Fetal Pain Is A Lie: How Phony Science Took Over The Abortion Debate

Atheism is a religion, and merciless murder of innocents are its stock in trade. Protecting the choice of murder is all that matters to the Religious Atheist Fundamentalists. Abortion started as racist "solution" by Margaret Sanger. Give it a think.

 

Well, I am an old person so that comment is false. Leftists? Wait, not necessarily leftist, because some leftists are against abortion because of their religious beliefs. Some on the right are pro-choice.

So, let's say, pro-choice are not in favor of killing fetuses. They are in favor of a woman's right to choose.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all that atheists have in common. The word doesn't need capitalisation (unless it starts the sentence) since it's not a noun. Your extreme politics cloud your reason.

 

So you believe ever liberal is an atheist. Not even close to being true. I have religious beliefs but I do not choose to use them to force someone to agree with my beliefs.

Oh, who cares about your belief in what atheism means?

 

oh I love liberal hypocrisy, they want to take your right to choose a big gulp, plastic water bottles, trans fat, your 2nd amendment, your 4th amendment, Styrofoam, flushing your own toilet, your emails, your phone calls, but BUT interstingly enough, they don't want your right to take a life touched at all. That is up to them.. In fact they don't even like it when people talk about it. 1st amendment isn't far behind. I wouldn't be surprised if fetuses start carrying.

 

Abortion STARTED thousands of years ago, long before Margaret Sanger's influence. And Sanger was OPPOSED to abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception.

 

Yeah, truth is anathama to progressive leftists.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-

 

Your beliefs inform your actions. In this case, action is protecting choice (murder) of human infants before they are born. So, you do use you beliefs to force people to agree with your beliefs. Give it a think.

 

Wiki isn't a valid source and your post is very far from any refutation.

 

"She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal."

She was against unsafe abortions not abortions totally. She was also for forced sterilization... so much for "womens rights"

Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[74][75] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[76] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[77][78][79]

With her stances on immigration you would be rushing to call her a right wing extremist and probably a racist.

That never crossed your mind eh?

 

Can be, but mostly it's just a reaction to overbearing, ridiculous Christians.

that's the sort of Christian BS I mean.

No, abortion has been around 'forever,' Sanger is dead, and whatever her attitudes may have been, they have zero to do with the present debate. It is irrational to claim that the supposed bad attitudes of a dead person mean that we should transfer our disapproval to some current issue position.

Odd advice from a person spreading such irrational propaganda talking points....

 

Here are Margaret Sanger's own words on the subject. You might try googling the subject yourself rather than embarrassing yourself with false statements.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/23/what-did-margaret-sanger-think-about-abortion/

In 1931, Sanger wrote this in her response to the encyclical:

Birth Control Does Not Mean Abortion

“The real alternative to birth control is abortion,” wrote Dean Inge, in his article already quoted. It is an alternative that I cannot too strongly condemn. Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life.

In her 1938 autobiography, Sanger says the following on page 217:

To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun.

 

Yeah, right. Get real. Get informed.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

 

I never once mentioned Christianity. You did. Defensive? Much. But I am proudly a Christian because it is truth, the only truth. Actions are always informed by beliefs. I protect life. Religious Atheist Fundamentalist leftists protect death and causeing it. Pretty stark comparrison.

 

You should read your own link to the end. The 1st amendment covers more than religious right and the Court of Repeals' decision was based on personal rights and not on religious rights.

 

Yes, my beliefs inform my actions but not my religious beliefs. If you have to exaggerate, your argument is weak.

 

Why is he defensive? You even admit that you are Christian. Defensive much?

Oh, god, "truth, and only truth". Well, that eliminates any doubt that you use religious beliefs to force others to abide to your religious beliefs.

 

Funny, it seems to me it's right-wingers that are parading their death wishes around the board, yearning for the deaths of those they hate. Pro-choice is not a matter of desiring the death of unborn life; it's a matter of valuing the life and rights of living women more.

 

There are politicians who pander to zealots.

Having failed to convince most rational folks that a microscopic cellular amalgam lacking the biological requisites of consciousness is really an itty-bitty person who appears at the instant of conception, these folks resort to demanding that the State must intrude to impose its coercive power within every womb.

If any radical agendum attracts sufficient votes from anywhere, there are politicians who will exploit it.

 

Yes

As soon as they become children. At birth.

In general, the anti-abortion people tend to be religious, and feel their position has the approval of their god (who never disagrees with their opinion). Free thinkers tend to favor individual liberty.

 

But unless that woman's life is in danger, what is the point of killing the baby?

 

Certainly not.

 

Why?

Is it because (to you) babies and rights do not exist outside the realm of religion?

You are rambling.

Do you deny the fact that an abortion kills a child?

This may come as a shock to you but my efforts to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of children in the womb has little if anything to do with women and their rights.

No-one has the right to violate the rights of another person.

Period.

A child molester may think of the child before he or she molests them....

It doesn't (wouldn't) offset the crime against the child.

 

Thank Gawd for the UVVA!

 

If I were a lib female who wanted to kill my unborn child fetal pain would not be an issue.

Nor should it be.

We don't allow crooks to take the life of store clerks they rob if they can kill painlessly.

So pain should not be the deciding issue in to right to life debate either.