Abortion is, in some sense at least, a form of genocide...
I merely state this firstly as a way of letting readers know I agree with and actively reaffirm the new statutes being advanced by states in the bible belt and mid-west regarding the "Beating Heart" law.
According to Sean Hannity in his great read "Conservative Victory" he presents the facts of the genocide that planned parent hood commits against the innocent unborn every day of the week, 12 months a year...
That is roughly 5,000 abortions are performed in America every day!
That to me in all honesty implicates the government in an act of Genocide.
And states such as Alabama and Louisiana are taking important steps toward the vindication of the original Christian principles of this great republic.
Let's ignore, for the sake of discussion, the two most commonly pro-choice platforms advanced by advocates of abortion... that is, "Back Alley Abortions" and the whole "Rape and Incest" talking point.
Let's just get this straight...
The main point is the platform of the "Beating Heart Law".
The proposal would limit the right to have an abortion after the fetus has a detectable heartbeat.
This is solid sound and sane legislation in the opin' of Domestic Democracy United.
The heart of a fetus starts beating at roughly 5 or 6 weeks in-
That is just enough time for a single sexually active female to realize that she's missed her period (the first sign of pregnancy) and get a pregnancy test. That affords both the right to choice crowd a little leeway whilst stopping something that I think constitutes MURDER.
I once quipped to a liberal friend of mine that the question is not of a females right to her own body and health choices as such... the question is~
"Is the act of aborting a fetus murder?"
The question revolving around the morality of "murder-as-such" is crucial in understanding why people on the right choose the impassioned stance of "RIGHT TO LIFE".
If it's not murder,
then abortion is fine and completely moral.
But if it IS - in fact - murder,
then I don't see how any moral citizen could support it.
So the "Beating Heart Law" is surprisingly reasonable in a sense.
We say, simply, that if the baby inside of the mothers womb hasn't developed a "HEARTBEAT", then abortion can be legally and responsibly performed.
But if there is a heartbeat,
I believe the conservative politicians deep south are saying that this "beating of a human heart" constitutes LIFE-AS-SUCH, therefore terminating that life constitutes murder.
Yet the left and the RINO's who just refuse to "GET IT", repeatedly proffer the same old "rape and incest" phenomenon to justify impugning the character of right-to-lifers!
Give me a break!
Anyhow, that's the point I'd like to make on this crisis in healthcare that is the legal murder of innocent ensouled human beings...
But I'll leave this entry with a short story that I've blogged about previously yet bears repeating~
"I was once seated in a BIO 101 classroom on the first day of class proper. I am an ardent note taker and pay attention to every bit of information presented in class scrupulously. So I'm taking notes from the projector with slides being shone onto the front of the class- then I see it...
A slide that says, AND I QUOTE:
"The world is overpopulated and to deal with the environmental crisis of overpopulation we in the scientific community should find ways to decrease the population."
or something to that effect.
I was shocked.
How anti human can you be. I mean, I'd expect that kind of rhetoric from Neo-Hegelian Aussie Eugenicist Peter Singer (who not only is for post-birth abortions but believes that animals should have more rights than humans), but in a BIO 101 classroom?
I immediately dropped the class and never looked back...
All I can say now is~
Academia is often full of Eugenicist theory, and I merely hope the generation of youths attempting to do right for themselves by pursuing higher education don't just swallow all this garbage whole. I mean, What?
Should we have more abortions to impact global warming?
Guess we have to save the maldives by making sure people don't give off too harmful of a carbon footprint!
Give me a break, seriously.
Every ensouled being deserves the right to the equivocally liberating principles of LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
Let's all of us, right or left, get realistic about abortion and the eugenicist quasi-"gas chambers" of planned parenthood (not even mentioning the whole controversy around planned parenthood offering fetal parts on the black market...)!
That is,
IF YOU CONCEDE THAT 5,000 MURDERS A DAY IS GENOCIDE?
then you must concede that we as christian tea partiers must take decisive action...
and further
IF YOU CONCEDE THAT ABORTION IS MURDER?
Then we should get realistic about preventative care...
AND IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT MURDER IS IMMORAL?
Then we should take a hard look at how early on the development of LIFE-AS-SUCH begins, and be reasonable about how our sometimes gut-check one way ratchet worldview conflicts with the LAW.
