Abortionists Chant "Hail Satan", Have Child Carry Sick Sign

[Guest2]

Abortionists sure are sick bastards, but hey, they like to slaughter unborn children...what else would we expect.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... tan/66834/

A few protesters against a Texas bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks appear to have chanted "Hail Satan" to mock anti-abortion protesters singing "Amazing Grace" in Austin on Wednesday.

And yet that wasn't the worst of it. Twitchy, The Daily Caller, The Blaze, and others picked up a photo showing a little girl holding a sign that says, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I would f*** a senator!" How horrible!

However, it's a fake. Or at least, it's not from the Texas demonstrations. The photo was posted on a message board in December 2007. The anti-abortion crowd will have to stick with its five Satanists.

Update: I read the date wrong. The photo is real! My apologies. The pro-choice activists appear to have let a kid hold that sign after all, which, gross.

[Ombudsman]

The Church of Satan agrees with Guest2: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... s-prolife/

[Guest2]

The video shows hundreds of protestors while the article says "only five protesters" chanted "Hail Satan" to mock anti-abortion protesters. I guess Partisan62 "forgot" to tell us that.

Not the best sign choice for a kid but Partisan62's wanting the government in women's wombs is worse - sick bastard. He doesn't know the definitions of "Abortionists" and "children", either.

Vrede is vile and disgusting as usual, as is typical of any who support the murder of unborn children. If it was ONE protester who chanted "hail satan", it still demonstrates the inherent immorality and evil of most proponents of the butchering of children that these liars clinically call "abortion" to hide the horror.

And even the seemingly pro-murder columnist who wrote the article thought that having a child hold such a sign was "gross", but not Vrede.

As far as Vrede's lie about "government in women's wombs", pro lifers only want to prevent the womb from becoming the scene of a murder, which is exactly what it is during and after every abortion. If a mother killed a day old infant, would scum like Vrede object to the "government" seeking justice? (I ask because a person this immoral may say it's OK). Abortion opponents seek the same justice, but are thwarted by the likes of Vrede and her ilk, who evidently enjoy and celebrate the killing of innocent children.

Now, prepare yourself for Vrede's "you failed definition" lies again. See what I mean; she's so predictable and so bad at debating.

[O Really]

So - Guest2, just wondering...Do you support or agree with everything those on your side say or do, or how they say or do it? Is it enough for a person to be anti-abortion and then anything they say in support of that position, you'll find OK? Didn't think so. Neither do we.

[O Really]

BTW, Guest2, you do realize that only religious people believe in "Satan", don't you? Atheists don't.

[Wneglia]

You know things are bad when the real Satanists disavow "Hail Satan" chanters. Link

[Ombudsman]

BTW, Guest2, you do realize that only religious people believe in "Satan", don't you? Atheists don't.

Christians were the original Satanists. The Jews didn't believe in Satan. The references to Satan in Job and Chronicles originally just referred to Satan as "an adversary." When the Church decided to Christianize the Tanakh they assumed this adversary must be Satan and changed the text to say Satan.

[Guest2]

So - Guest2, just wondering...Do you support or agree with everything those on your side say or do, or how they say or do it? Is it enough for a person to be anti-abortion and then anything they say in support of that position, you'll find OK? Didn't think so. Neither do we.

No, that would not be OK. I'm sure there are nasty folks on both sides, as I am also sure that you and others would disagree with "hail satan" or having a child hold such a sign.

I started this thread because such activities are NOT surprising from people who believe that the extermination of unborn children by the thousands every day should be a personal right in this country. From abortionists, such immorality is expected with little criticism on the left.

[Boatrocker]

. . . I wonder how long it will take him to figure it out? Not that we'll ever know, the poster too cowardly to register is too cowardly to ever actually come out and admit error.

He never figgered out percentages over the defunct SHJ forum; I'm sure you're not holding your breath.

[Guest2]

Now, prepare yourself for Vrede's "you failed definition" lies again. See what I mean; she's so predictable and so bad at debating.

Poor baby, fails definitions and even the meaning of so many single-syllable words then whines because it's pointed out, and is even so stupid as to claim victory because he predicted that his stupidity would be pointed out.[/quote]

Yep, this ugly troll is still stuck on her stupid "failed definition" cop out instead of debating the issue, just as I predicted. So easy.

YOU don't get to decide what the definitions are; mine are just as valid and accurate as yours if not more so. And I don't care what you decide to call that unborn human being, he/she is STILL a human being, a person, a child.

You are so ridiculous when you try to say that the poor victim of an abortion is not a child; does your denial of the truth run so deep that you actually believe your own lie?

Why don't you just admit that you are fine with the killing of other human beings for the selfish convenience of the mother. Aren't you proud enough of your stance on this to let the light of day disinfect and cleanse away the misleading "definitions"?

Or are you cowardly hiding behind these "definitions" to deflect the shame of being identified as an enabler and supporter of child killers?

[Bungalow Bill]

I have mixed feelings about kids holding signs which they may not
even understand, but both sides do it. I would have spelled out
fuck, but you can't have everything you want.

I believe this is also over at nutjob central. It's another of their
who cares? posts, stuff that no one really cares about and will
be forgotten in a few weeks, at least by sane people.

I am no more concerned about the lord of the flies than the Moz.

[Ombudsman]

[quote="Guest2]...proponents of the butchering of children...liars clinically call "abortion" to hide the horror...seemingly pro-murder
...scene of a murder...scum like Vrede object to the "government" seeking justice...person this immoral...the killing of innocent children...[/quote]

And you wonder why you're so easy to spot, whether it's on this forum, the SHJ, the BRN, or a letter to the editor in the GN. This over the top pseudo-moralist bullshit sounds like the rantings of a serial killer, one whose never been laid. You've always sounded that way. Like Mad American you're a one trick pony. But you should sign in because Vrede is as nutty as you and this is rather entertaining and right now we're only seeing you when she quotes you. (And here I thought she said she would respond to the coward anymore.)

