Roe v. Wade — our generation's Dred Scott v. Sandford.| We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [not "pushed/pulled out the uterus"] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not "Constitution," not "government," not "womb-equipped parental unit"] with certain unalienable Rights [not "constitutional Rights," not "Rights dependent on the state's generosity or supreme court's opinion respecting whether they should be bestowed"], that among these are Life.... |
| – Declaration of Independence |
mancipating all created human beings from the liberal tyranny that consigns them, under allegedly "settled law," a mere part of someone else's body and allows that other person the absolute and arbitrary "right to choose" whether he or she even gets the chance to live, much less any to enjoy liberty or pursue happiness, is the cause of every true Progressive.
To our collective shame, our nation has had devalued and unwanted human beings before — not wanting them to be recognized as human beings, not wanting them to have rights, not wanting them in any way afforded the equal protection of the laws — because we once held they are really, in every significant respect, inferior to us.
No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
– Constitution of the United States
Although no one can reasonably deny that a created person has a body with heart, fingers, eyes, and brain that dreams and registers pain, it is by virtue of his temporary uterine residence that Democrats foist on him, as they did every "member of the Negro race," a "degenerating 'nobodiness.'" That is, Democrats deem him effectually a nonentity around whose head, yes, they can literally clamp their tortuously sterilized law in order to pull apart, reduce, and scrape out the very essence of his personhood as if he were some malignant lump of cancerous tissue.
So Democrats won't use words like "person" or "human being" to honor him, but words that only degrade and dehumanize him and, under their "settled law," make him nothing more than a possession of someone whom that inhumane law allows to further devalue in the extreme by choosing for him a cruel and calculated death. "Yes, we can empower ourselves to kill a person created in the Creator's image fetus. And if we could, we'd kill the Creator Himself every 'god' that would deny us such self-serving power."
"Fetus"? Democrats today use it as their direct predecessors did the word "nigger." A subhuman neither entitled to nor worthy of any civil rights.
No doubt, were a baby "fetus" medically able to leap out of the womb and escape from his or her mistress, today's pro-enslavement Democrats(birm) would be demanding a universal Fugitive Fetus Act that commands "apprehension and return of that fetus for and to its rightful owner." Who cares if the returned "fetus" she subsequently chooses to abort could've been, had he lived, the next Booker T. Washington?
As it did in its Dred Scott decision, the supreme court in Roe summarily dismissed the personhood of the human being which the petitioner had humbly appealed to that court to protect, declaring instead that under "undisputed" "settled" law he and all persons like him were and are merely the private property of their respective owners.
The supreme court justices appointed by effectively pro-enslavement Democrat presidents(birm) held that a slaveholder's "right to choose" what will happen to any "three-fifths" person belonging to and thus devalued by him is a constitutional one, and that it would violate his fundamental privacy rights to hold otherwise. (Dred Scott knew he was sunk when he saw them all wearing on their robes the official Democrat Party campaign button that said, "My slave, my choice.")
Theirs was no different from their anti-Progressive successors' opinion a hundred years later that a women's "right to choose" what will happen to any zero-fifths person belonging to and thus devalued by her is equally constitutional.
Except the right to choose what happens to a created life ends with the choice to be an instrument in the creation of that life. The rest are responsibilities. The only right that applies afterwards is the always overarching one of self-defense. Although a "fetus" is mortally the most unselfish human being there is — if he dies while attached to a woman he normally won't threaten her life, but if she's the one who dies she'll likely take him with her — there are rare instances in which he may leave her no choice but to defend herself by whatever means then at her disposal, in order to prevent her imminent injury or death. However, the right to choose whether to defend oneself in such instances cannot be exercised by anyone else. Also, anyone who caused her to have no choice but to either be instrumental in that life's creation or risk being so, is guilty of both rape and the crime of an actual or attempted desecration even more heinous, since the violator knows or should know it forces her to make the most unspeakable of choices and forever debases the remainder of her life and all of the child's she may try or be unable to keep; and what she chooses will happen to any life so created, whether a scheduled death or confined for life by shame, should be the sentence imposed on the violator as well.
To recap:
Democrats vigorously supported the supreme court's Dred Scott decision and vigorously opposed the emancipation of any slaves.
Republicans vigorously opposed the supreme court's Dred Scott decision and vigorously supported the emancipation of all slaves.
Which political party was on the side of liberty and represented the progress of freedom?
Even after the Civil War (started by Democrats, by the way), Democrats continually sought and succeeded to oppress the natural and unalienable liberties of all citizens: Where one person can be unjustly denied freedom, all can be denied it.
It wasn't until the Republicans in Congress — who as a party, unlike Democrats, always supported those liberties — had enough votes to defeat the Democrats' majority opposition to all civil rights bills, that these Democrat Party-caused injustices finally came to an end.
No wonder Democrats feel so guilty about acts of racism. It's because they're the ones who committed and even legalized those acts!
Thus, it's neither a wonder that Democrats have continually sought and succeeded to oppress the natural and unalienable liberties of all created human life.
Republicans want to end these Democrat Party-caused injustices as well. Republicans, not Democrats by any stretch, represent the progress of freedom. Again Republicans, unlike Democrats, are on the side of liberty.
If one were able to channel the great pro-life, -liberty, and -pursuit of happiness Progressive Frederick Douglass, no doubt he'd see and oppose the similar stain of inhumanity which marks us all.
I hear the mournful wail of millions.... if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding killed Innocent Human Being on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate the killing of Innocent Human Beings — the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate — I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man or woman, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a killer of Innocent Human Beings, shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Progressivists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-killing of Innocent Human Beings creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the killed Innocent Human Being was an Innocent Human Being? [It wasn't an "Innocent Giraffe" or an "Innocent Fungus"] That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The killers of Innocent Human Beings themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish inconvenience on the part of the summarily killed Innocent Human Being.
Labels: 'all men are CREATED equal...', culture of death and destruction, godless liberals (BIRM), good versus evil, Liberalism Kills, liberalism: THE ideology of hate, more liberal intolerance
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment