Liberals: - The Black Male Is Violent Because He Is Subjugated By Whites?????

Here is another one for you liberals... the case of a black man who decided that he would kill a 22 year old pregnant woman, her 19 month old daughter and her UNBORN baby on the same day. This is the kind of savagery that we have come to expect of the black male population - their complete and utter disrespect for life and their vicious disregard for life - especially if the victim happens to be white.

From the story it would appear that the young mother was allegedly involved in a relationship with the monster who killed her, he daughter and then butchered her to get to her unborn baby and killed him by slitting his throat. And this is a prime reason why interracial relationships should be avoided as a general rule the white woman is usually abused and/or killed by her black partner. Why do these women not learn? (and no, I am not alleging that abuse does not take place at the hands of white men, I am simply stating the fact that more often than not a white woman in an interracial relationship is more likely to be abused and/or killed). And to me the reason is simple - white women are not seen as equals to black men - they are a status symbol and nothing more. 

And now I dare you - go ahead and label me a racist and a bigot because I dared to say that a black man senselessly murdered 3 people, two of whom were INCAPABLE of defending themselves. You call the use of such barbarity and malicious violence against a person you are supposedly emotionally connected to in a relationship and completely helpless children (one of which was to be the murderer's child) the result of subjugation by whites? In which damned universe are you living???

Black Murderer Slit Throat of Foetus Carved From Womb

25 February 2014

Black murderer slit throat of fetus carved from womb

February 25, 2014

- See more at: http://praag.org/?p=13147#sthash.Y60Zv4BV.dpuf

The Black Zimbabwean accused of brutally murdering a young South African woman, carving her unborn baby from her womb and stabbing to death her toddler-daughter, is expected to appear in Lichtenburg Magistrate’s Court.

Samuel Ndlovu was refused bail earlier.

Janelee van Rooyen, 22, was last seen alive by her mother when she left her home in Blydeville with her daughter who was a year and seven months old.

The woman’s mother Elizabeth van Rooyen said her daughter, who was seven months pregnant, was found with her stomach cut open, and the unborn baby boy killed.

“My granddaughter, who was almost two years old’s throat was slit as well. It was just horrible,” said van Rooyen.

She explained that the man who claimed to be her daughter’s unborn child’s father was obsessed with her and often threatened and hit her.

“When I came home from work, they were arguing. He grabbed the toddler and wanted my daughter to leave with him, but I did not want them to,” said van Rooyen.

“They eventually left and I discovered the following day that they were all killed. I did not expect this to happen, to lose my child like this.”

Police spokesman Colonel Sabata Mokgwabone confirmed that the woman’s womb had been cut open, and that the foetus’ throat was slit.

- See more at: http://praag.org/?p=13147#sthash.Y60Zv4BV.dpuf

Black murderer slit throat of fetus carved from womb

- See more at: http://praag.org/?p=13147#sthash.Y60Zv4BV.dpuf

Black murderer slit throat of fetus carved from womb

February 25, 2014 - News, South Africa -

- See more at: http://praag.org/?p=13147#sthash.Y60Zv4BV.dpuf

Black murderer slit throat of fetus carved from womb

February 25, 2014 - News, South Africa - Tagged: Blydeville, Lichtenburg, murder, SAPS - 6 comments

• 461
   EmailShare
• digg

The Black Zimbabwean accused of brutally murdering a young South African woman, carving her unborn baby from her womb and stabbing to death her toddler-daughter, is expected to appear in Lichtenburg Magistrate’s Court.

Samuel Ndlovu was refused bail earlier.

Janelee van Rooyen, 22, was last seen alive by her mother when she left her home in Blydeville with her daughter who was a year and seven months old.

The woman’s mother Elizabeth van Rooyen said her daughter, who was seven months pregnant, was found with her stomach cut open, and the unborn baby boy killed.

“My granddaughter, who was almost two years old’s throat was slit as well. It was just horrible,” said van Rooyen.

She explained that the man who claimed to be her daughter’s unborn child’s father was obsessed with her and often threatened and hit her.

“When I came home from work, they were arguing. He grabbed the toddler and wanted my daughter to leave with him, but I did not want them to,” said van Rooyen.

“They eventually left and I discovered the following day that they were all killed. I did not expect this to happen, to lose my child like this.”

Police spokesman Colonel Sabata Mokgwabone confirmed that the woman’s womb had been cut open, and that the foetus’ throat was slit.

