Liberals Love Baby Murder,Want to Save Death Row Savages, But Freak Over Gun Violence

[Bush92]

Liberals are are dysfunctional as hell.
Reminder for Hollywood: Gun deaths don’t shine a candle to abortion deaths

 

[HenryBHough]

Seems to have taken you quite a while to notice.

 

[whitehall]

Actually liberals thrive on violence, gun and otherwise. Another school shooting fits into the liberal agenda of bringing down the Constitution, Amendment by Amendment.The only way democrats get elected is when people are angry and unhappy. Tragically the criminal conspiracy in the MSM and H'wood contributes to and encourages violence.

 

[Bush92]

Seems to have taken you quite a while to notice.

Known it all along.

 

[miketx]

Actually liberals thrive on violence, gun and otherwise. Another school shooting fits into the liberal agenda of bringing down the Constitution, Amendment by Amendment.The only way democrats get elected is when people are angry and unhappy. Tragically the criminal conspiracy in the MSM and H'wood contributes to and encourages violence.

All the Hollywood elites are tweeting how horrible this all is and we need to do something about guns and all the horror of it all. I replied to several of them stating that they should get rid of all their armed body guards and stop making movies that glorify gun violence or stfu.

 

[Bush92]

Hollywood loves abortion...
'Goonies' star Martha Plimpton says she had her 'best abortion' in Seattle

 

[Bush92]

Hollywood loves death row inmates...

 

[miketx]

Hollywood loves abortion...
'Goonies' star Martha Plimpton says she had her 'best abortion' in Seattle

Another horrible example of leftists.

 

[Bush92]

Hollywood loves gun violence...but is shocked when it happens in public.

 

[S.J.]

The left hates guns. They prefer scalpels, forceps, and needles.

 

[midcan5]

Abortion remains the hypocrite's crutch. I often ask pro life people why it is they don't have more children? How is it that this month they prevented another human from existing? Obviously I get puzzled faces and the religious person falls back on the excuse that only conception forms a human. Of course that isn't medically true as the process from conception to person is fraught with other complexities and many conceptions end naturally. You could then ask since this is fact, where do these conceptions grow up and don't they have it kinda easy if there is a personal God looking over us? Of course the conception would miss the turmoil of human existence in all its ups and downs. But a harder question may be so what you are pro life, a child in the world dies of natural but preventable causes every few seconds. Shouldn't we be doing something in this area? Or consider healthcare is that not pro life and why is our mortality rate at birth so poor? Anyone know? Of course not, for being pro life is like so many emotions meaningless, it sounds nice and makes the person feel good but it is meaningless. Support life is the real choice.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

"Thirty-one percent of all conceptions end in miscarriage, usually in the early months of pregnancy and often before women even know they are pregnant, according to a new study." Source NYT

Imagine for a moment that those who oppose birth control of any kind realized that the potential for life exists every month and lived according to the Catholic concept of propagation of life and the faith?

Or imagine that those who want to ban any sort of birth control, raised and took care of the needy children in this country and the world? It is estimated that a living breathing child dies every fifteen seconds. Just imagine.

Imagine too if the poverty that make life tragic were addressed and along with it an education that would make life a bit nice for all. And imagine then that birth became just a bit easier, life too.

Study Finds 31% Rate of Miscarriage

"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." Joel Feinberg, Abortion