Gingrich: Obama Voted For Infanticide

[PoliticalChic]

Hussein Obama, greatest presidential liar in our history, appointed Singer as his 'science adviser.'

Science Advisor to the President - Wikipedia

John Holdren - Wikipedia

I donno. Your link didn't work and the only Peter Singer associated with the Obama Administration is this guy.

P. W. Singer - Wikipedia

"Singer served as coordinator of the Defense Policy Task Force for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. In addition to his work on conflict issues, Singer is a member of the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy."

You really are blind, huh????

Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290





Barack Obama, voting in favor of infanticide, and hiring Peter Singer as his 'science adviser,' Singer repeated his familiar, but still disconcerting, belief that killing an intellectually disabled human being might be less wrong than killing an alert non-human animal:

… one might argue that to kill a normal human being who wants to go on living is more seriously wrong than killing a nonhuman animal. Whether this claim is or is not sound, it is not speciesist. But given that some human beings – most obviously, those with profound intellectual impairment – lack this capacity, or have it to a lower degree than some nonhuman animals, it would be speciesist to claim that it is always more seriously wrong to kill a member of the species Homo sapiens than it is to kill a nonhuman animal. BioEdge: Ever the controversialist: Peter Singer on speciesism






“1.…the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

2. According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

3. Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

4. In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

5. In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

6. In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

7. “Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that a.
8. Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.” Campus president condemns Coulter event, silent as professor who calls sex with animals potentially ‘satisfying’ speaks





Infanticide has become the mainstream policy of the Democrat Party.

Your link is blind. At least the dog could still see shadows and stuff....

Experience Project - Wikipedia

Is Health adviser a real position at the WH or is it something the SJWer Anti-Choice crowd made up?

Still waiting on the name of a state, any state, that has legalized infanticide.

Every state that allows abortion up to birth allows infanticide:

a. It would allow the slaughter as the child is partially out of the birth canal

b."The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Virginia governor faces backlash over comments supporting late-term abortion bill - CNNPolitics
...allowed to quietly die: infanticide.

And that was Obama's position, too.


I'll assume that pretending not to understand this allows you to sleep at night.

Let not pretend you quoted Gov. Blackface's full statement. The entire quote reveals why the anti-Choice SJWers would take only the final sentence.

"You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

So would you not sedate the infant to keep it comfortable after it's birth? Since it was born it can't be euthenised even it has fatal deformities. Would the doctor not discuss the future, short as it may be, of child, how it will be cared for, what to expect with the particular condition with the mother? WTF?

You lying sack of offal.

When is there ever a choice by one party to kill a separate and unique other party????????


When??????



The bill has nothing to do with fatal deformities....only with one person having the legal ability to kill another.


There are two irrefutable statements about abortion/infanticide:

a. one individual has no right to kill a separate and unique individual

b. nearly 100% of abortions are based on convenience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[elektra]

And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

"there may be", meaning, there may not be! Severe deformities? Who gets to define severe deformity? How often does that happen? And what is wrong with deformed children? You do not want to look at them? So you get to be god and decide who lives and who dies, based on your definition of deformity.

No down syndrome kids? Yet they are some of the happiest people I have met.

But, as your quote states, this is only the "there may be", cases. There will be a million to one, cases, where there are no deformities, severe or not.

It is time to end abortion. Those who are willing to kill babies that are alive, kicking, and playing, about to be born into this world, those people willing to kill happy babies, those people need to be eliminated from our society.

You have no place in this world. If you are willing to kill the deformed because it makes you uncomfortable, if you killing all the imperfections in the world, if you allow babies that are fine to be murdered, it is time to eliminate you and your party from our society.

It ain't 1968 anymore.

 

[BlindBoo]

Science Advisor to the President - Wikipedia

John Holdren - Wikipedia

I donno. Your link didn't work and the only Peter Singer associated with the Obama Administration is this guy.

P. W. Singer - Wikipedia

"Singer served as coordinator of the Defense Policy Task Force for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. In addition to his work on conflict issues, Singer is a member of the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy."

You really are blind, huh????

Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290





Barack Obama, voting in favor of infanticide, and hiring Peter Singer as his 'science adviser,' Singer repeated his familiar, but still disconcerting, belief that killing an intellectually disabled human being might be less wrong than killing an alert non-human animal:

… one might argue that to kill a normal human being who wants to go on living is more seriously wrong than killing a nonhuman animal. Whether this claim is or is not sound, it is not speciesist. But given that some human beings – most obviously, those with profound intellectual impairment – lack this capacity, or have it to a lower degree than some nonhuman animals, it would be speciesist to claim that it is always more seriously wrong to kill a member of the species Homo sapiens than it is to kill a nonhuman animal. BioEdge: Ever the controversialist: Peter Singer on speciesism






“1.…the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

2. According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

3. Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

4. In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

5. In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

6. In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

7. “Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that a.
8. Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.” Campus president condemns Coulter event, silent as professor who calls sex with animals potentially ‘satisfying’ speaks





Infanticide has become the mainstream policy of the Democrat Party.

