Hilarious blog post of the Puffington Post, where the argument is clearly made that the fact God has put the baby in the womb means God has given the woman the right to decide whether she wants to kill him or not. The Feminazi’s “to do list” includes the literal words:
“Abortion can be a difficult decision, we agree, but God obviously trusted women to make that decision: look where She put the embryo”.
This is beyond parody (have you noted God is “She”? Capitalised, even. Such a devoted follower. I am moved). Still, let us follow this Nazi logic and let us see where it leads us.
If the logic is to work, then slavery must be perfectly legitimate, provided the baby is born from a slave in, say, Alabama ca. 1840. There can be no doubt she-god put him there: in that womb, in that plantation, in that legal status.
Or you could make the case for infanticide: she-god has obviously made the baby as harmless and as dependent from the care of the mother in his first weeks and months of life, as he was in the womb. Actually, it is factually much easier to kill a baby after birth than it is to smash his skull and tear his limbs in the womb (this is what happens as a result of a late “difficult decision”, by the way). Following the logic of our Nazi-ette, it’s obvious her she-god wants the mother to be free to decide whether the baby shall live or, say, have his skull smashed in exactly the same way as with a late term abortion, but at no danger or physical discomfort to her.
Many permutations of this Nazi logic are thinkable, but I would like to mention just a third one: if this logic applies, the Holocaust of German and Austrian Jews is perfectly justified, because it is obvious she-god wanted for them to find themselves in the Third Reich; in the womb, so to speak, of Nazi Germany by 1933 for many of them, and by 1938 at the latest for th eothers. On reflection, the same reasoning can be applied to, say, Polish and Russian Jews, whose falling within the Third Reich by way of invasion was certainly known to she-god from before all time.
What shocks more of these people is not the logical non-existence of their childish arguments; you read a lot of childish arguments on liberal blogs. No: it is the cold-blooded, shocking cruelty inhabiting their minds; the deep Nazism of their thinking without even the extenuating circumstance of the unceasing propaganda and the suffocation of every alternative opinion that the likes of Dr Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler created in Germany.
The Nazis are among us.
If you think rabid pro-death feminists are like Nazis, you can change your mind now: they are much worse.
The Twitter exchange in the link provided shows for this woman the defence of an unborn baby is on the same plane as the defence of bacteria: if you are against abortion, you must be against antibiotics. An abortion kills one living being, antibiotics kill a vast number of them.
It chills your blood.
Even Dr Goebbels, in his famous – and authentic – diaries, shows himself conscious of the loss of human lives caused by the Holocaust, describing it as something “you’ve got to do”. As monsters go, you’d think Goebbels and Himmler are pretty much at the top.
Still,a I can’t imagine the Himmler and Goebbels of this world simply equating, in public, a human life to bacteria.
The evidence of that is that the German people were lulled for years with documentaries about the happy life deported Jews were living as, say, farmers in the Ucraine, which would never have happened in the case of the equation Jews=bacteria.
Not here: this satanical Marcotte female really makes the argument.
May she repent and heaven forgiven her before it’s too late. Someway, I think the odds aren’t very good.
It is a well-known fact that Hitler never signed any document directly related to the Holocaust. Being evil, but smart, he knew that by doing so the future generations would have no shortage of stupid supporters ready to believe he had never anything to do with it, just because it is convenient to them to think so. They will – and they actually did; and still do – fabricate in their mind the legend of the evil people staging the Holocaust behind the back of the good-natured, unknowing Führer who was, in fact, always so nice with everyone, and loved his dog so much.
The wolves, you see. It's always the wolves. When some people put into their heads that someone they like cannot have taken certain decisions they don't, they will go to extraordinary lengths to try to let reality match their delusion.
An even worse degree of delusion is happening with the current Pontiff. There is no doubt he has approved the content of the Repubblica interview. The newspaper stated it, and Father Rosica also confirmed it on the Vatican's side.
This gives everyone a degree of certainty about who is responsible for the interview that vastly, vastly exceeds the certainty every reasonable, thinking person must have that Hitler was the driving force behind the Holocaust.
