The sheer utter garbage that comes out of some people's mouth, who claims to be "intelligent," just absolutely astounds me. After being up at 3 a.m. to light fires under our pear trees to keep the fruit from frost damage, an enjoyable mid-morning was expected, perusing the news to see how much crow anti-constitutionalists and Democrats had to eat for breakfast. But, NO! Uh-Uh. Instead, I had to click on the article at Infowars, "WAPO Editor Champions Right to Abort Down's Syndrome Babies," and read that vile, pitiful excuse for a female human being's opinion that denying a woman the ability to murder her unborn child because the child has Down's Syndrome is unconstitutional. If that wasn't enough, The Daily Caller article, "Apple Executive Says Company Cares About Free Speech, But Only to A Certain Extent," really caused the top to blow off Mt. Hamner. So, Ruth Marcus and Eddy Cue, get ready; 'cause here it comes.
Ms. Marcus, there is no telling where in blue blazes you received your education on the Constitution for the united States of America; but, one can bet it was at some liberal mediocre indoctrination center that fluffed your snowflake ego to the point that you believe that somehow you have the right to deny an unborn child it's life, without due process, in violation of the Fifth Amendment because, in your eyes, the child is defective. How was it you put it? Oh yes, you said, "... That was not the child I wanted."
Well, Ms. Smug Nose, that would have been the child God chose to give you. And, regardless of what you believe, God doesn't make mistakes. If your child had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome, God had a purpose for giving you that child. You may not understand why or know the reason; but, God has His plan for you that involved a child with special needs. Because you would choose to murder that unborn child, instead of adhering to God's plan, you, Ma'am, would be deserving of the punishment God chose to enact upon you.
So, in your opinion, no unborn child deserves life for having an extra chromosome. Well, despite what the Supreme Court ruled and what some arbitrary idiot in a Black Robe may think, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide "freedom" or "liberty" for anyone to take a life, more accurately known as murder. Those dingbat Black Robed miscreatins invented that freedom from some lame brain interpretation they pulled out of their backside from an amendment that only applied to freed slaves under some misguided notion they had jurisdiction to hear the case. Just so you know, two wrongs is still wrong and will never make one right. Next thing you know, some woman will want to murder her unborn child because an ultrasound determined the sex to be female and she wanted a boy or vice versa. "It was not the child she wanted." And, you would give thunderous applause as a congratulations for committing murder.
To hold such a callous viewpoint is indicative of someone who devalues life. You, Ma'am, are an individual who believes human life has no intrinsic value or you would not be so quick to engage in the crime of murder. Since you believe that, as evidenced by your statements, I guess you would have no objection to actually "snuffing out" a baby's life who lived through an abortion if it had a genetic disorder. From the way you casually rested on some erroneous Supreme Court ruling based on their false interpretation, you would probably believe it would be acceptable and constitutional to murder unborn babies who had a club foot, congenital hip dysplasia, lack of arms or any "defect" because "that was not the child you wanted."
It's an arrogant, selfish attitude you have, and no, ma'am, you are not in good company. You are in a cesspool of filth swimming around with degenerate microbes that have fewer brains than a pile of rat droppings. But, remember this; at some point in time, you will be returned to the state of a child where someone has to change your diaper, feed you your meals, bathe and dress you as you struggle to remember what day it is, who you are, or what you are doing here. Under those circumstances, you may not be "the parent your child wanted" for that stage in their life. Hopefully, no Supreme Court will rule that your children have the freedom to "euthanize" you because of a condition you have, which you had no control to prevent.
Now, Mr. Eddy Cue. Who died and left you in control of what is or is not "free speech?" What was it you said? Oh, yes, here it is; "It’s important for Americans to have debates on certain issues, but we don’t think hate speech from white supremacists is important free speech." Newsflash, genius. It's not about what you think. It's about what the Constitution declares, which is the law of the land. But, if you're going to call out "hate speech" as not important "free speech," then, for the love of Pete, tell us all what is "hate speech" and who decides? See, there's the crux of the issue – what is determined as "hate speech" is subjective depending on who is receiving the communication.
Whether you like it or not, think it important or not, speech that you do not like, disagree with, hurts your snowflake feelings, is disdainful, nasty and rude is free speech – get used to it, buddy. Everything is not about you.
While I do not like the drivel spouted by so-called "white supremacists," they have the right to speak freely their opinion – a right that I would defend. In fact, Mr. "Stick," I would defend your right to speak freely no matter how ignorant or stupid your opinion is. But, this is not about anyone's freedom of speech, is it? This is about you and your freedom to speak while denying others that same freedom because "you don't think it's important." Or, you are so arrogant, egotistical, and narcissistic that you believe whatever you say is all so important but what others have to say is not.
I would bet you $10 dollars to a dime you would back whatever anyone from Antifa or Black Lives Matter said as being free speech even if it was a death threat, which by the way is not "freedom of speech." But, you know that I would win that bet because the lamestream enemedia has broadcast these anti-social, misfit, lost souls criminals chanting, "death to pigs (police officers)," "kill whitey," and assaulting innocent people with impunity as they wear face coverings and commit vandalism, theft, and riotous acts. But, I guess you would call that "free speech" and "peaceful protest."
Just so you know, Mr. "MacIntosh," States have defined what is not freedom of speech, which includes slander, libel, defamation of character, terrorist threats (stating to kill someone) and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. Speech that one may find offensive is not "hate speech." Speech that you don't like is not "hate speech." In fact, there really is no speech that is dubbed "hate speech." Well, there might be one exception – I hate milk and I hate beef liver. Oh wait, that's two... ban me.
Maybe you and Ms. Marcus at the Washington Post should get together, discuss your versions of freedom, and let the rest of us apply your conclusions to you both. If there were two souls ever in need of God and Jesus Christ, it is you two. I pray the Lord has mercy on your souls, forgives you of your sins, and brings you into His Glory and love so you may know the Truth and the Light, to experience true freedom, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior so you may have everlasting life.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.