The End of Christian America

[Phil Fiord]

Now for a more correct reason why Buddhists are pissed in Burma. I encourage a read of this blog as there is much more about the topic elsewhere.

http://religiontomorrow.wordpress.com/

Religion Tomorrow

Destroying the world – one day at a time.

• Home
• About

Thailand: Muslims commit genocide of Thai Buddhists for not bending to Islam (Graphic images)

Posted on January 12, 2013 by kreutzer33
Reblogged from :

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Is this what we want our future to be in our countries? Buddhists are being murdered in their own country in a deliberate Muslim genocide of anyone non-Muslim in the southern region.


Have you ever wondered how Muslims acquired Christian, Jewish and pagan (Hindu) countries and regions through history known today as Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar - which now total 51 countries?

Read more… 1,268 more words, 1 more video


Apparently even Buddhism is a threat to Islam. This is what happened in a country with only 4.6% muslim population.

[vector7]

Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith



by Ken Klukowski 1 May 2013 11933 post a comment

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by "proselytizing." ...I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 60,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.

**UPDATE**

The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.

[vector7]

Fox News: Obama wants a 'Christian cleansing' of the U.S. military

• FOX News
• May 3, 2013
• By: Robert Sobel

Fox News
Credits:
Robert Sobel

The loudest voice in the right-wing media, Fox News has been vocal in their opposition toward President Obama since he was campaigning to become the Democratic nominee for president in 2007. One of their largest criticisms has been the president's religious beliefs. Whether it's fanatical "birthers" questioning President Obama's place of birth or Christian extremists claiming the president is a radical Muslim, Fox News has given them all a platform and have often agreed with them in the process.


During an episode of "Hannity," Fox News radio host, Todd Starnes accused the Obama administration of attempting a "Christian cleansing" of the United States military.

"Under the Obama administration we've seen a Christian cleansing of the United States military. Dozens and dozens of incidences of Christianity under-attack. This most recent incident occurred a few days ago when Mikey Weinstein, who is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, had a meeting at the Pentagon where he was urging them, the military, to enforce regulations that he believes would result in the Court Martial, proselytizing, sharing their faith. The military, the pentagon, issued a statement to me on Monday. They said that proselytizing was against the Department of Defense regulations. After our story came out, they walked back that statement and they said they do believe in "sharing your faith," that soldiers are allowed to do that."

The U.S. military released a statement, re-enforcing the fact that "proselytization" was not permitted regardless of the religion in question, but that soldiers were allowed to share their faith as long as they don't harass others.

"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense. Court Martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis."

Fox News and their guests claim that President Obama is trying to rid the military of Christianity, despite following the same rules and regulations that have been in place for years. One could only wonder what the reaction from Fox News would be if a Muslim, Jew or Atheist was "proselytizing" their beliefs to Christian soldiers in the U.S. military.

[American Patriot]

I think I will bring a cross and Bible to work.... and see how that works out for me.

[Phil Fiord]

You are a contractor so its worth a shot.

[American Patriot]

lol....

[vector7]

University of Chicago Chapel removes pews to accommodate Muslim prayers





Multiple sources are reporting that the University of Chicago removed pews from an 88-year old chapel to accommodate Islamic prayers.

This photo via Campus Reform shows the chapel before the pews were removed last year.

Chicago NPR affiliate, WBEZ news, reported on May 23, the pews, which are now part of display at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) Chicago, were “removed in order to provide Muslim students a place to pray.”

Literature describing the artwork that was created by UC Director of Arts and Public Life Theaster Gates, also describes the removal of the pews as symbol of religious tolerance.

“The pews were recently removed from the chapel in order to offer Muslim students a place to pray, a symbolic gesture of religious tolerance,” according to an official description of the exhibit which includes a “set of repurposed pews from the University of Chicago’s campus church.”

A spokesperson for UC also appeared to confirm the reason for the pews’ removal in a statement emailed to Campus Reform on Friday.

“The benches were removed… to make Bond Chapel a more appropriate comfortable space for its many uses: ceremonial, spiritual, and artistic,” said Susie Allen.

Allen, however, said the primary purpose for the change, which was part of a broader renovation, was to “accommodate the installation of a Boroque-style organ.”

The UC Muslim Student Association (MSA) also announced in its 2012-2013 edition of The Complete Muslims Guide to UChicago that Friday prayers would be held in the chapel once renovation was complete.

