Martin Luther King Jr's niece says abortion new civil rights movement

[stbruno]

lifenews.com/nat3840.html
“If we’re not speaking for the voiceless, not being strong for those who are weak, we’re not living Martin’s dream,” she said.

I hope her voice is heard by the black leaders who have sold out to abortion. May God bless her in her work to save babies.

 

[marty1818]

Amen to that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And Amen again.

 

[vz71]

It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out among the liberal crowd.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out among the liberal crowd.

I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but abortion has hit the Black population hard. And there are people – including one or two on these forums – who belive abortion is a good thing because it reduces the numbers of “inferior” people.

 

[Mystic_of_God]

lifenews.com/nat3840.html
“If we’re not speaking for the voiceless, not being strong for those who are weak, we’re not living Martin’s dream,” she said.

I hope her voice is heard by the black leaders who have sold out to abortion. May God bless her in her work to save babies.

Thank’s to affirmative action and gay marriage Martin’s dream is lost.

It is sad, since this dream is truly America as it should be.

 

[vz71]

I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but abortion has hit the Black population hard. And there are people – including one or two on these forums – who belive abortion is a good thing because it reduces the numbers of “inferior” people.

Given our disagreements in other forums…
I feel it necessary to state here that I agree with you 100% here.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Given our disagreements in other forums…
I feel it necessary to state here that I agree with you 100% here.

Thank you, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[jailbelle]

God Bless One Dear Lady!
She Is Very Close To The Heart Of God.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but abortion has hit the Black population hard. And there are people – including one or two on these forums – who belive abortion is a good thing because it reduces the numbers of “inferior” people.

Wasn’t that one of the aims of Margaret Sanger?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wasn’t that one of the aims of Margaret Sanger?

And also of Peter Singer, who is worshipped by a couple of people on these forums.

I believe there was a fellow named Adolph Something-or-other who put that into practice in Germany.

 

[manualman]

It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out among the liberal crowd.

It’s already played out. She regularly gets tossed from places she was invited to speak when they learn she doesn’t toe to the party line. Apparently being a King and fighting for the weak is only noble as long as you say what the MAN tells you to.

Priests for Life talk about her a lot.

 

[vz71]

It’s already played out. She regularly gets tossed from places she was invited to speak when they learn she doesn’t toe to the party line. Apparently being a King and fighting for the weak is only noble as long as you say what the MAN tells you to.

Priests for Life talk about her a lot.

It is frustrating to see so many following along a party line rather then what is morally right.

Do they not see the parallels here?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is frustrating to see so many following along a party line rather then what is morally right.

Do they not see the parallels here?

There is another thread on a Democrat proposal to reduce abortions – basically a throw money at the problem approach, on the assumption if women have enough freebies, they won’t have abortions.

 

[vz71]

There is another thread on a Democrat proposal to reduce abortions – basically a throw money at the problem approach, on the assumption if women have enough freebies, they won’t have abortions.

So is there anyone that really buys the concept that another government givaway would result in a hightened respect for life?

What is really needed is education.
I am convinced that the number of abortions would reduce (just reduce) if people had a knowledge that it is a human life that is ended when an abortion takes place.

I have always seen it as a logical approach to apply civil rights into the argument, it angers me to see civil rights advocates able to simply abandon their principle when it isn’t their rights being trod upon.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So is there anyone that really buys the concept that another government givaway would result in a hightened respect for life?

It’s an article of faith that the closer we move toward socialization, the better things will get. After all, look at how the Great Society ended poverty, dramatically cut crime and drug abuse, put paid to out-of-wedlock births and so on.

What is really needed is education.
I am convinced that the number of abortions would reduce (just reduce) if people had a knowledge that it is a human life that is ended when an abortion takes place.

Two problems – the Democrat’s mantra is that the unborn baby is just a “blob of tissue.”

And education is not the government’s strong suite. If it were, we wouldn’t have a 50% high school dropout rate in the 50 largest cities, and all who did graduate would be able to read and write.

I have always seen it as a logical approach to apply civil rights into the argument, it angers me to see civil rights advocates able to simply abandon their principle when it isn’t their rights being trod upon.

I have posted this many times:

Human life is sacred.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

 

[zab]

Have you seen the revised board rules?
Re: Banned Topic: Discussion of Political Candidates

---

We find it necessary to also limit the discussion of political parties. When Democrat or Republican is used, it should be in a neutral way. Discuss the issues, not the candidates or parties. Posts which make a case for voting for either party will be removed without notice, as will posts which attempt to show that a party’s platform is closer to Church teaching.

Time does not permit the editing of old posts, but this rule will be enforced for all future posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

---

Walt Oliver, Moderator
Social Justice, Catholic News