That said, with respect to your recent article "After birth abortion: why should the baby live"...in truth, just another classic exercise in Marxism (practiced by the American Democratic Party as well as other worldwide Marxist movements).
I find it interesting that the article has now been deleted from the "Journal of Medical Ethics" (the only somewhat true word in this title being "of"). Unfortunately for you and Marxists everywhere, lots of direct quotes remain out there (I even saved a few myself....). All in all, you are to be thanked for revealing the true agenda of The Democratic Party, here, in the USA.
What I find rather pathetic is your attempt to explain your article away as "not a proposal for law" and "this was a theoretical and academic article".
"Not a proposal for law"? Neither was Darwin's theory, yet that law is used to forward the legalization of abortion.
"...This was a theoretical and academic article..."? How about if someone "theorizes" then develops an "academic article" that states that those claiming to be "doctors", who suggest that humans aren't worthy of "humanity" can be "aborted"; the act being defined as "extremely late-term abortion"?
Would that be ok?
Hirota: out.
No comments:
Post a Comment