“Bond Chapel is where Friday prayers will be held once construction is over,” it says.

“Insha’Allah, Jumuah prayer will be held in Bond Chapel every Friday this quarter,” reads another announcement on the MSA Chicago website.

Full story


Related articles

• University of Chicago removed church pews from 88-year old chapel to accommodate Islamic prayers (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)

[vector7]

Once they have worshiped in that church, under Sharia Law...it's now considered a Mosque.

When they bring in Tens of the Thousands more refugees from the Middle East they can spread their crescent moon throughout America.

Obama Admin Considers Resettling Syrian Refugees in U.S. and These Are the States Where They May Go

Jun. 11, 2013 9:09am Sharona Schwartz


Syrian families wait their turn to register at the UNHCR center in the northern city of Tripoli, Lebanon, Wednesday, March. 6, 2013 (AP Photo/Bilal Hussein)

The Obama administration is considering resettling some refugees who have escaped war-torn Syria in the United States, a development first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Sunday and later confirmed by the State Department.

According to the Times, the resettlement of the refugees would be “part of an international effort that could bring thousands of Syrians to American cities and towns.”

The Times reports [emphasis added]:

A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families.

The State Department is “ready to consider the idea,” an official from the department said, if the administration receives a formal request from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the usual procedure.

The United States usually accepts about half the refugees that the U.N. agency proposes for resettlement. California has historically taken the largest share, but Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are also popular destinations.

While she wouldn’t specify the number of Syrian refugees the U.S. would be willing to resettle, she explained that Congress caps the number of refugees at 70,000 in total.

All part of the plan under this Administration and the Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam.

[American Patriot]

If it were my church then I would tell them to go pound sand... and shoot em if they come back. lol

[MinutemanCO]

Let me guess... not one person of authority in the US armed forces will say a single word about a Muslim sharing his faith with other soldiers, or for that matter, a gay person espousing their alternative lifestyle. This is like a wacked out, freaking nightmare. Once again, however, scripture prophecies these abhorrent transitions in society as a whole. It's interesting to live to see it happen, though.

[vector7]

America Has Ceased to be Great — or Good

By Doug Patton
Thursday, June 27, 2013

As I listened to the convoluted legal gobbledygook passing for erudite Constitutional expertise from the United States Supreme Court as they attempted to justify same sex marriage, my mind was flooded with the haunting words of some of the great men of history.

I thought of Aristotle, who said, “Political society exists for the sake of noble living,” a sentiment chiseled into the edifice of many a public building, including the south face of the state capitol building in Lincoln, Nebraska.

I remembered the words of John Adams, our second president, who famously observed, “Our Constitution was designed for a moral and a religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.”

From somewhere deep in my memory, I recalled the plea of Abraham Lincoln, who declared, “Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

There were the eloquent but simple words of a wise Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1830s and marveled at the genius of our system and the decency of our people. “America is great because America is good,” Tocqueville opined, “but if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

Author G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

And the French author Voltaire said, “All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.”

But mostly, I thought of Thomas Jefferson’s lament, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

We now live a lawless land ruled by lawless people. Our lawless president, Barack Obama, and his lawless attorney general refused to defend the law of the land — the Defense of Marriage Act — duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. A lawless Supreme Court then disregarded the will of the people and the letter and spirit of the Constitution — again.

At the state level, California’s lawless governor, along with his lawless attorney general, refused to defend a ballot initiative duly passed by the people of California, thereby leaving it to private individuals to seek redress and defend the traditional and correct definition of marriage through the courts. On a technicality, the High Court decided that this group of citizens had no standing to sue in the first place — all because the people’s lawless elected representatives refused to carry out their constitutional duties.

Tocqueville would be saddened to know that America is no longer great, and we certainly are no longer good. And I don’t believe that he, nor Jefferson, nor Adams, nor Lincoln, nor Voltaire nor Chesterton would give the people a pass on the grounds that their elected officials and judges are lawless. We elected them, and we have allowed them to institutionalize deviancy while denying the fallen nature of man. We have refused to see that, regardless of what we believe, God is unchanging and He will not be mocked. And we have surely lost sight of the fact that we are not Him.

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor to conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations.

[MinutemanCO]

The pattern of political and social degradation leads to a dire future.

[vector7]

You are right MinutemanCO, this pattern is leading the nation down the wrong path...

