Re: Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece rebukes kook Gillibrand on abortion: 'Civil rights begin in the womb'
BeamMeUpScotty <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | ucb.politics.progressive,alt.religion.scientology,soc.retirement,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.usa,alt.politics.economics,alt.atheism,alt.politics,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.save.the.earth,alt.global-warming,alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,alt.censorship,alt.apocalypse, talk.politics.guns,misc.survivalism,sac.politics |
|---|---|
| Organization | idiocracy.gov |
| Message-ID | <lyw%[email protected]> |
On 8/20/20 1:59 AM, Democrats Not So Smart wrote: > Dr. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther > King Jr., strongly rebuked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's, D-N.Y. > comments comparing pro-life views to racism. > > "I need for her to understand that abortion is a civil wrong," > King told "Fox and Friends" on Wednesday. "And of course, if > you're pro-life, you can't be racist because you're defending > life for the most defenseless population on the planet -- the > little babies in the womb." > > She also accused Gillibrand, a 2020 presidential candidate, of > "misleading" people and "advocating killing our youngest and our > weakest people who happen to be in the wombs of their mothers." > > Gillibrand, during an interview on Tuesday, said that both > racism and pro-life views were unacceptable and that abortion > was a human right. > > 2020 Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand compares being pro-life to > being racistVideo > "I think there's some issues that have such moral clarity that > we have as a society decided that the other side is not > acceptable," she said. > > "Imagine saying that it's okay to appoint a judge who's racist > or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Asking someone to appoint someone > who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in > America—I don't think that those are political issues anymore." > > During her remarks, she also said that "there is no moral > equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there > is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny > women reproductive freedom." > > King, who has expressed regret over her two previous abortions, > said that Gillibrand was ignoring the science behind life in the > womb. "Civil rights starts and civil rights begin in the womb," > she also told Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt on Wednesday. > > https://www.foxnews.com/politics/martin-luther-king-jr-s-niece- > rebukes-gillibrand-on-abortion-civil-rights-begin-in-the-womb > > Inalienable RIGHTS begin when human life begins, an American's CIVIL RIGHTS Begin when the U.S. Constitution says they begin, as citizenship begins when the Constitution says it does. Civil Rights are created by governments but Inalienable RIGHTS (as it says in the Declaration of Independence) are "endowed by our creator" and one of those inalienable RIGHTS is that you get to use your own mind and thinking to decide who or what your creator is. Imagine that, a creator that endows you with the task of deciding for yourself, who or what endowed you with the ability and the RIGHT to use that ability and anyone or anything that stands between you and that objective is violating the natural order of the universe. And one of the INALIENABLE RIGHTS actually enumerated in the Declaration of independence, is LIFE and another couple that were enumerated were LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS, and pursuing happiness was defines in the Constitution as a civil right that is owning property and the stuff that makes you happy. Things like property, education, medical care, religion, poverty or wealth, and the divorce rate proves that finding two people who are made happy by the same things is successful less than 50% of the time so marriage and sex and children was also NOT a government mandate and is an inalienable right. The more the government gets involved in Inalienable Rights the fewer people there are that will be able to enjoy the LIFE, LIBERTY or PURSUIT of their own HAPPINESS. The Constitution only allows the government to protect the Inalienable Rights from being abuse and violated by other people and by the Government its self. There is no power other than protecting them as enumerated in the Constitution, that government has over our Inalienable Rights. Which is why Marxism fails the U.S. Constitutional test. -- *That's Karma* *Democrats aren't the PARTY of diversity they're the party of division* https://banned.video/watch?id=5f37fcc2df77c4044ee2eb03