800,000 For Abortion, and a Jewess Leads

[Saoirse]

800,000 March at DC for "right" to kill babies AFTER delivery

Listen to the Jewess leading the way:

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the march was about more than the right to a safe abortion.
"The march is about the totality of women's lives and the right to make decisions about our lives,'' she said.



http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...24154509990001

[Milesian]

Seems it's more about the "right" to make decisions about other people's lives. Funny how a child's basic rights to life are selectively ignored. I mean we can't allow someone's life to inconvenience us. Actually, people like this cause me an inconvenience, therefore I must be within my rights to have them "terminated" as well

If we are to believe some people- We need more immigrants and less babies

[Esther_Helena]

*scratches head in utter confusion* Isn't abortion, getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it's born? Hence the use of the term fetus and not infant. While I may be pro-choice (up to a certain point) A baby is a human, and to kill a human is murder.

[Saoirse]

*scratches head in utter confusion* Isn't abortion, getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it's born? Hence the use of the term fetus and not infant. While I may be pro-choice (up to a certain point) A baby is a human, and to kill a human is murder.

The Jew will do anything to kill the Gentile. I only support abortion if its a retarded and sick child and rape.

[Milesian]

*scratches head in utter confusion* Isn't abortion, getting rid of the fetus BEFORE it's born? Hence the use of the term fetus and not infant. While I may be pro-choice (up to a certain point) A baby is a human, and to kill a human is murder.

Actually, it is the logical next step.
When abortion first became legal in the UK during the '60's, Anti-Abortion campaigners said it would mark the beginning of a downward spiral, Pro-Abortionists laughed and dismissed the idea as paranoid nonsense.
Although abortions were to be only carried out for "medical" reasons (such as if pregnancy would endanger the mother's life), today the vast majority of abortions are done for "social" reasons (ie convenience or to get rid of the "evidence" of women having affairs)

By dehumanising the unborn child as a "fetus" (dehumanising a victim always makes it easier) and promoting the mass killing of unborn children as a "right" and a "freedom", social abortion is today widely accepted whereas even many Pro-Abortionists in the 1960's were against it.

"Terminating" children after birth (after all, a baby out of the womb is not any different from a baby who was in the womb a few minutes before hand) is the next logical step.

Every few years someone tries to push a Euthansia Bill through parliament (with unknown backers) but so far has been defeated. With our plunging birth rates (thanks to abortion and contraception) resulting in an ageing population, and this in turn putting an unbearable strain on our economies, our governments will be forced to legalise Voluntary Euthanasia. No doubt they will try to allay our fears that this will never progress to Involuntary Euthanasia. But then they made similar promises about abortion 40-odd years ago.

With them squeezing life from start (abortion and contraception) to finish (Euthansia), we can expect our numbers to undergo a rapid decline in the future.

Thank goodness for our "Right to Choose".....even if that actually means our right to choose collective suicide.

[Saoirse]

Thing is with White people, they scream the world is over populated. They should only be thinking about their people. We are just under 10% of the globe. I want to be able to have ten Irish children.

[Esther_Helena]

ten? Holy... Then again, being an only child...SUCKS. On one hand I approve of abortion (only during the first trimester), if it harms the mother, the child is genetically-wrong(mental or physical), or the pregnancy puts the mother in danger in another way other than her health. I do wonder about my older sibling. I was number 2. Number 1, was aborted. My JA of a father was convinced it wasn't his, and my mom knew her family would disown her if she had it. So, it had to go. There were a number after me, I don't know how many, and I won't ask. My JA father told my mother that if she had any more, he'd take me and leave. So, yeah, I approve. Can we go "abort" my father for that now? :dwink I only keep in contact with him b/c I hope to meet my half-sibs someday.

[mathydd]

.


"Terminating" children after birth (after all, a baby out of the womb is not any different from a baby who was in the womb a few minutes before hand) is the next logical step.

Every few years someone tries to push a Euthansia Bill through parliament (with unknown backers) but so far has been defeated. With our plunging birth rates (thanks to abortion and contraception) resulting in an ageing population, and this in turn putting an unbearable strain on our economies, our governments will be forced to legalise Voluntary Euthanasia. No doubt they will try to allay our fears that this will never progress to Involuntary Euthanasia. But then they made similar promises about abortion 40-odd years ago.

With them squeezing life from start (abortion and contraception) to finish (Euthansia), we can expect our numbers to undergo a rapid decline in the future.

This is what I call the Culture of Death that is infecting the Western World.
Many opponents to euthanasia are in fact handicapped/dissabled who fear the
ultimate legalization of forced suicide.

[mathydd]

I want to be able to have ten Irish children.

GOOD FOR YOU IRISH NATIONALIST !!!!!!

GOD BLESS THE IRISH AND IRELAND !!!!!!

[Milesian]

This is what I call the Culture of Death that is infecting the Western World.
Many opponents to euthanasia are in fact handicapped/dissabled who fear the
ultimate legalization of forced suicide.

Exactly right.
You have to wonder at the real motives of the groups pushing this agenda through. The fact that this particular rally is headed by a Jew is hardly suprising. Of course once you can bump of the elderly, the unborn and infants without protest or moral outrage, then you can start moving onto all other sorts of people. What if people with red hair are found to be not aethesitcally pleasing? What if having pale skin is a disadvantage in a world experiencing increasing cases of skin cancer? What if, what if? If we have no moral objection left to killing elderly family members, our children or our unborn babies, then why should we object to "terminating" any other members of society. We can clone, men are just a burden, they commit more crime and are simply more mouths to feed. More trouble than they are worth, let's "terminate" them.

Basically, once you start down this slippery slope, there is no limit to how far you could take it.

As for the handicapped, well Stephen Hawkings is in a wheelchair. I doubt anyone would label him - "unproductive"
To believe that we can be arbiters over who should live and who should die is completely prepostorous. Of course, a common tactic is to make something horrific like Euthansia or abrotion seem like a positive thing, in fact to be opposed to them is immoral. Let's help women by making it as easy as possible for them to murder their children (and hide away the suicide statistics of post-abortion women which has possibly killed more women than it has saved through "safe" abortions).
I've started to hear the same sinister tacticvs being employed with Euthansia.
Namely - "It's kinder to these people that they be killed before being allowed to suffer".

I'm sorry, but I have never personally heard a disabled person lament that they wished their mother had killed them in the womb than gave birth to them.
In fact, I wouldn't even have the nerve to suggest it to them, knowing full well the response I would recieve.