A Supreme Court Victory for NAMBLA


by John Galt
June 30, 2013 22:30 ET


The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today released decisions ultimately which engaged in the dangerous type of legal activism that many have fretted about since the founding of the nation. In the scope of two rulings, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the SCOTUS reversed several thousand years of civilized human history to create rights and affirm those powers of the court which neither exist within the scope of the U.S. Constitution nor the powers assigned to various branches of government.


After listening to numerous legal commentators, reviewing their papers, and of course reading the reviews plus decision itself, one thing is certain:
NAMBLA won a huge victory last week in the Supreme Court of the United States.


Who is “NAMBLA” and how did I reach this conclusion? More on that later.
First and foremost, I am not a jurist. I had an opportunity to go to law school but the desire to chase ambulances and smell like a dead possum in the road did not appeal to me, thus the option to earn less money but still maintain my some degree of self respect.


Historically speaking, an area of which I can speak from experience, the non-decisions decisions of the United States Supreme Court will shake this nation for years to come; at least until the entire system is overturned via tumult and quite probably an internal political revolution.


The decision to allow via a non-Constitutional route to deny citizen’s rights via Proposition 8 and the 10th Amendment should have alarmed the entire world; a United States not united under a Constitutional system is no different from that of 1862 America, where the rule of law was truly an ad hominem affair where states, counties, and localities determined not just what the rule of law consisted of, but how individual behavior was to be determined.


Despite the proclamations of the mainstream media, this has nothing to do with the “right” to have same sex marriages. This is more about the deconstruction of Western civilization and the willingness of the United States to participate in the mass suicide the Western European nations have engaged in already. Personally speaking, I could care less about the religious ceremonies of any two individuals regarding marriage or death; however, thanks to the Federal Reserve Act plus the 16th Amendment, the relational status of two American citizens is now crucial not to the understanding of the societal implications, but the very survival of our nation itself.


Two gay individuals can now marry.


So what?


That is fine but the decision under the majority opinion stated by Justice Kennedy, himself now an accused homosexual by CNN, states a clear course for not just LGBT proclamations for the right to marry but polygamy, and worse. The first thought of the so-called conservative “Christian Right” was that those bizzarro creatures known as Mormons should have the right to marry 100 women per male plus relatives, despite the fact that the LDS has banned polygamy for over 120 years. In reality, there is a far larger religious sect at play now, and that very religion is which alleged to be that of the U.S. President now has a legal challenge of its own to deal with.


Under Sharia Law it has been a long standing practice where the male had the choice of a mate regardless of age as long as she was “pure.” The best way to ensure purity was to find a girl between the ages of six and twelve which was a practice accepted since Aisha married the prophet Mohammed when she was around six to seven years old. In most Islamic cultures, the activity of marrying a child of purity to ensure that Allah would smile upon the offspring has been an accepted practice up to and including the use of financial transactions of wealthier Muslims providing dowries to lower caste citizens for attractive daughters for the purpose of marriage and procreation. While this activity might sound shocking to the average American, in many parts of the world this an accepted cultural norm, providing the poor or lower middle class within many societies an opportunity to advance and provide for their families and improve the lot of their family name.


This brings us full circle to the North American Man Boy Love Association, aka, “NAMBLA.”


What does “NAMBLA” have to do with Islam? Nothing. 100% zero, zip, nada. However, the ideals endorsed by Justice Kennedy’s majority decision have everything to do with American reality and the ability of a forty year old man to marry a twelve year old boy or girl. Let us keep this in context however of the limitations of the two decisions from last week. Despite the cheery proclamations of the “conservative” media that this was no big deal, in reality the rights to marry whomever one loves or within the religious sphere of desire has now been extended across all cultural and societal aspects of America. If a Muslim wishes to have 4 wives, technically speaking under Kennedy’s majority opinion, how can any court block such a desire or recognition of the ceremony?


Thus one has to ask, under the equal protection clause and other creations expanded by the Supreme Court, how can any Federal or State court block a twenty-five year old man from marrying a thirteen year old girl based on the precepts of Islam or any other religion? Expanding that idea further, what happens when the IRS is used to “acknowledge” and legitimize the “Church of the Fuzzy Apricot” in the Castro District of San Francisco, California and adult males establish as part of their beliefs that marrying young boys is part of their accepted norm?


