Life-hostile socialists in the tow-line
Today a three-week march for the life of unborn humans begins in Salzburg. The Lebensschützer expects from its large meeting a heavy setback for the life enemies.
The large meeting starts with an information meeting in the Salzburger city center.
The migration is called `march for Leben'. you calls in the acknowledgment of the life right of unborn humans.
Already in the year 1999 the young Lebensschützer put back a similar way.
The chairman `of the youth for the Leben' - engineering graduate Martin Minkowitsch - on one remembers particularly for the march of this year furnished blog.
In the evening the inhabitants from lily field were to a dia. lecture to the topic „abortion: Facts, consequences and alternatives “invited.
In this cause also the nunmehrige chairman Minkowitsch participated at that time 19jährig - with his parents:
„I had never before thought on this topic. It talks also otherwise none about it. With the Fortgehen, drinking and disco visit one has evenly different topics… “
The young Lebensschützer would have fascinated it. Therefore it has the group shortdecided one day accompanied: „Many new faces, pretty girls, friendly, motivates, helpfully and catholic. “
Later Minkowitsch began to visit the regular meetings `of the youth for the Leben' in Vienna:
„At the work for the unborn children I found since then unbelievably much joy, because one helps the society, where it is most necessarily used. “
Maria - another member `of the youth for the Leben' - tells on the Webblog that she participated in the year 1999 as 15jährige in the life march. She laughed much, learned, experienced.
Later Maria in Vienna began three years with the study. There it met coincidentally a walking colleague, whom they know on `the pro Life march `99 ' had learned.
The two decided to cooperate together at `the youth for the Leben':
„`The pros Life march `99 ' me at that time the impact gave to apply the courage to use me for the most defenseless fellow men of our society. “
The employment for the human rights is connected in this year with a special contestation.
Some members of the extremist and radically life-hostile `socialist youth Österreichs' will life-right-learn to night-rot.
The reported the abortion-propagandistic message portal `Standard'.
The socialists want under the reactionary slogan: „Hands away of the period regulation! “fight for which remains everything with the old person.
The so-called period regulation is a national regulation, according to which unborn infants may be killed up to 12 the life week at will.
„The socialists are a relic from umnachteten 19. Century, abortion injustice a relic from bloody 20. Century: These relics mankind becomes in 21. Century behind itself leave “- in addition a Lebensschützer drying meant.
Already in the past years of organized life-hostile remainder-socialist circles with the summer actions `of the youth for the Leben' counter demonstrations, frequently on lowest level.
As prelude for counter action of this year in Salzburg the abortion socialists with a anti-church and mother-hostile representation will expose themselves.
As priests a disguised extremist holds one under the slogan „your belly belongs to me “as a pregnant mother kostümierte Sozialistin in chains.
„It is to be accepted that a socialistically freed pregnant mother is towed, by the socialist people hunters into the next child slaughterhouse “- so the Lebensschützer forwards `kreuz.net'.
„” Red death “calls itself in the technical language. “
All reader opinions indicate
6 of 53 reader opinions:
6 of 53 reader opinions:Monday, 17 July 2006 16:47
Benedikt78: Responsibility
It is actually tragic. In Switzerland there was times an inquiry of the toolists (thus men, who toolistic ideas pursue) with politicians. A question was:
Should the man have a kind right of veto, if it concerns the killing of its child?
I was by the way the only one, which this opinion was. Above all left politicians, who schmeissen only in such a way also with terms such as tolerance, equal rights and self-determination around itself, found only already the discussion anstössig! Self-determination up to death. But only say for the woman. Does one call now the tool archie?
Should the man have a kind right of veto, if it concerns the killing of its child?
I was by the way the only one, which this opinion was. Above all left politicians, who schmeissen only in such a way also with terms such as tolerance, equal rights and self-determination around itself, found only already the discussion anstössig! Self-determination up to death. But only say for the woman. Does one call now the tool archie?
Monday, 17 July 2006 14:29
deusexmachina: Hehe,
1 and 4 exchanges, indeed - however nothing, there for this dispute eh' irrelevant, makes and you saw also in such a way, how it was meant.
The amusing is the fact that you actually see the thing even in such a way like I but the need to feel somewhere seems to have to contradict me
Look here:
DDL: And, THAT IS „power “.
Benedikt: The fact that the woman in their tape without knowledge of the child father drives off is probably rather a proof for the powerlessness of the man. He cannot do nothing at all here.