Your link is blind. At least the dog could still see shadows and stuff....

Experience Project - Wikipedia

Is Health adviser a real position at the WH or is it something the SJWer Anti-Choice crowd made up?

Still waiting on the name of a state, any state, that has legalized infanticide.

Every state that allows abortion up to birth allows infanticide:

a. It would allow the slaughter as the child is partially out of the birth canal

b."The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Virginia governor faces backlash over comments supporting late-term abortion bill - CNNPolitics
...allowed to quietly die: infanticide.

And that was Obama's position, too.


I'll assume that pretending not to understand this allows you to sleep at night.

Let not pretend you quoted Gov. Blackface's full statement. The entire quote reveals why the anti-Choice SJWers would take only the final sentence.

"You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

So would you not sedate the infant to keep it comfortable after it's birth? Since it was born it can't be euthenised even it has fatal deformities. Would the doctor not discuss the future, short as it may be, of child, how it will be cared for, what to expect with the particular condition with the mother? WTF?

You lying sack of offal.

When is there ever a choice by one party to kill a separate and unique other party????????


When??????



The bill has nothing to do with fatal deformities....only with one person having the legal ability to kill another.


There are two irrefutable statements about abortion/infanticide:

a. one individual has no right to kill a separate and unique individual

b. nearly 100% of abortions are based on convenience.

The Gov., whom you quoted, was specifically talking about the birth of a severely deformed infant. He wasn't talking about abortion, infanticide or euthanasia. I hold the MSM responsible for not calling the Rabid Right Wing out on this tried and tactic of splicing a quote in half and making a false narrative and then selling that false narrative to the rubes and troops who parrot it endlessly.

But then maybe MSM doesn't call it out because they do it too?

 

[BlindBoo]

Who gets to define severe deformity? How often does that happen? And what is wrong with deformed children? You do not want to look at them? So you get to be god and decide who lives and who dies, based on your definition of deformity.

"one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way."

Not my decision. My decision is to give them the choice to allow the doctors and the parents to decide. Not you. Not me. Not god.

Blow it out your ass for accusing me of supporting infanticide and saying "You have no place in this world." That cuts me deep, really deep </sarcasm>. The Gov. never once mention enthusing the child in his example, so where do people get the idea that he was?

I have no problem with parents who would want to try and raise a child with special needs for the rest of his or her life. All cases are different so it's hard to get into specifics.

 

[elektra]

I have no problem with parents who would want to try and raise a child with special needs for the rest of his or her life. All cases are different so it's hard to get into specifics.

It is nice,that you would allow some parents raise deformed children, not so nice that you argued that a baby deserves no protection if they are deformed. Defirmed is the word you quoted.

I did not accuse you of anything. I simply read the position you took in your comment. I am thinking you did not think about what you are arguing.

 

[BlindBoo]

I have no problem with parents who would want to try and raise a child with special needs for the rest of his or her life. All cases are different so it's hard to get into specifics.

It is nice,that you would allow some parents raise deformed children, not so nice that you argued that a baby deserves no protection if they are deformed. Defirmed is the word you quoted.

I did not accuse you of anything. I simply read the position you took in your comment. I am thinking you did not think about what you are arguing.

I'm in no position to allow or disallow any parent from that decision.

The part of the quote you took issue with was the Governors. My position was about making up a false narrative by splicing up such a statement, in mid sentence, and claiming the statement was something other than what it was.

Do you think he was talking about killing the infant in his example?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You really are blind, huh????

Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators
http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-Not-A-Fan-Of-Peter-Singer/657290





Barack Obama, voting in favor of infanticide, and hiring Peter Singer as his 'science adviser,' Singer repeated his familiar, but still disconcerting, belief that killing an intellectually disabled human being might be less wrong than killing an alert non-human animal:

… one might argue that to kill a normal human being who wants to go on living is more seriously wrong than killing a nonhuman animal. Whether this claim is or is not sound, it is not speciesist. But given that some human beings – most obviously, those with profound intellectual impairment – lack this capacity, or have it to a lower degree than some nonhuman animals, it would be speciesist to claim that it is always more seriously wrong to kill a member of the species Homo sapiens than it is to kill a nonhuman animal. BioEdge: Ever the controversialist: Peter Singer on speciesism






“1.…the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

2. According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

3. Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

4. In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

5. In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

6. In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

7. “Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that a.
8. Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.” Campus president condemns Coulter event, silent as professor who calls sex with animals potentially ‘satisfying’ speaks





Infanticide has become the mainstream policy of the Democrat Party.