The Supreme Court based on the standard established by the leftists on the courts which was objected to by the Constitutionalists, especially Justice Scalia, now creates a standard based not on 4000 plus years of Western Civilization for marriage, but instead on feelings and political correctness. To remain consistent, the idea that a non-existent religion creating “religious” standards for marriage must be accepted by the Federal Government and thus by the states. In other words, the rulings against Prop 8 and DOMA did nothing to legitimize gay marriage but instead more to deconstruct thousands of years of civilization and government recognition of marriage to procreate and expand population instead of creating tax breaks to manipulate individual’s net income!


This practice of manipulating human behavior with the tax code has come home to roost. When the first marriage between a thirty-something year old pervert and a boy occurs in your community, do not bitch at us Libertarians. We warned you. America was not ready just yet for the freedoms we believed in and the corruption created by the 16th Amendment and the Progressive perverts who have destroyed our liberties, and by extension, our future.

[MinutemanCO]

Down, down down... the bottom still seems so far away. Hell hath encompassed our once fair land. I, however, choose to stand for the foundation of biblical morality that once established a nation like no other. If I face persecution or worse because of my choice, so be it. I would then be deemed worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ. A noble cause, to be certain. I'm not worthy of it, but noble it is.

[vector7]

Down, down down... the bottom still seems so far away. Hell hath encompassed our once fair land. I, however, choose to stand for the foundation of biblical morality that once established a nation like no other. If I face persecution or worse because of my choice, so be it. I would then be deemed worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ. A noble cause, to be certain. I'm not worthy of it, but noble it is.

AMEN MinutemanCO!!!


Complete Shock’: University Staffer Tells College Student She Must Remove Christian Cross Necklace

Jul. 2, 2013 2:45pm Billy Hallowell Share

Audrey Jarvis, a 19-year-old liberal arts major, was in for a surprise last month when she arrived to her campus job wearing a cross necklace around her neck. Why, you ask?

This personal decision to wear a Christian pendant was met with a troubling reaction from her boss at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California.

While she was working at the Associated Students Productions, a student orientation event, her supervisor told her to remove the necklace and said that it might offend incoming freshman. And if once weren’t enough, she was reportedly asked a second time to conceal the cross, with her boss giving an ultimatum to either hide it under her shirt or take it off entirely, Fox News reports.


Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com

The necklace, the supervisor said, was not allowed under the chancellor’s rules — and wearing it would potentially offend attendees and make the feel unwelcome. Jarvis was so upset over the incident that she left her post early and called her mother to discuss the situation. Now, the scenario has made its way into national media.

Following the June 27 event, the Liberty Institute, a conservative legal organization, is defending Jarvis, calling the request an overt act of religious discrimination.

“My initial reaction was one of complete shock. I was thrown for a loop,” Jarvis, a Catholic, said in an interview with Fox News. “I was offended because I believe as a Christian woman it is my prerogative to display my faith any way I like so long as it is not harming anyone else. I was very hurt and felt as if the university’s mission statement — which includes tolerance and inclusivity to all — was violated.”

Susan Kashack, a spokesperson with the university, confirmed to Fox News that the incident did occur and that the university is extremely sorry. From corroborating that the reasoning for the requested removal was rooted in fears that the cross might offend to pledging that an apology is impending, Kashack was candid, admitting that the supervisor was “completely wrong.

“It was absolutely an inappropriate action for him to make that request of her,” the representative said, noting that the school’s president, Ruben Arminana is trying, through Kashack, to reach Jarvis for an apology.

It’s unclear whether the supervisor was disciplined. Read the rest of the story.

Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com

[Ryan Ruck]

My reply:

[American Patriot]

Take THAT you dirty Brits! Now, what will you DO about it, Anglish?

Message on Facebook to the British people from the Muslims you so generously welcomed into your country

By Lyn Leahz on July 3, 2013 • ( 4 )

VOL WARNING! Offensive language!


Courtesy of Bare Naked Islam

[vector7]

Want to take back ground America from the Left?

This is the spirit you are facing...

Watch: Abortion Supporters Chant ‘Hail Satan!’ While Pro-Life Activists Sing ‘Amazing Grace’ Outside Texas Capitol

Jul. 2, 2013 11:44pm Jason Howerton

• 777

The abortion battle in Texas was still raging Tuesday as both abortion supporters and pro-life activists flooded the State Capitol to make their voices heard. The Texas House and Senate reconvened briefly for a special session called by Gov. Rick Perry.

