Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy of Death, Disease, Depravit -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (415)	3/8/2016 2:18:40 AM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1308

Religious Leaders File Brief To Support Abortion March 5, 2016 / Briggs / 39 Comments Sacrifices to Democracy. Here’s the story: “ Nearly 1,300 Religious Leaders Sign Historic Brief Urging Supreme Court to Preserve a Woman’s Right to [Kill Their Unborn]“. Why are women so special they get the “right” to kill and men don’t? Sexism, I say. Anyway, that some religious leaders should band together and support abortion should not be a surprise. The priests of Baal and Moloch, for instance, were unanimous in agreeing for the need to sacrifice children to their demon. Roasting was the preferred method. Too, the clergy attending the Aztec gods thought it swell to flay or de-heart scores of citizens, many of which were children. And so on. Incidentally, did you ever notice that the method of sacrifice is usually designed to be excruciating? Simple beheadings and the like are comparatively rare when humans attempt to appease demons. Even enwombed humans are vacuumed to death (try imagining this happening to yourself) or sliced apart. The intentional cruelty is interesting, no? The strange thing about this new story is that a good chunk of the religious “leaders” call themselves Christian! The faith-based amicus brief demonstrates that religious leaders and people of faith in almost every religious denomination in the U.S. support access to legal abortion. These religious leaders understand that in order for women to exercise their moral agency, access to abortion services cannot be denied. The brief was signed by leaders of several religious denominations and seminary presidents as well as clergy from congregations across the U.S… The Religious Institute, as far as I can tell, is a landing page for apostates. Group members are extraordinarily fascinated by their genitals, with most (all?) articles alluding to or explicitly mentioning sex, sex, sex. For instance, in a discourse about Pentecost rapidly falls into a discussion of “the plight of LGBTQ people in Africa, who are regularly discriminated against”. Dude? Anyway, about that abortion thing: The Rev. Debra W. Haffner, President of the Religious Institute, made the following statement: “Millions of people of faith and religious leaders understand that abortion is a moral decision. The Texas measures that restrict access to abortion services are punitive and do nothing to promote moral decision-making. We call for the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the Texas laws that by causing clinics to close will effectively result in coerced child bearing. It is immoral to deny women safe, legal, and accessible abortion services. So abortion is a moral decision and they recognize that, but then insist that this moral decision not be made by Texas but by themselves instead. But never mind, because the argument is obviously hash and nonsensical. It’s the phrase “coerced child bearing” that is wondrous. Presumably (although I’m not convinced), Haffner understands how couples get pregnant. After all, her organization is sex mad and actively pushes couplings, triplings, and morelings. As far as I can tell, Haffner nowhere advocates chastity. Now people choose to have sex, and everybody knows what sex can lead to, thus everybody chooses their resultant pregnancy. Therefore, the child which is created because of a willful act cannot be in any sense coerced. That leaves rape, but Haffner obviously does not mean rape. What therefore Haffner wants is not the “right” to abortion, but the “right” to act irresponsibly. Why? Don’t forget a “right” implies a responsibility, thus a right to abortion implies it is somebody’s responsibility to kill the lives inside women. Who will that be? The State? You? Now even if you believe per impossible that the life inside mothers is not human, the right to abortion implies a burden on society to relieve the woman’s and man’s irresponsible act (it takes two to tango). And that is absurd. The burden could be met by requiring the woman and her man to pay the executioner. It also wouldn’t follow that the State must train and provide the executioner. Thus even if abortion is moral, it doesn’t follow that it’s a right. Anyway, abortion is immoral, which the Christian religion well recognizes. Yet elsewhere Haffner claimed “the majority of religious Americans support abortion rights, a fact drowned out by the growing attacks on women’s health led by a handful of radical religious groups.” This proves two things. If she’s right about the majority view (and she might be) the religion these people hold to isn’t Christianity. It’s something more on pagan lines. Lastly, abortion has nothing to do with “women’s health”; instead, it is about killing.