
Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

"Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

- - - Updated - - -

In re: Crimes Against Humanity:

"To some extent, crimes against humanity overlap with genocide and war crimes. But crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to “destroy in whole or in part,” as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of “widespread or systematic” violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war—they apply in times of war and peace."

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/crimes-against-humanity/

 

Due to rules of this site I cannot openly give the name of the person.

I'll quote the comment (without the name) and post the link to the thread, so you may confirm it was in fact said .. not just once either.

From this thread - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/284855-late-term-abortion-lazy-women-desperately-sad-3.html

Post number - #27

There are others from the same person if you care to search for them, so please withdraw the "alleged" part of your comment.

 

So while yes, babies are at the mercy of their mothers, the international community contends that individuals cannot legally devalue others. The laws are irrelevant; depraved societies will always create laws that bolster their criminal intent and actions. Just because you aren't committing a crime in one group doesn't mean what you are doing isn't a crime.

Those who actually fight for human rights understand this.

Progressives don't, because progressives will ALWAYS seek laws that negate the concept of human rights as anything except what is allowed weaker populations by stronger ones.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't give the name of the person, and you are unwilling to quote a statement that supports your repeated references to this unnamed person, then you need to withdraw your references.

I doubt your veracity, and I'm not looking it up. Abide by the rules of debate or take your toys and go home. I'm not withdrawing anything.