Here's some assistance for both of you:

How to talk to Partisan62
How to talk to Vrede

Gotta admit, I don't have the patience to show either of you that much respect though.

[Bungalow Bill]

I never considered that angle, that if spelled out, the f word wouldn't appear in papers.
Maybe they could use one of those little black stripes that used to be used to cover
up naughty bits. It doesn't matter very much, it's just another nutjob one day story,
the kind they post all the time.

[O Really]

Definitions matter. That's how we communicate. Particularly in legal matters. I could say that your touching my hand is "rape" but that doesn't mean it meets the definition in general use of the American language and the legal system. I could decide that although everyone else calls my dog a "Rhodesian Ridgeback" that I'll call her a Bulldog. Doesn't change her breed in the AKC registry.

[Guest2]

[quote="Guest2]...proponents of the butchering of children...liars clinically call "abortion" to hide the horror...seemingly pro-murder
...scene of a murder...scum like Vrede object to the "government" seeking justice...person this immoral...the killing of innocent children...

And you wonder why you're so easy to spot, whether it's on this forum, the SHJ, the BRN, or a letter to the editor in the GN. This over the top pseudo-moralist bullshit sounds like the rantings of a serial killer, one whose never been laid. You've always sounded that way. Like Mad American you're a one trick pony. But you should sign in because Vrede is as nutty as you and this is rather entertaining and right now we're only seeing you when she quotes you. (And here I thought she said she would respond to the coward anymore.)

Here's some assistance for both of you:

How to talk to Partisan62
How to talk to Vrede

Gotta admit, I don't have the patience to show either of you that much respect though.[/quote][/quote]

Respect? You've got to be kidding. What makes you think the anyone respects a guy like you whose debating skills are so bad that he had to resort to a threat to release personal information...instead of actually discussing the issues?

This "pseudo-moralist bullshit" as you so stupidly call it, are better known as principles and morality and are "easy to spot" because those of us who are principled don't waver from these beliefs.

Now, do you want to debate abortion? Step up. if you want to debate your lie that I am somehow "racist"? Step up. Any other issues? STEP UP. If not, go play with your fellow delinquent Vrede.

[UnLurker]

Definitions matter. That's how we communicate. Particularly in legal matters. I could say that your touching my hand is "rape" but that doesn't mean it meets the definition in general use of the American language and the legal system. I could decide that although everyone else calls my dog a "Rhodesian Ridgeback" that I'll call her a Bulldog. Doesn't change her breed in the AKC registry.

Yes, they matter, but as your examples show, definitions can be distorted to hide the truth, especially the legal definitions used in court proceedings. My point is exactly your point, except that a moral person will try to see the truth and reality behind the label.

[Ombudsman]

Definitions matter. That's how we communicate. Particularly in legal matters. I could say that your touching my hand is "rape" but that doesn't mean it meets the definition in general use of the American language and the legal system. I could decide that although everyone else calls my dog a "Rhodesian Ridgeback" that I'll call her a Bulldog. Doesn't change her breed in the AKC registry.

Yes, they matter, but as your examples show, definitions can be distorted to hide the truth, especially the legal definitions used in court proceedings. My point is exactly your point, except that a moral person will try to see the truth and reality behind the label.

Why do you get to decide what is moral what isn't?

[UnLurker]

Definitions matter. That's how we communicate. Particularly in legal matters. I could say that your touching my hand is "rape" but that doesn't mean it meets the definition in general use of the American language and the legal system. I could decide that although everyone else calls my dog a "Rhodesian Ridgeback" that I'll call her a Bulldog. Doesn't change her breed in the AKC registry.

Yes, they matter, but as your examples show, definitions can be distorted to hide the truth, especially the legal definitions used in court proceedings. My point is exactly your point, except that a moral person will try to see the truth and reality behind the label.

Why do you get to decide what is moral what isn't?

We all decide. Even when you deem yourself free of any specific morality, that choice had to be made. History, common sense, critical thinking and religion (or lack thereof) are all combined to develop our moral beliefs. We must also realize that there are absolute truths about right and wrong.

For example, we all (I hope) adhere to the moral standard that murdering someone is wrong. Some people, like
Vrede and other pro-abortion individuals, think that if the description of the act is changed that we can just dehumanize someone like an unborn child, and remove them from the definition of murder. History, common sense and critical thinking should tell us that changing the definition does not change the truth.

[UnLurker]

You've got it bass ackwards. You're the one unilaterally changing descriptions and definitions to appeal to emotions in lieu of debating the issue honestly.

"Bass ackwards"??? SOOO Classy. And juvenile.

Any "honest debate" must begin with the acknowledgement that a human being is destroyed during all abortions. But I hardly expect any honesty from a person who considers such an evil
act to be a "right".

I'm in no way obligated to sooth your conscience by using the pro-murder verbiage that you favor. Show me where such faux "definitions" are mandatory for all or are even accepted
by a majority of people.

Your hiding from the truth will not in any way lessen its accuracy.

[neoplacebo]

I never considered that angle, that if spelled out, the f word wouldn't appear in papers.
Maybe they could use one of those little black stripes that used to be used to cover
up naughty bits. It doesn't matter very much, it's just another nutjob one day story,
the kind they post all the time.

Abbie Hoffman used to say (circa 1968) if you don't want it on tv, paint "fuck" on your forehead