A Special Message to All Radical Pro Abortion Propagandists - Mass Murder is Everyone's Business
October 18th 2008 21:10
A Special Message to All Radical Pro Abortion Propagandists - Mass Murder is Everyones Business,
All humans deserve human rights.
Calling any human a glob of cells degrades humanity, degrades women and degrades intelligence.
and
Silence is consent.
Editorial comment:
I could have done this in a much less aggressive manner but since people want to use headlines to insult those that disagree. Stuff Them.
If this is the level that people want to operate I am quite able to accommodate.
All humans deserve human rights.
Calling any human a glob of cells degrades humanity, degrades women and degrades intelligence.
and
Silence is consent.
Editorial comment:
I could have done this in a much less aggressive manner but since people want to use headlines to insult those that disagree. Stuff Them.
If this is the level that people want to operate I am quite able to accommodate.
| 148 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I actually thought that this baiting people through headlines rubbish was over and done with.
However it seems that someone has a raw nerve in this subject matter.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I rarely initiate posts on this subject because I know that it attracts every nutter under the sun.
Often a guilty conscience pricks the mind and people try slam down any one who even suggests that a person is being killed. Don't you dare suggest that a person is being killed.
Yet the worst of the screamers are the radical socialists who have an ideological object of promoting abortion regardless of whether is violated the life of another human or not.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I neither relish nor shy away.
The subject matter is controversial so I expect the usual barrage lame insults, leading questions and mindless mantras.
I can feel the indignant sanctimony building already.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
It seems she does not look after HER uterus too well, doesn't it?
Well done Damo, I'd rather you have my votes than the opposition.
Comment by Manda
Medicinal Nature
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
True.
Katyzzz
This is a controversial subject and prone to partisan ownership.
However I do not like people turning a free and open forum into a propaganda platform.
The old Uterus Life Boat argument was buried years ago.
"Throw the baby overboard because it is my lifeboat and I can do what I want with it."
"But you just drowned a baby."
"That is secondary to me having full control of my life boat."
QED. It is a poor line of argument.
Manda
Thanks for your comments.
Just watch the fireworks and enjoy.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
There doesn't seem to be much point to making my stance known. I thought it would be quite obvious.
The traditional Catholic stance is quite simple. Mankind has no right to transgress God's rights.
The modern error is to focus on the rights of man independent of God's rights.
I think I also made it quite clear that apologetics isn't my favourite subject.
If two people can't agree on the exitence, nature and essence of God, and man's purpose, they end up arguing about secondary issues.
And yes, abortion is a secondary issue to me. From experience, I've discovered that very few arguments about secondary issues lead to a proper debate about the primary issue; the existence, nature and essence of God, and man's purpose.
How can you have a debate with someone about God's rights when they don't even know what they are?
Plus, I have limited time nowadays. I can't spend all my time with apologetics. I leave that to Damo and the likes, and write secular literature.
I visit Damo's blog to read his posts and vote for them. I generally leave a comment of some sort because it irks me when people just vote and don't make a comment. And I like the exchange with him.
Oh, and I didn't make an issue of being a Catholic. I won't deny that I am Catholic, or defend the traditional Catholic stance on matters when people goad me to? But, I don't make an issue of it. Others seem to?
And, the Catholic Church does not have a 'doctrine' on Abortion. Its 'doctrines' relate to articles of faith that must be believed by Catholics. It has pastoral directives in encyclicals, and canon laws about abortion based upon doctrine. In lay terms, Canon law makes abortion a sin against faith. One of heresy. Hence why I maintain that unless an argument is based upon faith itself, and faith's primary issue; the existence, essence and nature of God, apologetics goes round and round in circles on secondary issues.
How can I have a debate with someone about God's rights when they don't know what they are?
Basic catechetics is much more useful for the novice than apologetics.
It's why the Penny Catechism starts with the question and answer it does. It's the most important and primary question and answer. If this simple knowledge of God's existence and man's purpose is not grasped? Or rejected? There's no point having an argument about anything else, because you can't agree on the most important question.
St John Vianney (the Cure of Ars) took the right approach. He focused upon eradicting religious ignorance in the parish he was assigned to.
Comment by Mister Smith
Random Ramblings
FILMENATOR
Crime in Books
Comment by Randy Inman
Football Dogz
NCstuff
The Right Side
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Beached whale. Hehehe.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I think David does not have to explain himself over and over. This is not a religious post.
David
And I wrote too soon.
Thanks for explaining yourself so comprehensively.
Just to clarify My Apologetics does not have much of an agenda and is not pushing any ideology, theology or political position. Nor do I have any political affiliations.
I do have personal opinions that are based upon a point of view.
The only real agenda that I do have is to write what I want to write. If people appreciate it then that is fine. If they do not I can live with it.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
I am pretty sure that I did interpret Kaytzzz remarks correctly. My response may not have been very concise. However if Katyzzz thinks I got it wrong then she step in any time and correct me.
This is a divisive issue I agree and a blog site is probably the least effective platform to raise it. How many law makers consult Blogs before making decisions?