And thus you say accurately the same like I, only I press it positively out „that AM power “, while you out-step it quasi by negative designation leave. Since „power is “in principle something relative, the one-sided allocation of power is accurately equivalent to the one-sided allocation of „powerlessness “to the opposite side. Is whether you add in an equation on the left of 5 or subrahieren on the right of 5, no matter, not? But you mean somewhat completely different one to have said than I.
By the way, no misunderstandings: I am not called such a single-handed attempt of the becoming mother well. But I can absolutely to reconstruct, if a woman, who regulates WHITE that their man of other opinion is and persists in it, such a thing clammy-secretly.
What do mean could you, the powerlessness of the man a strong mainspring of the anti-abortion campaigns genante correctly in such a way by you be? Some say, that it is like that thus only (stupid) „fight of the sexes “is.
The amusing is the fact that you actually see the thing even in such a way like I but the need to feel somewhere seems to have to contradict me
Look here:
DDL: And, THAT IS „power “.
Benedikt: The fact that the woman in their tape without knowledge of the child father drives off is probably rather a proof for the powerlessness of the man. He cannot do nothing at all here.
And thus you say accurately the same like I, only I press it positively out „that AM power “, while you out-step it quasi by negative designation leave. Since „power is “in principle something relative, the one-sided allocation of power is accurately equivalent to the one-sided allocation of „powerlessness “to the opposite side. Is whether you add in an equation on the left of 5 or subrahieren on the right of 5, no matter, not? But you mean somewhat completely different one to have said than I.
By the way, no misunderstandings: I am not called such a single-handed attempt of the becoming mother well. But I can absolutely to reconstruct, if a woman, who regulates WHITE that their man of other opinion is and persists in it, such a thing clammy-secretly.
What do mean could you, the powerlessness of the man a strong mainspring of the anti-abortion campaigns genante correctly in such a way by you be? Some say, that it is like that thus only (stupid) „fight of the sexes “is.
Monday, 17 July 2006 13:02
Benedikt: @ DDL
Perhaps it would seem to you more logically, if you do not in-read a statement, where none is. I understand to know enough from my native language over that with „perhaps “no statement can be introduced.
Even you understood that:
They kaprizieren themselves on No. 3 and conjecture
In addition you speak directly of „urge “, thus, as if it does not handle also less opressive possibilities and/or would give.
Thus really, the indication delimitation forces one here to a few Verallgemeinerungen.
With 1 there is child flax
According to their own example not, but all the same: Cases, in which there is no abortion, play here no role. It concerns abortion.
Because it gives a lot to women, who fell this decision alone, PARTICULARLY if they can assume that the father wants to keep the child. That is a form of „urge “, which the male spöttisch the tongue shows - facts create.
And, THAT IS „power “.
Which for an absurd conclusion. The fact that the woman in their tape without knowledge of the child father drives off is probably rather a proof for the powerlessness of the man. He cannot do nothing at all here.
Even you understood that:
They kaprizieren themselves on No. 3 and conjecture
In addition you speak directly of „urge “, thus, as if it does not handle also less opressive possibilities and/or would give.
Thus really, the indication delimitation forces one here to a few Verallgemeinerungen.
With 1 there is child flax
According to their own example not, but all the same: Cases, in which there is no abortion, play here no role. It concerns abortion.
Because it gives a lot to women, who fell this decision alone, PARTICULARLY if they can assume that the father wants to keep the child. That is a form of „urge “, which the male spöttisch the tongue shows - facts create.
And, THAT IS „power “.
Which for an absurd conclusion. The fact that the woman in their tape without knowledge of the child father drives off is probably rather a proof for the powerlessness of the man. He cannot do nothing at all here.
Monday, 17 July 2006 01:40
deusexmachina: Öhm, Benedikt…
… perhaps also still gives it the argumentation in an expenditure without house of cards logic?
Only you set up the statement, „perhaps, perhaps even frequently are guiltier them at the abortion than the woman. “, whereby you are so little safe of your thing that them vaguely of „perhaps “and „perhaps (!) even frequently “… and in the 2nd paragraph refer you speak to these spongelike presumptions already in such a way that they are to be able to support your argumentation?
Ähm. Nö.