Your link is blind. At least the dog could still see shadows and stuff....

Experience Project - Wikipedia

Is Health adviser a real position at the WH or is it something the SJWer Anti-Choice crowd made up?

Still waiting on the name of a state, any state, that has legalized infanticide.

Every state that allows abortion up to birth allows infanticide:

a. It would allow the slaughter as the child is partially out of the birth canal

b."The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Virginia governor faces backlash over comments supporting late-term abortion bill - CNNPolitics
...allowed to quietly die: infanticide.

And that was Obama's position, too.


I'll assume that pretending not to understand this allows you to sleep at night.

Let not pretend you quoted Gov. Blackface's full statement. The entire quote reveals why the anti-Choice SJWers would take only the final sentence.

"You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

So would you not sedate the infant to keep it comfortable after it's birth? Since it was born it can't be euthenised even it has fatal deformities. Would the doctor not discuss the future, short as it may be, of child, how it will be cared for, what to expect with the particular condition with the mother? WTF?

You lying sack of offal.

When is there ever a choice by one party to kill a separate and unique other party????????


When??????



The bill has nothing to do with fatal deformities....only with one person having the legal ability to kill another.


There are two irrefutable statements about abortion/infanticide:

a. one individual has no right to kill a separate and unique individual

b. nearly 100% of abortions are based on convenience.

The Gov., whom you quoted, was specifically talking about the birth of a severely deformed infant. He wasn't talking about abortion, infanticide or euthanasia. I hold the MSM responsible for not calling the Rabid Right Wing out on this tried and tactic of splicing a quote in half and making a false narrative and then selling that false narrative to the rubes and troops who parrot it endlessly.

But then maybe MSM doesn't call it out because they do it too?

Of course he wasn't, liar.


He was hypothesizing a conversation, the actual content of which would have ended with 'so....how shall we kill it.....slowly or quickly.'


His and that Democrat policy in every state that they can get it, is abortion=infanticide.


Exactly what Obama ran on.




Pay special attention to the vid @ :50

"...if a baby is born alive after a late term abortion, we can throw it away...Barack Obama approved that..."

2:01

2:40

3:55

5:28

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Mississippi Legislature passes bills banning abortion after detectable heartbeat
Both the Mississippi House and Senate passed ‘heartbeat bills’ on Wednesday, bills which would ban abortion after a heartbeat is detected in a preborn child, at approximately six weeks. The bill reportedly contains no exceptions for cases of rape, incest, etc. Other states considering similar legislation are, according to the Associated Press, Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Mississippi previously passed a 15-week abortion ban, which a judge struck down late last year. The state plans to appeal that decision to the Fifth Circuit.


“Times are changing in this country,” Hill said. “We can see more of what’s happening in the womb… We can see that heart beating with those tests and I’ve had those tests and they’re not so bad.”

Hill talked about how happy she was when she heard the fetal heartbeat of her own children.

“I see in this country that we protect sea turtle eggs and we protect other endangered species of animals with a greater degree of scrutiny and zealousness than we protect a child in the womb that has a beating heart,” Hill said. “The womb should be the safest place in the world for an unborn child. I’m asking Mississippi to be different.”




… T]he heart is pumping the embryo’s own blood to his or her brain and body.16 All four chambers of the heart are present17 and more than 1 million heartbeats have occurred.18 The head, as well as the chest and abdominal cavities have formed19and the beginnings of the arms and legs are easily seen.20“




This child, shown in the video below, is just seven weeks and three days old.


7 Weeks Pregnant -- Hiccups & Startle Response


Mississippi Legislature passes bills banning abortion after detectable heartbeat

 

[Jroc]

1. "Newt Gingrich deflected a question ...by pointing out that Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providers during his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide," Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


2. n·fan·ti·cide/in&#712;fanti&#716;s&#299;d/
Noun:
The practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.


3. "Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion....FactCheck.org found holes in Obama’s explanations as to why he did not support the “born alive” legislation..."
FACT CHECK: Gingrich Claim on Obama Infanticide Vote A Stretch - Naureen Khan - NationalJournal.com

a. "Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session."
FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

4. If a child is 'accidentally' born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt, Senator Obama had no problem allowing that newborn to die, sans any medical attention.


5. Now, lest anyone believe that there is a nuanced explanation that would be acceptable to normal people....consider the fact that President Obama appointed Professor Peter Singer as his heathcare advisor.
Peter Singer Joins Obama's Health Care Administrators : I Am Not a Fan of Peter Singer Story & Experience

a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.


So...did Obama have a cavalier attitude about killing infants?
Would you appoint anyone who advises killing infants?....Obama did.
Was Gingrich correct?
Seems indisputable.

Obama isn't President and he's not coming back.

