Read this little exercise in immorality.
British feminist thinks killing babies based on their sex, which means well into the 1st trimester, is just fine–after all, it’s legal.
When you consider life and an individual expendable, things follow on as to how that works.
After a quality of life measure could be gender, right?
For example men don’t live so long and the feminists have declared them savaged boors. Woops, but what if the sex choice is made in cultures that prefer men?
When you affirm a women’s right to kill humans of a certain size, could you extend it to the first 30 days to fine tune the choices, like the jackass Singer from Princeton proposes.
When feminists and libs assert a right to kill do they also surrender the right to say whom can you kill–the red-headed, the runt, the girl who appears to be ugly on the Ultrasound and brunette, not blond, the boy who’s looking too short or who’s brain scan is unsatisfactory to the parents?
Of course the horrors of the Charnel House that Kermit ran in Philly–the reaction was killing live babies. Gee, don’t people realize that live is not determined by whether the baby can cry or make a noise.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/feminisms_internal_contradiction_exposed_in_britain.html
After checking out a handful of the articles
on your blog, I seriously appreciate your technique of blogging.
I book marked it to my bookmark webpage list and will be checking
back in the near future. Take a look at my web site as well and let me know
how you feel.
We have two normative answers to eugenics and abortion. About 92% of pregnacies involving Downs Syndrom are terminated. This frees up resources to care for those who are born retarded. Roughly one in three American women have an abortion during their childbearing years. This frees up resources for those children actually born and reduces the pressure from exess fecundity.
As I mentioned before, treating abortion as murder is an extreme view not appropriate for this wonderful web site.
Social sciences, economics, education are all fair game, in fact the place where junk science is most prevalent is science or cargo cult science in the political sphere.
Besides, it’s a discussion site. Abortion has been a big discussion item, since the junk scientist Kermit Goznell and others like him take the junk science, junk philosophy of abortionists to a extreme. When I see or read about intellectual dishonesty as described in the post here about the goofy and dishonest feminists, I think it rises to the level of junk science.
If you object, turn the page, but you are not the hall monitor. I am a big boy, and I write about junky tortured intellectual postering in all areas of inquiry. Social science are fair game for JunkScience.com and how we came to kill so many humans in so many ways certainly is a question of import. Junk Science at its worst is the eugenics movement, and killing babies for convenience is not eugenics, usually, but the promoters of the abortion industry are certainly an extreme form of population controller and misanthropy.
What does this have to do with science?
“Let all the babies be born, and then let us drown those we do not like”
■“I might inform those humanitarians who have a nightmare of new and needless babies (for some humanitarians have that sort of horror of humanity) that if the recent decline in the birth-rate were continued for a certain time, it might end in there being no babies at all; which would console them very much.” – ILN, 5-24-30
Gilbert Keith Chesterton
…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.[66] John Quincy Adams- 6th President of the United States of America
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/muslim-persecution-of-christians/why-the-media-doesnt-cover-jihadist-attacks-on-middle-east-christians/
Western Europe laying itself forth as a sacrifice to the tiny god of multiculturalism