You say a lot that is true in your response. I am certainly not associating myself with the Jack Chick's of this world. Nor am I going to enter into a long winded theological circular argument with anyone. You do not have to be religious to have a divided opinion on this subject. However the religious straw man makes a good diversion from any rational examination of the facts.
I am only putting a mantra to counter another mindless mantra.
The point is one of simplicity.
Randy
Thanks for your comments.
It is all about the headline.
Comment by Mister Smith
Random Ramblings
FILMENATOR
Crime in Books
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
It's all okay by me. I'll dabble in a little apologetics from time-to-time.
It makes me realise how I've forgotten how much I haven't forgotten.
Besides, it is Sunday in Australia.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
As I said before my response was a little muddled but I did see Kaytzzz's message as in agreement with mine.
David
No Apologetics for Your Apologetics.
Sunday Funday.
I was out drink and dancing last night so my head is a bit fuzzy.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
You can post what you want about the tragic demise of your brothers and sisters.
The bottom line is that you did not kill them so their blood is NOT on your hands.
This post is responding to headline that was intended to bait and insult people.
It is a mantra to respond to a mantra.
Comment by Mister Smith
Random Ramblings
FILMENATOR
Crime in Books
Kleo - you have not been explicit but it seems your birth is a result of infertility treatment. No-one would want to deny infertile couples the right to conceive outside of the regular way and most of them, no doubt, make great parents. It is such a grey area, I think, mainly because of the potential for mis-use. The only people who would be totally against IVF would be those who believe that human life begins, in more than just a physical way, at the moment of conception.
Comment by Ann 1
Wordophilia
Bloganymity
Taking this whole pro-life, pro-death argument to the absurdity of its illogical and irrational conclusion, I’m thinking of starting a Pro-Death movement.
It might even lead to satirists embracing my movement.
Before I advertise openly for supporters, I would like to point out that:
Who I kill is no-one’s business but mine (and the police if they find out?). But certainly not God’s. He’s been excluded from most State Laws. Even though the State controls the police and make killing illegal. Depending upon what your definition of life is. But the civil law is not based on the moral law. It’s independent of it. Well thank God for not existing for that to be the truth. Apparently, the separation of the moral law and civil law has got something to do with the separation of Church and State, but let’s not get into that, because it happened at a time in history that goes back more than a few weeks? And we wouldn't want Google to crash. Why do church buildings exist in state territories? I thought they had separated church and state.
Now let’s start Parliament with the Our Father, and all swear on the Bible in parliament and courts of law to put forward the truth and nothing but the truth about our true views on abortion? Let’s photocopy/enlarge George Washingtons and put them up as banners: In God We Trust. Then get this bill passed as quickly as possible. Then work on one to outlaw the Bible and any reference to God in parliament or courts of law, but leave it on the US dollar bill because changing the face of the currency would be sacrilegious. If sacrilege was a crime. Which it isn’t because we’ve established life on the principle, Each to their own. We respect the rights and choices of others, even if they happen to choose becoming murderers. As it should be.
If I choose to kill adults, then that’s my prerogative. Because I’m all for pro-choice. I should be free to kill whomsoever I like because as I have already stated, I believe everyone has rights, and why shouldn’t a murderer have rights? Who said murder of adults was wrong? Only Christians? Who believe in God. Boy it gets confusing.
Let’s see. Which adults would I like to kill most? Boy, that’s a tough one. I'm not sure this Pro-Death movement was such a good idea after all.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
It happens to the best of us.
One of the problems with english is its inherent ambiguity.
Ann 1
Thanks for your comments.
I never mentioned religion in this post. So I am going to have to discount most of what you wrote as completely irrelevant.
Kind of a shame actually because you looked as if you were all fired up for a holy war. To save you time I agree that the world is being run by three hooked nosed jews in the basement of the Vatican. You must have suspected so for a long time.
But on the other hand, what was you point, other than to vent in a forum that will pretty much dismiss your opinions as another Pro-Death (your words) zealot?
The difference between the two camps is simple:
-One kills the other does not.
-There is no middle ground between life and death.
-That is the logical conclusion, pure and simple.
You can choose one of three sides: for, against or neutral. If you are neutral then why comment?
As I said before anyone can rely on a list of mantras and slogans.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
One point that I try to make, though, is that pro-choice supporters are not fans of abortion. No matter what happens, it's a terrible burden on the mother to go through with the procedure, one that haunts you forever.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
To make a point:
If a post starts with: 'To all you Pro Lifers... bla bla bla.
Then a post will start with "to all you Pro-Abortion Propagandists"
That is the inevitable
Obviously you have made up your mind and I have made up my mind, so where is the point of negotiation?
The bottom line from my viewpoint is that I see a person and the pro-abortion propagandists do not. They see a medical procedure whereas I see a crime against humanity.
So regardless off what words you choose to rationalize the answer in your own mind, we will probably not see eye to eye on this issue.
What is important is to realize that intelligent people to object to this social norm for what they see as valid, rational and compelling reasons.
Comment by Dianna G
I Wish This Was 42
Fictional Worlds
There's a book by Robert Sawyer in which a scientist actually figures out how to tell when the human being gains its soul. According to that theory, it was in the third month.