I love that you fools are now mislabelling abortion as "infanticide". Infanticide is the murder of children, which Republican Party wholeheartedly and enthusiastically supports, because the US has the highest rate of infant mortality in the first world.

THIS is infanticide:

United States - 5.8 per 1,000
The infant mortality rate in the US is 5.8 per 1,000. Though below the world average, this is above the country's neighbors like Cuba and Canada. The higher rate in the US has been blamed on a lack of accessible healthcare and the lack of a quality social safety net in general. Low-income families and children in the United States are especially vulnerable to infant mortality.

Infant Mortality Rate by Country

This is the hypocrisy of right wingers. You don't care about children. You don't care about living breathing children. You care about controlling women, and punishing them for having sex.

Dont care? Lol. Pro choice is the ones who have killed 70 million in this country and now they want to kill babies already born. Dont tell us about who cares. Those fake tears fall on the ground and dry up quickly.

45,000 American die every year because they don't have access to quality health care. Republicans don't care and are doing nothing about it.

35,000 Americans die every year from gunshot wounds, and Republicans don't care and do nothing about gun control.

70,000 people are dying every year because of opiod abuse, and don't care and do nothing to stop drug companies from addicting millions of Americans.

Republicans did NOTHING to stop the spread of AIDS, which became a HUGE public health crisis which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, before the CDC started spending money to find the causes and treatments.

ONLY the unborn matter to Republican lawmakers. Real people are "welfare whores" and "deadbeats" and too lazy to work. We must save the unborn so we can let them die later.

So exactly how do those stats, as flowed as they are, justify the slaughter of babies up until, and even after birth?

 

[PoliticalChic]

“The Gosnell case reveals the state of much of Western society. It is lost without a compass. Cigarette packets warn that ‘Smoking can harm unborn babies’. No doubt it can, but abortion does more. Planned Parenthood even has an advertisement: ‘Your baby will thank you.’ This can only mystify anyone who retains any capacity to think.



In 2012 two Victorian doctors advocated what they called ‘after-birth abortion’. Planned Parenthood representative, Alisa LaPolt Snow, told the Florida Legislature that if a child was aborted but survived the abortion, the decision as to what to do with the child should be left up to the woman, her family, and physician. We have been manoeuvred about by slogans to the point where critical standards have almost collapsed around us.


Ultimately, Gosnell’s ‘crime’ in the eyes of the state was that he was unsuccessful in killing the children in the womb, so he resorted to doing it outside the womb. If he had succeeded in the first place, he would never have been charged. Peter Singer has long argued in favour of infanticide because the distinction between the child in the womb and the child outside is not enough to warrant the law’s protection. His logic is impeccable; his ethics are frightening.

Speaking generally, we no longer see life as guarded by the commandment ‘You shall not murder’. It is now determined by the desire of someone else. That is what pro-choice means.



There is no argument in favour of abortion which is not also an argument in favour of infanticide.”
Abortion: Kermit Gosnell and the slide to infanticide. · Caldron Pool

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course he wasn't, liar.

Of course he was. It was quite clear when you read the entire transcript and not the spliced "quote" parroted by the SJWer.

The rest, you and your ilk are just making up. He never provided any detail as to what the conversation with grieving family would be.

It's not surprising that the spin masters publish those hideous, but baseless speculations as if fact. In that case killing the child, even a fatally deformed child, would be illegal and would not be done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course he wasn't, liar.

Of course he was. It was quite clear when you read the entire transcript and not the spliced "quote" parroted by the SJWer.

The rest, you and your ilk are just making up. He never provided any detail as to what the conversation with grieving family would be.

It's not surprising that the spin masters publish those hideous, but baseless speculations as if fact. In that case killing the child, even a fatally deformed child, would be illegal and would not be done.

He was giving liars like you plausible deniability.

He was hypothesizing a conversation, the actual content of which would have ended with 'so....how shall we kill it.....slowly or quickly.'


His and that Democrat policy in every state that they can get it, is abortion=infanticide.


Exactly what Obama ran on.



Pay special attention to the vid @ :50

"...if a baby is born alive after a late term abortion, we can throw it away...Barack Obama approved that..."

2:01

2:40

3:55

5:28


But don't forget their push for the death of the elderly under "ObamaCare"

And this:

"Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’
The former [Democrat] governor of Colorado, who has expressed support for population control and said that the elderly have a “duty to die,” has come out against a state amendment that would recognize the rights of unborn children, calling the pro-life measure “a monster.”
Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’ — The Rights Writer


The Democrats are true to their forebears:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky





"Speaking generally, we no longer see life as guarded by the commandment ‘You shall not murder’. It is now determined by the desire of someone else. That is what pro-choice means.

There is no argument in favour of abortion which is not also an argument in favour of infanticide.” Gmail