Guns Kill People Yet Curettes Don't Kill Fetuses?
The gross hypocrisy of the liberal mentality is no better demonstrated by the seemingly-unrelated issues of gun control and abortion, both of which are strongly supported by libs even though the issues are antithetical: Control of guns is endorsed in the interests of preserving human life, abortion by definition destroys human life and is considered a virtual liberal sacrament.
Liberals can be awfully confusing.
Following yet another bloody weekend in New York City, the pro-abortion, imperial Mayor Michael Bloomberg trotted out the tired, old liberal mantra, regarding guns not abortions.
In reaction to 52 shootings in the city between Friday and Labor Day, including a shoot-out at the festive West Indian parade on Monday in Crown Heights that left 3 people dead, Bloomberg again resorted to the tried and true shibolleth that people don’t kill people, guns kill people.
He didn’t phrase his explanation of the mayhem in quite those terms since it’s been logically and statistically shown that guns aren’t the cause of gun violence and that people are the cause. It’s also been proven in Florida and other states that guns–in the hands of law-abiding people–actually deter criminals. Instead, the mayor invoked the more popular if less catchy line of the anti-gun lobby by blaming the shootings on illegal guns.
Memo to Bloomberg: Legal or illegal, firearms don’t usually discharge themselves.
None of this is meant to suggest that the ubiquity of weapons on the mean streets of New York, in predominantly black Crown Heights or anywhere else, isn’t a serious problem.
Nor is it meant to imply that accidents involving legal guns never happen. They do, although those occurrences are usually attributable to carelessness and are rarities even if the media blows them out of proportion when they do occur–in the interests of promoting gun safety–and the liberal agenda of denying Second Amendment rights to Americans.
The sad truth–as illustrated by New York City which has the most stringent gun possession laws in the nation and also has, per capita, the most illegal weapons in the nation and is undergoing a rapidly rising violent crime rate–is that “gun control” doesn’t work, except to the advantage of criminal elements.
Nevertheless, Bloomberg stuck to the liberal script and ignored reality by nasally intoning, This is ”what happens when elected officials in Washington fail to take the problem of illegal guns seriously.”
Those damned guns. They keep shooting and killing people, an implicit and ridiculous claim that serves to absolve the shooters and killers of individual responsibility for their actions.
The high priest of the liberal church and most-enthusiastically anti-gun and pro-abortion president in America’s history, President Barack Hussein Obama, has said little about guns or babies lately. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5372.)
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro-life. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
Rick Santorum on Abortion, Rape, Incest
Rick Santorum on Abortion, Rape, Incest
Former United States senator from Pennsylvania and current candidate for the GOP nomination for president Rick Santorum posed a very pertinent question at last Thursday’s Republican debate, pertinent but largely ignored by Obama’s mainstream media. Santorum asked why it was unacceptable in our nation to execute a convicted rapist yet legally condoned and fully permissible to kill the innocent product of rape.
Many states in America spare the lives of everyone from sadistic rapists to mass murderers because capital punishment is deemed barbaric in civilized society although snuffing out pre-born life is considered civilized even though the methods employed in abortions cause excruciating pain for the aborted.
That truth hasn’t fazed the City of San Francisco which is attempting to close pregnancy counseling centers which don’t provide and advocate abortions, http://bit.ly/qJgLGR, nor has it dissuaded abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood and others from pushing for more business.
Long before fetal pain was documented, former abortionist-turned-pro-lifer Dr. Bernard Nathanson released his graphic “Silent Scream” video which showed to any reasonable viewer the atrocious reality of abortion but, for political and personal reasons, relatively few people cared or chose not to care.
Santorum evidently cares a great deal and last Thursday cited a recent Supreme Court case in which the majority ruled a rapist could not be executed for that crime. That would be the same Court that decided in 1973 that a woman’s vague constitutional right to privacy superseded the right to life of a pre-born infant.
As Santorum said with regard to saving the rapist, “That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5213)
Former United States senator from Pennsylvania and current candidate for the GOP nomination for president Rick Santorum posed a very pertinent question at last Thursday’s Republican debate, pertinent but largely ignored by Obama’s mainstream media. Santorum asked why it was unacceptable in our nation to execute a convicted rapist yet legally condoned and fully permissible to kill the innocent product of rape.
Many states in America spare the lives of everyone from sadistic rapists to mass murderers because capital punishment is deemed barbaric in civilized society although snuffing out pre-born life is considered civilized even though the methods employed in abortions cause excruciating pain for the aborted.
That truth hasn’t fazed the City of San Francisco which is attempting to close pregnancy counseling centers which don’t provide and advocate abortions, http://bit.ly/qJgLGR, nor has it dissuaded abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood and others from pushing for more business.
Long before fetal pain was documented, former abortionist-turned-pro-lifer Dr. Bernard Nathanson released his graphic “Silent Scream” video which showed to any reasonable viewer the atrocious reality of abortion but, for political and personal reasons, relatively few people cared or chose not to care.
Santorum evidently cares a great deal and last Thursday cited a recent Supreme Court case in which the majority ruled a rapist could not be executed for that crime. That would be the same Court that decided in 1973 that a woman’s vague constitutional right to privacy superseded the right to life of a pre-born infant.
