Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by AllieBaba, Jul 16, 2009.
At least according to Edidouche.
I'd like him to explain exactly what the fuck that means?
I dunno. Does he believe that the minority population should be kept in check? That's what companies like Planned Parenthood do. Margaret Sanger wanted it that way.
Perhaps when you learn to keep a civil tongue in your head he might, dear.
The language of the OP seems more fitting of the Flame Zone
I have a better OP for you....keep the thread title
I have heard the claim that abortion=social justice but I have no clue how that is.
Can someone who believes this explain it for me?
Try that.....it makes you sound like your truly curious and not just trying to bash someone over the head with this thread.
it is not surprising that socialists see 50 million dead as a "social justics" for them it is, for everyone else it is barbarity and inhumannity
I'd like to know exactly how justice is served by slaughtering babies, and who is receiving justice when it happens.
Along the same lines, did you see the Justice Ginsburg quote, implying that the Roe v. Wade decision was aimed at keeping the size of the black population in check?
"In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."
And how about the government bureaucrat who is in favor of forced abortion and sterilization:
"a. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
b. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
c. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
Perhaps I should mention that the author of these views, John P. Holdren has these official titles: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Thats right, the Obama Science Czar.
'Science Czar' John P. Holdren's disturbing beliefs about America, capitalism and humanity
obamas health care scam will no doubt at some point contain forced abortions to control population in an attempt to sustain a regulated slave state
Abortion is and always has been a tool of eugenics.
Separate names with a comma.