If you had lived in Germany in the 1930s, would you have maintained friendship with someone who volunteered for the SS? I “unfriended” a callous advocate of infanticide yesterday and I don’t regret it. His callous explanation of why he advocates infanticide was so pathetic that I finally told him he needs to go on the same kind of march Eisenhower forced German civilians to take past their own death camps. The SS systematically murdered 11,000,000 civilians in their death camps. Americans have murdered 55,000,000 people in infanticide “clincs.”
I got into a debate with a Baby Killer advocate after I shared Monday’s post on my Facebook page. He took issue with the fact that our rights come from God. He wanted me to agree with his decree that our rights are a human construct, and are therefore, subject to government decree. He is a statist who believes that government declares what one’s rights are. I tried to ask him, but he refused to answer the question, if he believes in the concept that “might makes right.” He refused to answer the question because he refused to be intellectually honest. The whole gist of his argument was that no person has a right to tell another person that killing a baby is wrong.
Why do infanticide advocates insist on calling themselves “pro-choice” when, in fact, they deny a baby’s right to choose to live? They are pro-baby killers. Plain and simple.
I challenged two of his assumptions. First, he assumed that a baby is not a person who has any rights anyone else is bound to observe. I tried to point out that he shares a view in common with pro-slavery types of the 19th Century. In essence, an advocate of infanticide is using the same line of argument that racist Chief Justice Roger B. Taney employed in the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which he declared that black persons, “… had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” That is exactly the same line of argument infanticide advocates use to explain why they think it is O.K. that Americans have killed over FIFTY FIVE MILLION civilians since the Roe v. Wade decision. How is the argument for infanticide any different from that of Taney’s racist argument denying Dred Scott’s God-given rights? Infanticide’s advocates are just like racist Taney.
All of this raises some very important questions.
Is a baby a person? When did you become a person: before or after you left your mother’s womb? Do you have basic, inherent rights to: Live; Defend yourself from a threat on your person; pursue Happiness? Why do infanticide advocates insist on calling themselves “pro-choice” when, in fact, they deny a baby’s right to choose to live? They are pro-baby killers. Plain and simple.
How can we defend American Liberty when nearly half the population denies the most basic right of any individual to live free from the threat of arbitrary murder?
Either one agrees with the Founding Fathers who observed that every person has God-given rights that cannot be separated from the person, or one agrees with the statists who declare that government dictates what a person has the right to do or not to do. The Founding Fathers issued a declaration to the world declaring American independence and they observed in that document that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator. John F. Kennedy observed the same fact in the second paragraph of his inaugural address by declaring, “…the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”
At first, I had debated whether or not to “unfriend” the infanticide advocate on Facebook. Then I thought about it like this: “If I had lived in Germany in the ’30s and knew someone who joined the SS, would I have maintained friendship with that person once I knew what the SS was all about? Once the systematic genocide of the Jews was known, would I have maintained a friendship with someone involved in that horror? Would I have been friends with racist Roger B. Taney?”
The answer to all of those questions was simple.