So what do you say to that?
~Dianna
(And do me a favour and make sure SL doesn't try to respond. Old woman makes me angry.)
Comment by Waysouth
Romantic Writer
Rich Noob
Waysouth
I think that calling a glob of cells a human is what degrades humanity.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
A scientist works out what the souls is.
That is amazing.
How did he do that? Did he weigh it?
Sorry Dianna but that is not science.
I would have to look up Robert Sawyer to respond more comprehensively.
Since I did not mention religion what is the relevance?
On the point of SLB responding.
I allow anyone to respond on my posts even the one that I disagree with on 90% of issues, so long as they do not use my blog as a platform for personal attacks and to air their deep seated bigotries.
Only two people cross that line so far. (Three if you include anonymous.)
Waysouth
Thanks for your comments.
And what is a human BTW?
What is not a human?
And who decides it fate?
People want an excuse for killing each other and redefining what a human being is the best excuse ever.
I would not want to be on the receiving and of any new definition.
Comment by Dianna G
I Wish This Was 42
Fictional Worlds
SL has a habit of launching personal attacks my way.
The soul was a slight biological change in the makeup of the fetus; I don't remember the details. But without a soul, is a person a person? No, it is merely an ugly bag of mostly water.
A person is made a person by their soul. That is what makes us who we are-our souls. And without those, we are generic, like most people consider animals to be generic, as they supposedly have no souls.
And if we are willing to kill animals because we believe they have no souls, why not fetuses?
~Dianna
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Again I will repeat.
I did not mention religion so the relevance here is nil.
The logical conclusion of what you say is that a scientist using his yard stick has created an artificial definition of a human. This same mistake was made in long ago in a book called The Measure of Man. Similar mistakes were used to formulate the Eugenics argument. Prof Peter Signer argues that new born babies are not human using his artificial yard stick.
Since there are atheists who are Pro Life then the whole soul issue is null and void.
Since there are doctors and scientists who are pro-life referring to a selected expect is a questionable method.
Comment by Dianna G
I Wish This Was 42
Fictional Worlds
If you kill animals just so you can eat them, and the soul argument is null and void, then what's the difference between an animal and a fetus?
People put down grayhounds when they can no longer race.
People kill animals all the time-what's the big difference?
~Dianna
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Arnathi
DarkSuggestion
The majority of lives would be better ended before they could begin. Only very few are worth living - the rest of us chaff are just here to make them feel good.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The same question back at you.
What is wrong with cannibalism?
If you don't know the difference between a cow and a human then circular arguments over soul will not help at all.
My assertion is that we are not cattle.
SLB
Blogs are a forum of opinion some general others personal. I try to stay out of fights between two people. I just do not have the time and interest is fighting with people.
Arnathi
Thanks for your comments.
I think a lot of people have made their point and moved on.
Comment by Jayne Kearney
Writers In Writing (and other writing)
"The difference between the two camps is simple:
-One kills the other does not.
-There is no middle ground between life and death.
-That is the logical conclusion, pure and simple."
How do you explain pro-lifers who also support capital punishment. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the current poster girl Mrs Palin fall into this camp?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
How do explain pro-abortionist who support terrorism?
Same question with same level of irrationality to it. It is a straw man argument.
Do all Pro-Lifers support the death penalty? No.
So I guess you will have to take that issue up with one that does.
Since I oppose the death penalty the question is moot.
Since I do not care about US politics any mention of Sara Palin is also moot.
Comment by Dianna G
I Wish This Was 42
Fictional Worlds
The day people stop obsessing over their weight and doing everything just to be fashionable is the day I'll believe that humans aren't cattle.
~Dianna
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Okay,
So I will put your vote down as some humans are just cattle and do not deserve human rights.
Thanks for that.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Anagrams, Damo? "Glob" and "Blog"??
What are you really saying???
I suggest we implement a glib blog for lib globs. That way everyone gets a shot at it.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Blog Globistically speaking.
It just goes prove the old theory.
If you use the 'A' word in the title you will get hits.
This took me all of 30 seconds to compose.
Hehehehe.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Damo, you sly
globdog!!!I gotta try that. What else works that way? How about a list of one-word titles guaranteed to get hits?
"Abortion"
"Sex"
"Murder"
"Boobs"
????
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You left off Pedophiles and Virgins.
Both seem to disgust people but virgin disgust them more.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
We both think that we are right, don't we?
You have your reasons and I have mine.
I can live with it.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
People who have the same opinions as I do are boring after awhile anyway...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Though I am working undermine all that you hold near and dear I not trying destroy you.
Reasonable discourse is still possible.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Ditto, old buddy.
Comment by Nevar
ad hominem
the inner sanctum
fire in your eyes - ink in your pen
Writers Challenge ~ 2008
But, just because you can, should you?
Oh hell yes, especially if you have any opine that conflicts with right thinking people anywhere.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments
You obviously have a message you want convey in all that confusion.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Comment by Nevar
ad hominem
the inner sanctum
fire in your eyes - ink in your pen
Writers Challenge ~ 2008
If life is to be deemed valueless, feed the scavengers with the cell masses, that'll improve it's worth.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics