Championing full-term abortion continues to be the #1 priority of some

[PeteWaldo]

Championing women's ability to kill children seems to be the #1 most important issue to some Americans.

"According to Democrats for Life, the number of pro-life Democrats with voting privileges in Congress can now be counted on the fingers of one hand.”

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Just as during the 2016 campaign, abortion continues to be the #1 issue of the Left as a stand-alone subject, as well as in their desire to have it influence other issues, such as the sole litmus test for selection of a Supreme Court justice. Abortion also continues to remain the #1 group-think mantra in the public discourse of the Left - with their advancing of Islam as a close runner up. Hillary Clinton for example, champions full term abortion right up until the day before the child is born. But then Hillary was never one that could be accused of being a champion of our constitution, much less one to stand up for the God-given rights of God's children to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that are guaranteed by our Constitution.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Here's a compelling testimony of an abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen.
https://youtu.be/kPF1FhCMPuQ

If you have been the victim of an abortion you can find help through organizations like these:
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/
search post-abortion trauma healing ministry

If the conversation regarding abortion hadn't turned into a God-excluding debate about how to accommodate some women's desires to most efficiently kill and dispose of their unwanted children, with taxpayer funded lobbying fattening the wallets of the abortion profiteers at Planned Parenthood, rather than our prior God-faring national approach that focused on how best to care for the mothers and children caught in an unfortunate position, we wouldn't be discussing how - particularly the Federal - government should regulate who is and who isn't allowed to kill another human being. In the purely legal regard, few issues make a more compelling case to return the power to the individual State's courts and voters, for making these decisions.

While Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards claims her business is essential to American women because of the prenatal care it offers, "the nonprofit Live Action, in a new video investigation, found 92 out of 97 Planned Parenthood centers contacted admitted they would refuse to provide any prenatal care."
http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/planned-parenthood-we-dont-do-prenatal-services/
While the Leftist bias of Snopes unsurprisingly, again, rears its ugly head:
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/22/snopes-defends-planned-parenthood-falsely-claims-abortion-biz-offers-prenatal-care/

And hasn't the mainstream media so widely reported, on the stories of the individuals on whose behalf Roe V Wade was supposed to have been litigated, that are both outspoken pro-life advocates today? Norma McCorvey was "Jane Roe" of Roe vs. Wade while Sandra Cano was "Mary Doe" in the companion case of Doe vs. Bolton who have both have filed motions to set aside the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling.

I had deluded myself into believing that not even someone like Hillary Clinton could believe government should be given the power to legalize a woman's ability to kill a child (at tax payer expense), up to and throughout the 3rd trimester/9th month of her pregnancy. That "..... a child — “hours before birth” — has no Constitutional rights."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438672/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortion-extremist
Suggesting that government has the power to allow a woman to destroy the God-given rights to life, liberty an the pursuit of happiness of an unborn child, rather than go through a few months of inconvenience prior to adoption. In other words Hillary approves of a mother killing her baby, the day before Hillary herself would be forced to recognize it as a child. Let alone their ignoring the misery women suffer through a lifetime of regret, most of whom were too young to have made, what is usually a information-depraived decision to do so.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/default.aspx

Hillary referred to women being allowed to kill children, quite flatly and coldly, as a woman making a personal "health care decision". Others obfuscate by spuriously referring to it as a "reproductive right" or a "reproductive choice", but in fact the only "reproductive choice" was made previously when the woman chose to have unprotected sex with a man, that resulted in pregnancy. Hillary Clinton's icy cold characterization - even though the day before a child is born, is just another day in the life of that child, just as the day after is - since basically the only physiological difference is that the child begins to breathe air.
Indeed wouldn't it make more sense (in secular Godlessness) to allow a woman to birth the child and then kill it, since stuffing the child into a plastic bag on its birthday and sealing the air out, would perhaps be more humane and certainly less painful for the child than suffering a partial birth abortion?
https://youtu.be/s_W75zh1j2I

An attending nurse's testimony at a partial-birth abortion.

The only essential difference between a child from the day of conception, to its birth, is cell division and growth. The entire DNA blueprint along with the child's soul and personhood, are there from at least the moment of conception, though from a Judeo/Christian perspective that person was recognized by God long before.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. 

Since the Democrat party is the party of abortion, with nearly unanimous support for abortion by the members of Congress and Senators that Democrats elect to represent them, it has always perplexed me how a Christian could be a Democrat or a Democrat could declare themselves to be a Christian. Without the Democrat voter, the abortionist wouldn't have a job, just as the contract killer wouldn't have a job if nobody hired him to kill the victim. So who might God hold accountable for the slaughter of over 50 million of His children since Roe V Wade?