As Santorum said with regard to saving the rapist, “That to me sounds like a country that doesn’t have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5213)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
The Homosexual-Abortionist Symbiosis
The Homosexual-Abortionist Symbiosis
Symbiosis or symbiotic behavior is usually regarded as relationships confined to the animal, insect, and plant worlds such as is seen with suckerfish attached to sharks, plovers feeding on leeches embedded in crocodile gums, pea aphids draining the juices from a host plant.
However, symbiotic behavior also exists in the human species as, for example, in mother-infant interaction and other relationships in which two fundamentally dissimilar organisms or groups exist together to their mutual benefit although symbiosis most often benefits one more than the other. In psychiatry, two people dependent on and reinforced by one another, for better or worse, are said to be symbiotic.
I’m not qualified to speculate on the specific nature of the symbiosis that exists between the homosexual community and the Abortion Lobby but I can definitely say that both groups feed off one another. Which benefits most is difficult to say. I’d call it a dead heat.
Symbiosis, loosely defined as close and often long-term interactions between different biological species, seems to advantage both gays and abortionists in that both thrive by being linked by their abnormal behavior and, with strength in greater numbers, are therefore able to suffer the slings and arrows of societal disapprobation.
Admittedly, those slings and arrows are becoming more and more rare, which fact can be credited to their union, their promotion by the entertainment and mass media, and inroads being made into their route to eventual, universal acceptance as normal, through America’s youth and in our schools.
A recent, loud, demonstration on the streets of Chicago strongly reinforces the contention that gays and abortionists, though of different genders, transgenders, and appearances, are one and the same. Gays are dedicated to the natural sterility of the homosexual lifestyle, abortionists committed to unnaturally aborting pre-born life.
In a sense. it’s reasonable that gays and pro-abortionists form an alliance: Homosexuals can’t procreate, abortionists may or may not be able to procreate but advocate the killing of an already-created human being. Both groups . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4130)
Symbiosis or symbiotic behavior is usually regarded as relationships confined to the animal, insect, and plant worlds such as is seen with suckerfish attached to sharks, plovers feeding on leeches embedded in crocodile gums, pea aphids draining the juices from a host plant.
However, symbiotic behavior also exists in the human species as, for example, in mother-infant interaction and other relationships in which two fundamentally dissimilar organisms or groups exist together to their mutual benefit although symbiosis most often benefits one more than the other. In psychiatry, two people dependent on and reinforced by one another, for better or worse, are said to be symbiotic.
I’m not qualified to speculate on the specific nature of the symbiosis that exists between the homosexual community and the Abortion Lobby but I can definitely say that both groups feed off one another. Which benefits most is difficult to say. I’d call it a dead heat.
Symbiosis, loosely defined as close and often long-term interactions between different biological species, seems to advantage both gays and abortionists in that both thrive by being linked by their abnormal behavior and, with strength in greater numbers, are therefore able to suffer the slings and arrows of societal disapprobation.
Admittedly, those slings and arrows are becoming more and more rare, which fact can be credited to their union, their promotion by the entertainment and mass media, and inroads being made into their route to eventual, universal acceptance as normal, through America’s youth and in our schools.
A recent, loud, demonstration on the streets of Chicago strongly reinforces the contention that gays and abortionists, though of different genders, transgenders, and appearances, are one and the same. Gays are dedicated to the natural sterility of the homosexual lifestyle, abortionists committed to unnaturally aborting pre-born life.
In a sense. it’s reasonable that gays and pro-abortionists form an alliance: Homosexuals can’t procreate, abortionists may or may not be able to procreate but advocate the killing of an already-created human being. Both groups . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4130)
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Abortion, the Bottom Line
Abortion, the Bottom Line
Much has been said and written about abortion rights, too much in fact.
The right of a woman and, as it has evolved, the right of a pubescent girl, to terminate a pregnancy was decided in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court in its landmark Roe V. Wade decision. It thereby became the law of the land. The matter was settled.
Well, not really. The case may have been settled, but the matter was far from settled. It hadn’t been settled any more than the decision of the Supreme Court in 1857, in the matter of Dred Scott v. Sandford, settled that particular matter. The Court then concluded that Dred Scott was a man “of inferior order” and hence should not be accorded the rights of citizenship.
Of course, today the Dred Scott Decision is regarded as odious, predicated on the sentiment of some at the time and a usurpation of the rights of another human being on the basis of his African heritage. It took a Civil War and a number of amendments to our Constitution to right that grievously wrong decision of the Supreme Court. Likewise, with Roe v. Wade, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1663)
Much has been said and written about abortion rights, too much in fact.
The right of a woman and, as it has evolved, the right of a pubescent girl, to terminate a pregnancy was decided in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court in its landmark Roe V. Wade decision. It thereby became the law of the land. The matter was settled.
Well, not really. The case may have been settled, but the matter was far from settled. It hadn’t been settled any more than the decision of the Supreme Court in 1857, in the matter of Dred Scott v. Sandford, settled that particular matter. The Court then concluded that Dred Scott was a man “of inferior order” and hence should not be accorded the rights of citizenship.
Of course, today the Dred Scott Decision is regarded as odious, predicated on the sentiment of some at the time and a usurpation of the rights of another human being on the basis of his African heritage. It took a Civil War and a number of amendments to our Constitution to right that grievously wrong decision of the Supreme Court. Likewise, with Roe v. Wade, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1663)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)