There are accurately 4 possible constellations. It is M=Mann and F=Frau as well as A=Wunsch on abortion (if we of „white “`times do not foresee):
1. MA + COMPANIES
2. M! A + COMPANIES
3. MA + F! A
4. M! A + F! A
They kaprizieren themselves on No. 3 and conjecture that this could have an important portion. In addition you speak directly of „urge “, thus, as if it does not handle also less opressive possibilities and/or would give.
But you know, why 3. at all is noticeable to you? Because you of other no note take. With 1 there is child flax, from 4 experiences you something, 3 probably never leads you as outstanding on… and 2? Tja, that is the joke at history: From 2 even the fathers involved receive often nothing. Because it gives a lot to women, who fell this decision alone, PARTICULARLY if they can assume that the father wants to keep the child. That is a form of „urge “, which the male spöttisch the tongue shows - facts create.
And, THAT IS „power “.
Only you set up the statement, „perhaps, perhaps even frequently are guiltier them at the abortion than the woman. “, whereby you are so little safe of your thing that them vaguely of „perhaps “and „perhaps (!) even frequently “… and in the 2nd paragraph refer you speak to these spongelike presumptions already in such a way that they are to be able to support your argumentation?
Ähm. Nö.
There are accurately 4 possible constellations. It is M=Mann and F=Frau as well as A=Wunsch on abortion (if we of „white “`times do not foresee):
1. MA + COMPANIES
2. M! A + COMPANIES
3. MA + F! A
4. M! A + F! A
They kaprizieren themselves on No. 3 and conjecture that this could have an important portion. In addition you speak directly of „urge “, thus, as if it does not handle also less opressive possibilities and/or would give.
But you know, why 3. at all is noticeable to you? Because you of other no note take. With 1 there is child flax, from 4 experiences you something, 3 probably never leads you as outstanding on… and 2? Tja, that is the joke at history: From 2 even the fathers involved receive often nothing. Because it gives a lot to women, who fell this decision alone, PARTICULARLY if they can assume that the father wants to keep the child. That is a form of „urge “, which the male spöttisch the tongue shows - facts create.
And, THAT IS „power “.
Sunday, 16 July 2006 23:28
Friday: @ Benedikt
Wasn't it recognizable that I answered exaggerated to a remark of Burgorus, in order to make the wrongness of its thought clear? I use here none SMI-read, if I do not want to know somewhat verspöttelt.
Perhaps to assist in the understanding: I regard children personal as an enrichment, which is comparable with nothing different one. Naturally also the beginning fathers have a responsibility… this presuppose I. I can speak only for me! … regard if I an abortion as the last solution method which can be considered. Nevertheless this possibility under certain conditions may not be denied to a woman, because only it alone is directly the concerning.
To 1.
After, which I explained evenly, requires this probably no further comment. Except… then the woman loads thus debt on itself, even if the man pushes her into this situation. And more guiltily than guiltily does not go probably… no, I think, I white which you for meaning.
To 2.
That has to less do Machtkämpfen' between the sexes for me with a power of the women or `. More with an inability to be able to go around starting from a certain point with one another and abuse the children… whether now consciously or not… for the penetration of own interests. And this kind of problem management is not also strange to men.
Perhaps to assist in the understanding: I regard children personal as an enrichment, which is comparable with nothing different one. Naturally also the beginning fathers have a responsibility… this presuppose I. I can speak only for me! … regard if I an abortion as the last solution method which can be considered. Nevertheless this possibility under certain conditions may not be denied to a woman, because only it alone is directly the concerning.
To 1.
After, which I explained evenly, requires this probably no further comment. Except… then the woman loads thus debt on itself, even if the man pushes her into this situation. And more guiltily than guiltily does not go probably… no, I think, I white which you for meaning.
To 2.
That has to less do Machtkämpfen' between the sexes for me with a power of the women or `. More with an inability to be able to go around starting from a certain point with one another and abuse the children… whether now consciously or not… for the penetration of own interests. And this kind of problem management is not also strange to men.
Sunday, 16 July 2006 17:34
Pink lime tree: @Ansgar
With the offenses you began.
Otherwise you are right: with its position cannot be discussed. That is not however my error.
Then you remain times prettily in their `christlichen' Dogmatismus imprisoned.
Otherwise you are right: with its position cannot be discussed. That is not however my error.
Then you remain times prettily in their `christlichen' Dogmatismus imprisoned.
All reader opinions indicate 47 further reader opinions
47 further reader opinionsThe editorship does not take responsibility for contents of the contributions. She reserves herself the right to delete contributions as well as to exclude readers from the debate.
They followed the star