One of the more bizarre tactics used by pro-abortion activists involved chanting “Hail Satan!” to harass a pro-life crowd as they sang “Amazing Grace.”

Texas blogger Adam Cahm was able to capture the “Hail Satan” chant on video. Watch it here:





It’s been a very interesting day at the Texas State Capitol. Cahnman’s Musings hasn’t been following the hearing.

Instead, we’ve been participating in the surrounding events,” he writes. “LetTexasSpeak has been doing a live broadcast from the rotunda where women have been sharing their abortion related testimonies. The pro-abortion crowd has responded with repeated chants of ‘hail Satan.’ It’s taken us all day to get a video recording…”

Obviously, it is much more likely that the abortion supporters were chanting “Hail Satan!” to mock pro-lifers rather than actually hailing Lucifer, but anything is possible.

And there was plenty of discussion about “Hail Satan” on Twitter. Twitchy has the details.

The pro-abortion crowd also brought some really interesting signs to the rally (Some are offensive):



(@EthanGehrke/Twitter)


Pro-abortion rights supporters chant at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Tuesday July 2, 2013. Gov. Rick Perry has called lawmakers back for another special session with abortion on the top of the agenda. Credit: AP


Opponents and supporters of an abortion bill gather in a courtyard outside a hearing for the bill at the state capitol, Tuesday, July 2, 2013, in Austin, Texas. Credit: AP


Opponents of an abortion bill, including a woman who gave her name as Wendy, center, and Jessica Deleskey, right, yell chants outside a hearing for the bill at the state capitol, Tuesday, July 2, 2013, in Austin, Texas. Credit: AP


(@EthanGehrke/Twitter)


(@EthanGehrke/Twitter)

A recess was called for the Texas Legislature until July 9.

The proposed bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require that the procedure be performed at ambulatory surgical centers, mandate that doctors who perform abortions obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and that even nonsurgical abortions take place in a surgical center.

Only five out of 42 clinics in Texas qualify as ambulatory surgical centers and they are in major metropolitan areas. Many clinics would need to relocate to meet ventilation requirements and to have the space required for operating rooms and hallways.

Similar measures have passed in other states, but many are tied up in court. Mississippi’s only abortion clinic remains open pending a federal lawsuit over the requirement for doctors to have admitting privileges.




MSNBC Host Says Newborns Don't Count as "Alive" Unless Parents Decide They Do; Infanticide Is the New Abortion

Natural News
7/29/13



Quote:

(NaturalNews) Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head "death worshipper" to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new "ethics" arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born. That's why I need to premise this article with a disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. It's about the murder of children after they are born. Because once a child is born alive, terminating that life is no longer a "choice" … it's murder by every legal and moral standard. Because while abortion friends and foes can argue about when life begins in the womb, no one disagrees that a child born alive is, well, ALIVE… do they? Indeed, they do. MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a "feeling" that it begins. "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science," Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show. And in one stroke, she simultaneously condones the murder of newborn infants (i.e. "post-birth abortion") while attacking the science of biology which unambiguously states that a living, breathing infant with a heartbeat and brain function is alive, not dead. But don't tell that to the radical abortion whackos. Far beyond arguing for the "right" to abort a baby in the first or second trimester, many abortion advocates who run in the same circles as Melissa Harris-Perry are now publicly arguing that it is okay for parents to kill their children up to age three. This is now being promoted as a "post-birth abortion." It was also called a "fourth trimester abortion" by a clever pollster who recently took to the streets of George Mason University to find out if summertime college students would sign a petition legalizing fourth-trimester abortions. Nearly all who were asked to sign the petition did so! One of the college students even asked whether the procedure would "cause harm to the child."

Read the rest here

[American Patriot]

Ok, ok, let's let let them have abortions, no apologies, retroactively.

I think we ought to start with those people screaming for abortions.

What's everyone else say?

[MinutemanCO]

Their arguments are fallacious. Let me see if I have this correct... immoral lovers of convenience and casual sex, whether I like it or not, will abort their offspring illegally (in alleys with coat hangers) in focused pursuit of their hedonistic lifestyles (call it choice), so we should legalize the act. Is this not similar to the concept that perhaps there will always be people who have chosen to steal from others in pursuit of their own materialistic goals, so larceny should be legalized as well?

Within the framework of true morality, relativism must be given no quarter.