Friday, November 18, 2011

Aborting Children Gives Chris Selley A Warm Fuzzy Feeling

A 44-years old gravid female with previous 6 c...
Image via Wikipedia
Chris Selley: "Ms. Tomlins suggests the added effort might make women reconsider. All it makes me consider is the prospect of a woman giving birth solely because she can't scrape together $1,000, even in a desperate situation. This does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling."

Obliterating unborn humans does, Chris?


Anonymous said...


Canadians are cautioned on cigarette packets and wine bottles not to drink or smoke, for fear of impairing the fetus, but as a result of radical femnazies, they may slaughter their children: this liquidation of 100,000 unborn person a year is what passes for a rational, humanistic society in Harper’s Canada where human life is considered valueless and there are absolutely no laws pursuant to butchering this life. We ignore helpless unborn persons’ their human rights while permitting torturing them; however, we whine and frantically call for action by the World Court when sadist foreign despots ignore human right by torturing their citizens.

The extreme left-wing, and the unfair and unbalanced bias press want us to hug, coddle, and protect their beloved Taliban terrorists, and give aid and comfort to terrorists like Khadr, but advocate that every possible, completely innocent, pre-born person anywhere in the world is a candidate for the pro-slaughter gangs of thugs to butcher. An Al Qaeda terrorist is no different from a pregnant female terrorist who slaughters her child.

These terrorist sympathizing liberals want our children, at least those lucky enough to survive the womb, to live on Canadian streets with malevolent terrorists like Khadr and malicious criminals that liberal judges have freed, but insist that pre-born persons all over the world should be candidates for slaughter just to gratify the extreme Nazi-feminists who refuse to care for them.

If Harper, who manipulated the Parliamentary free vote to ensure that it would lose, and who seemly supports the slaughter of these unborn persons, really wanted to do something to make our streets and communities safer for children he would pass legislation preventing this slaughter of hundred of thousands of pre-born persons every year. However, our left-plunging PM would rather coddle and welcome terrorist Khadr than save the lives of these unborn persons.

When is this self-labeled “civilized” society going to stop slaughtering innocent, pre-born persons just to please radical “feminizes” who want to have their fulfillment but who butcher their unborn persons rather than accept the responsibilities of parenthood? And we must not discount the Nazi-like, callous inhuman practice of post-birth “abortions” during which newborns mercilessly have their spinal cords cut using scissors prior to disposal.

If abortion supporting Harper was a legitimate social conservative he would stop disgracing himself and ignore the extremist in the pro-slaughter, femnazie women organizations, and legislate against this primitive, prehistoric, inhuman, sadistic extermination of our innocent, gullible pre-born persons. He would begin by preventing the most aggrieves, merciless and cold-blooded practices known as partial-birth-abortion during which live babies are removed from the womb and stabbed so that their brains can be sucked out.


Marina said...

And this is why I am a conservative and not a libertarian.

Anon1152 said...

"An Al Qaeda terrorist is no different from a pregnant female terrorist who slaughters her child."

The order you've chosen there is interesting (and, perhaps, telling).

Anon1152 said...

Machiavelli. Interesting choice of name--I'm assuming this is a choice--especially given the fact that Niccolo Machiavelli claimed that, in order to preserve a Republic, one might need to "kill the sons of Brutus"... I'm speaking, of course, of Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Roman Republic. (See The Discourses, Book III, Chapter 3... and Book III, Chapter 2, and Book I, Chapters 16-17).

Machiavelli calls Brutus "the father of Roman liberty" (Discourses, Book III, Chapter 1). And later says that "The harsh methods Brutus employed to preserve the liberty he had won for Rome were not merely useful, but necessary. His example is an exceptional one, with few parallels throughout history: a father sitting in judgment and not only condemning his sons to death, but supervising their execution...Anyone who sets up a tyranny and does not kill Brutus, anyone who introduces self-government and does not kill the sons of Brutus, cannot expect to survive long" (Discourses, Book III, Chapter 3).

Perhaps more relevant to the issue of abortion is the case of Madonna Caterina (Countess of Forli), whose story he considers a "good example":

"Some conspirators from Forli killed Count Girolamo, their lord, and took his wife and small children. Since they felt they could not live securely unless they had command of the fortress--and the castellan would not surrender it to them--Madonna Caterina, as the countess was called, promised the conspirators that if they allowed her to go into the fortress she would deliver it up to them and they could keep her children as hostages. With this promise, they allowed her to enter the place; when she was inside, she reproached them for the death of her husband and threatened them with every kind of revenge. And to show that she had no concern for her children, she showed them her genitals, declaring that she still had the means to produce more offspring" (Discourses, Book III, Chapter 6).

Of course.... all of these "Machiavellian" examples have to do with children (we are, all of us, the children of others) who are (shall we say?) well beyond the "post born" stage.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"