Hillary Clinton showed her support for, what liberal feminists of her ilk have demanded since the 1960s, and that is the convenience of abortion on demand through the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Something that the vast majority of American women (and men) find absolutely abhorrent, even as Hillary disingenuously claimed to be "reaching out to all Americans". Ridiculously suggesting it is a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body - of course without the first mention of the child's body - when the law does in fact prohibit women from doing such things as shooting heroin into "their bodies". Women have no "right to choose" to do smack. Just as society protects women from heroin - which addiction can be corrected by recovery followed by a happy and healthy life - shouldn't society protect women from a lifetime of suffering and regret that cannot be undone, from having made what they later realize was a bad decision to kill another human being based on a dearth of information, by at least educating them through the testimonies of women who have gone through it before them?
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimonies/default.aspx

So why would women that are repulsed by the killing of children have anything to do with the party of abortion, let alone support its representatives that are responsible for advancing it?
Excusing abortion away with mention of incest, or difficult pregnancies where actual risks to a woman's or child's life are at stake, is of course spurious, because accommodation for unusual circumstances and accompanying decisions were quietly effected, long before Roe VS Wade was ever instituted. The main difference being that back then such a procedure would have been handled quietly by medical professionals in actual hospitals, as opposed to independent butchers in compromised facilities, which is where the Left has taken it.
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/Gosnell/

In other words the "health" of a woman or child being cited as a reason - with pro-abortion doctors willing to falsely use the spurious excuse of mental health - is just another lie of the Left used to advance the killing of God's children on demand solely for the mother's convenience, by portraying it as something other than the slaughter that it is. It also serves as just another excuse to advance Margaret Sanger's reason for pushing abortion and forced sterilization in the first place, which was toward the infanticide of black and other minority children through eugenics, or what's known today as the "silent holocaust".
http://www.bing.com/search?q=margaret+sanger+eugenics&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=margaret+sanger+eugenics&sc=8-24&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=11AB1DCC851C40AFB3D5573FB0CA85A2

Margaret Sanger, the champion of abortion and forced sterilization, is such a hero to the Left she was recommended by some liberal journalists (NY Times, CBS, etc.) for use as poster girl on our $20 bill. What can speak more loudly regarding the Left, than actual celebration of killing children, by desiring to lionize such a consummately evil and morally reprobate person as Sanger on our U.S. currency?
Margaret Sanger would little doubt be made proud by the genocide of blacks in the U.S. today.

Even with the limited and ever-shrinking prohibitions on abortion that we have had, from the time that Godless liberal judges licensed the procedure, 50 million children have been slaughtered, 40% of which were killed by the profiteers in the abortion mill of Planned Parenthood while comprising 51 percent of Planned Parenthood’s yearly clinic income even as 45% of their income comes from government subsidies - including from taxpaying Christians in this forum. Of course not even a tiny fraction of those children were killed for what might be considered other than selfish reasons.

So who's standing up for the God-given Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of unborn children? Hillary Clinton believes that all unborn children have no rights whatsoever, but if unborn children cannot be described as "persons", then why do the courts consider the murder of a pregnant woman at any stage of her pregnancy, to be a double homicide?

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” ~ Ronald Reagan

Gianna Jessen: https://youtu.be/kPF1FhCMPuQ

[PeteWaldo]

While this a bumped thread from 2017, we find a political party that has now completely devolved to a platform that essentially contains a single plank, which is to further advance the ability they gave women to kill children.

Even from a secular point of view, when does a "person" acquire the rights to life, liberty and self-determination that are protected under our constitution?
http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/

For anyone that doesn't believe they have a responsibility, look at it this way. If you were looking out your window and saw your neighbor walk out her door and down her sidewalk, and a big guy with a baseball bat knocked her down and began raping her, would you simply close your drapes turn your back, and consider that to be a matter between the two of them?

If Republicans had stayed home from the polls in the 19th century, the U.S. could still be practicing slavery, just as several countries around the rest of the world still do today.
http://russp.us/racism.htm

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

If the U.S. had stayed out of WW2 there would likely be no Jews left in a world ruled by Nazis today.

If the U.S. had stayed out of Iraq the Islamic State would have continued in their sexual enslavement and slave auctions of the Yazidi women and children.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4787.0

“According to Democrats for Life, the number of pro-life Democrats with voting privileges in Congress can now be counted on the fingers of one hand.”
So every vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion. So what does that say about those that choose to abstain from voting?

[PeteWaldo]

bump