Still, the last desperate defence is the complete, total, utterly drunken denial of reality. Francis has approved, but has he read the interview before he did? Basically, in order not to admit the man is a walking heresy some people are ready to concede he might be so irresponsibly stupid as to approve the text of an interview that will be read worldwide, and of which he knows no recordings or notes exist, without even reading it. God knows I am not a great admirer of the intellectual faculties of Jorge Bergoglio, but this defies every notion of common sense.
Not only this: this delirious train of thoughts must assume that Francis has not read the interview even after it was published; and not even after it was clear all the Catholic world was in shock following the publication.
Therefore, the thinking goes as follows: “We know Francis has approved the interview, but we do not know whether he has read it. We also know the interview was published and read worldwide, but we are not sure he got the newspaper. The newspaper might well have reached his desk, but we do not know whether he has opened it. Yes, he might have opened the newspaper, but we do not know whether he read the actual words. Yes, it was suggested to him he should read what all the world was reading as attributed to him, but we are not sure he was listening“.
As I pen this we write the 9 October 2013.
Francis still hasn't retracted a word.
Make no mistake, those who think Francis “has not read” have no doubts about who is behind the Holocaust.
Thinking is suspended only when the problem is called Francis.
Imagine a friend of yours, or a politician, or a colleague would tell you “I am personally opposed to the Ku Klux Klan, but I do not want to impose my views on others”. No doubt, the person so speaking would feel very “democratic” and ” tolerant”, whilst at the same time donning the white robe of “goodness”, or even Catholic ” orthodoxy”.
Still, you would probably feel compelled to tell him that am intrinsic evil cannot be so easily set aside by remaining “personally opposed” to it whilst looking on as the evil spreads.
Everyone understands this, and no one would ever dream of approving of a politician who expressed himself as ” personally opposed” to the Holocaust, racial discrimination at work, or the killing of babies….
… how was that?….
The killing of babies?
Actually, the excuse of being “personally opposed” to the killing of babies whilst looking on as a Holocaust of babies takes place is used every day, not only in old Europe but, more importantly for us, in the old U S of A, the hen and – alas – protector of us all.
It does not happen very often that a citizen is allowed to let his vote speak. But every couple of years or so, an US citizen has the possibility of sending a clear message. this time the possibility is massive, with President, the entire House, one-third of the Senate, several Governors and countless state assembly members to be elected.
It would be good if every US Catholic (or Christian, come to that) would examine all the options on his table and decide he will not, under any circumstance, vote for a candidate who supports abortion, so – called Gay marriages or is even vaguely favourable to euthanasia ” in certain circumstances” (it always begins with “certain circumstances”, but extreme cases make bad laws). Not-on-any-account.
I am not only thinking of the Presidential race here, but also of the countless other members of the US political personnel to be selected. A President is mot am Emperor, and politics is made – and the centre of gravity of politics is shifted – at a local level too; in fact, it can be said no President can avoid taking account of what happens on the local level, if he has his reelection dear.
Therefore, please look at next week’s election as a big picture of which the presidential race is merely the bigger component. If the message starts spreading that pro-choice and pro-pervert politicians have a hard life building their careers in the first place, you’ll see how fast the issues disappear from the political scene.
Cut the evil at the root. Start punishing your evil politician at every level.
It is very embarrassing to say “we got it so wrong we should all resign and apply for a job at McDonald’s”. Particularly when the people in question lead the Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum visited by people from all over the world.
Therefore – and in order to avoid having to resign – the responsible for the museum have decided to back pedal a bit at a time, in order to look less ideologised, blind and stupid when the time comes to say “erm, aah, well, actually….”.
For the moment they limit themselves to show the arguments of the thinking minds together with those of the liberals; but frankly, everyone knows the game is up.
McDonald’s awaits. Perfectly honourable profession. Much better than working at the denigration of such an excellent man, one of the key people in the XX century, and one who saved the backside of so many Jews they could fill the entire Gaza strip with them.
Time to wake up, boys and girls.