RT STILLWELL
DDU 2019
I merely state this firstly as a way of letting readers know I agree with and actively reaffirm the new statutes being advanced by states in the bible belt and mid-west regarding the "Beating Heart" law.
According to Sean Hannity in his great read "Conservative Victory" he presents the facts of the genocide that planned parent hood commits against the innocent unborn every day of the week, 12 months a year...
That is roughly 5,000 abortions are performed in America every day!
That to me in all honesty implicates the government in an act of Genocide.
And states such as Alabama and Louisiana are taking important steps toward the vindication of the original Christian principles of this great republic.
Let's ignore, for the sake of discussion, the two most commonly pro-choice platforms advanced by advocates of abortion... that is, "Back Alley Abortions" and the whole "Rape and Incest" talking point.
Let's just get this straight...
The main point is the platform of the "Beating Heart Law".
The proposal would limit the right to have an abortion after the fetus has a detectable heartbeat.
This is solid sound and sane legislation in the opin' of Domestic Democracy United.
The heart of a fetus starts beating at roughly 5 or 6 weeks in-
That is just enough time for a single sexually active female to realize that she's missed her period (the first sign of pregnancy) and get a pregnancy test. That affords both the right to choice crowd a little leeway whilst stopping something that I think constitutes MURDER.
I once quipped to a liberal friend of mine that the question is not of a females right to her own body and health choices as such... the question is~
"Is the act of aborting a fetus murder?"
The question revolving around the morality of "murder-as-such" is crucial in understanding why people on the right choose the impassioned stance of "RIGHT TO LIFE".
If it's not murder,
then abortion is fine and completely moral.
But if it IS - in fact - murder,
then I don't see how any moral citizen could support it.
So the "Beating Heart Law" is surprisingly reasonable in a sense.
We say, simply, that if the baby inside of the mothers womb hasn't developed a "HEARTBEAT", then abortion can be legally and responsibly performed.
But if there is a heartbeat,
I believe the conservative politicians deep south are saying that this "beating of a human heart" constitutes LIFE-AS-SUCH, therefore terminating that life constitutes murder.
Yet the left and the RINO's who just refuse to "GET IT", repeatedly proffer the same old "rape and incest" phenomenon to justify impugning the character of right-to-lifers!
Give me a break!
Anyhow, that's the point I'd like to make on this crisis in healthcare that is the legal murder of innocent ensouled human beings...
But I'll leave this entry with a short story that I've blogged about previously yet bears repeating~
"I was once seated in a BIO 101 classroom on the first day of class proper. I am an ardent note taker and pay attention to every bit of information presented in class scrupulously. So I'm taking notes from the projector with slides being shone onto the front of the class- then I see it...
A slide that says, AND I QUOTE:
"The world is overpopulated and to deal with the environmental crisis of overpopulation we in the scientific community should find ways to decrease the population."
or something to that effect.
I was shocked.
How anti human can you be. I mean, I'd expect that kind of rhetoric from Neo-Hegelian Aussie Eugenicist Peter Singer (who not only is for post-birth abortions but believes that animals should have more rights than humans), but in a BIO 101 classroom?
I immediately dropped the class and never looked back...
All I can say now is~
Academia is often full of Eugenicist theory, and I merely hope the generation of youths attempting to do right for themselves by pursuing higher education don't just swallow all this garbage whole. I mean, What?
Should we have more abortions to impact global warming?
Guess we have to save the maldives by making sure people don't give off too harmful of a carbon footprint!
Give me a break, seriously.
Every ensouled being deserves the right to the equivocally liberating principles of LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
Let's all of us, right or left, get realistic about abortion and the eugenicist quasi-"gas chambers" of planned parenthood (not even mentioning the whole controversy around planned parenthood offering fetal parts on the black market...)!
That is,
IF YOU CONCEDE THAT 5,000 MURDERS A DAY IS GENOCIDE?
then you must concede that we as christian tea partiers must take decisive action...
and further
IF YOU CONCEDE THAT ABORTION IS MURDER?
Then we should get realistic about preventative care...
AND IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT MURDER IS IMMORAL?
Then we should take a hard look at how early on the development of LIFE-AS-SUCH begins, and be reasonable about how our sometimes gut-check one way ratchet worldview conflicts with the LAW.
RT STILLWELL
DDU 2019