- See more at: http://praag.org/?p=13147#sthash.Y60Zv4BV.dpuf

Black murderer slit throat of fetus carved from womb

February 25, 2014 - News, South Africa - Tagged: Blydeville, Lichtenburg, murder, SAPS - 6 comments

• 461
   EmailShare
• digg

The Black Zimbabwean accused of brutally murdering a young South African woman, carving her unborn baby from her womb and stabbing to death her toddler-daughter, is expected to appear in Lichtenburg Magistrate’s Court.

Samuel Ndlovu was refused bail earlier.

Janelee van Rooyen, 22, was last seen alive by her mother when she left her home in Blydeville with her daughter who was a year and seven months old.

The woman’s mother Elizabeth van Rooyen said her daughter, who was seven months pregnant, was found with her stomach cut open, and the unborn baby boy killed.

“My granddaughter, who was almost two years old’s throat was slit as well. It was just horrible,” said van Rooyen.

She explained that the man who claimed to be her daughter’s unborn child’s father was obsessed with her and often threatened and hit her.

“When I came home from work, they were arguing. He grabbed the toddler and wanted my daughter to leave with him, but I did not want them to,” said van Rooyen.

“They eventually left and I discovered the following day that they were all killed. I did not expect this to happen, to lose my child like this.”

Police spokesman Colonel Sabata Mokgwabone confirmed that the woman’s womb had been cut open, and that the foetus’ throat was slit.

- See more at: http://praag.org/?p=13147#sthash.Y60Zv4BV.dpuf

Libs Ask: What's Wrong With "After-Birth" Abortion?

This has recently come to my attention. I was previously aware of how the liberals and feminazi's are pushing hard to have abortion legalised (at state expense) for everything up to "partial birth". This would mean that a woman can legally - and without the consent of the father - kill her child even when that baby has been partially born alive. Now we have 2 "philosophers" advocating for post-birth abortion (ie: infanticide/murder as right minded people understand it) with the justification that it is morally permissible to kill a new born baby (even if it is healthy and has a reasonable prospect of living a healthy life and where the mother is not in any physical danger) because that baby is not yet a "person". They further go on to say that the choice should entirely be the mother's (I did not see a single reference to "father" and only a few to "parents") and would be allowable if the mother feels that she cannot take care of the baby because of economic and social factors.

I'm sorry, but how the hell can anyone even begin to think that this could be a justification??? I am not 100% anti-abortion as I believe that there are a few instances where abortion may be justified, for instance, where continuing with the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother. What choices did the "mother" have beforegiving birth in the first place? (yes this is a generalisation and there are exceptions which I understand)

1. Abstinence - the best way to not get pregnant if you don;t want to or aren't ready to is to just NOT have sex at all. Like my mom always said to me, if you are old enough to play adult games then you are old enough to take adult responsibility.

2. Contraceptives - if you really feel that you just have to have sex then why not invest in a little thing called birth control? There are literally dozens of ways the most popular of which include the pill, the injection, condoms and a diaphragm. 

3. First trimester abortion - You discover you are pregnant (maybe 6 weeks or so), you have about 6 weeks to legally and safely abort the pregnancy. Why leave it for a further 7  1/2 months?

4. Adoption - If you are determined to carry the baby to term then why not give the child to a couple who cannot have kids and wants them?

Each and every single one of the above methods is a simple way of preventing a person from taking on the mantle of motherhood should she feel she is not yet ready for it. Why would you feel that it is OK to spend 9 months nurturing and growing a child within your body, feeling it grow and move and come alive, go through the process (and expense) of childbirth just to kill the resultant infant? It cannot for the life of me understand it. And then we need to ask these people if they feel that a parent who kills their newborn baby at home has committed a punishable crime? If it is morally permissible to kill a newborn because the mother cannot handle being a mother either financially, socially, emotionally etc then will they allow it up to a week or 2 fater the birth when the baby is at home and the mother discovers how tough it is taking care of that little life - even if before the birth she was looking forward to it?

How sick are the people who think that it is morally permissible to kill a baby? A defenceless, newborn child who is your flesh and blood? It really makes me want to get off of the planet now. You can see what othyers have to say about the "philosophy":

After-Birth Abortion

By William Saletan

The pro-choice case for infanticide.

A Dutch baby born on Feb. 29, 2012

Photograph by Robin Utrecht/AFP/Getty Images.

Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.

No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

WILLIAM SALETAN

Will Saletan writes about politics, science, technology, and other stuff for Slate. He’s the author of Bearing Right. Follow him on Twitter.

• Follow

Predictably, the article has sparked outrage. Last week, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., and Chris Smith, R-N.J., denounced it on the House floor. But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.

Let’s look at some of those assumptions.

1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary. I often hear this argument from pro-choicers in the context of time limits on abortion. In a debate last fall, I drew up a timeline of fetal development, week by week. The response from Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, was that it would be arbitrary to use any point in that timeline to draw a legal limit on abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva seem to share this view. “Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons,” they write, conspicuously omitting the idea that abortions at an early stage are better than late ones for moral reasons. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”

Furedi accepts birth as the first logical time limit, though not for reasons of fetal development. (See her comments 44 minutes into this video.) But Giubilini and Minerva push beyond that limit. They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Accordingly, they reason, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”

2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise to this argument: Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game. They explain:

[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

You may find this statement cold, but where’s the flaw in its logic? If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn?

3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby—in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”

“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe. Accordingly, “if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” An after-birth abortion might be warranted by any “interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being”—including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

4. The value of life depends on choice. Pro-choicers don’t accept the idea that the path from pregnancy to maternity, being natural, must be followed. They argue that the choice is up to the woman. Some assert that the life within her has no moral status until she chooses to give birth to it.

Again, Giubilini and Minerva simply extend this logic beyond birth. Since the newborn isn’t a person yet, its significance continues to hinge on its mother’s decision. Neonates “might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice,” the authors argue. Until then, the newborn imposes no obligations on us, “because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.”

5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. Fetal development can turn tragic at any point. Most people agree that abortion should be permitted when a grave defect is discovered at amniocentesis. In the partial-birth abortion debate, pro-choicers extended this rationale, arguing that abortions in the third trimester should be permitted when horrible defects were identified at that stage. Giubilini and Minerva take this argument to the next level, noting that defects often remain undiscovered until birth:

An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.

The authors conclude that “if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” And it isn’t clear where the line against infanticide would be drawn. “We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible,” Giubilini and Minerva write. They doubt that “more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child.” But critics are already noting thatmany defects are discovered later.

In sum, the authors argue:

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

I don’t buy this argument, in part because I agree with Furedi that something profound changes at birth: The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at stake. But I also think that the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development. Furedi rejects that view, and her rejection doesn’t stop at birth. As she explained in our debate last fall, “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”

The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion” is this: How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?

Source

You can also see some more on this issue here where Melissa Harris Perry justifies the practise and several "college" students sign a petition to legalise "4th trimester" abortion. Insanity and immorality abounds.

Fuck Yeah Dead White People

In a new blog on Tumblr - FuckYeahDeadWhitePeople - a despicable lovely person has decided that they want to not only rant about how much they want white people dead, but also do it from the perspective of someone of the Jewish faith. Now, I know that there are a million and one theories about the Jews and their plans etc but I am not giving my opinion on the issue because that is not the point of my blog. The point of my blog is to point out that this person - be it a troll or a genuine blog - is repeatedly making it ok to kill white people. To see their demise - even of children as young as 3 months - as a positive thing and something to be desired.

Now, I know that the US has very wide reaching freedom of speech laws as far as the internet is concerned but this blog is far from simply exercising his right to fair speech. His speech is actually inciting hatred and in many respects actually inciting people to kill and rape whites saying that it is not a crime and should be encouraged. Now if you see this blog from the perspective of of an IQ67 then you will understand where I'm coming from - this blog automatically reinforces their own beliefs and validates them as well.

The contention is that the blog posts are not racist because it is aimed at white people and to be honest the liberal world will probably agree. But I would just like the world to ask themselves one question:

If you replaced every appearance of "whites" in that blog with "blacks", "muslims", "women" or even "homosexuals" would the liberals not be up in arms about the racist, sexist, bigoted and misogynistic moron? So why is it ok if the same is said about whites? 

I will not be posting the link to the site because I don't feel like giving the moron any free links. Feel free to Google the blog name and read the posts if you dare. Not only are they hate-filled but many display a despicable lack of any sort of moral compass through the use of such degenerate profanity that it would make an army of sailors blush crimson.

Here are a selection of my "favourite" posts from the last 2 weeks: