cialis dosage options
ZION'S TRUMPET
1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; Joel 2:1
Show MenuHide Menu

Obama Has the Audacity to Say He Wants to Save One Child’s Life? He wants to Kill Any Aborted Baby that is Born Alive. This Man is Depraved and Evil.

January 26, 2013

The next time our president, or any Liberal says that we should pass gun control because “if it can just save one life”

26JAN

Remember this masterful piece at Allergic to Bull There is lot to read and all of it is well worth your while, but let me highlight this part

And then there is the special case of Barack Obama.  I say special because I can’t think of any other prominent individual whose pro-choice position is so radical that it so effectively cuts into his own position.  First, for Obama, gun control is all about the children (see right):

That’s an image from his press conference when he announced his executive orders and legislative proposals for gun control, and he made sure to surround himself with kids who wrote letters to him pleading for gun control.  Also for free candy.  Really mostly, for free candy.  And yes, that is a joke, but a joke with a point.  There is a reason why kids don’t vote: because they lack the maturity to deal with life as it is.  For instance, I had two posts the other day talking about the relevance of rape, a crime that these kids probably don’t even know is a thing.
 
And of course Obama declared in a weekly address that “If even one life can be saved, we have an obligation to try”:
So if we can save one life, eh, Obama?  Well, that is not what you thought when the issue came to infanticide.  From Andrew McCarthy’s searing work on the subject:
 
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”
 
No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.
 
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.
 
No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”
 
Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.
 
But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.
 
The record, however, doesn’t lie.
 
From later in the article:
 
My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.
 
Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.
 
But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.
 
In other words, these proposed laws would require doctors to try to save such a fetus’ life and naturally forbid all people from killing it.  And indeed, this is not a matter of the choice of the mother.  If the fetus is actually outside her body, and it can live, what consequence is it of hers?  If she doesn’t want to raise it, I am sure many childless couples would be happy to adopt her baby.  But that is what we are talking about: a baby, by the definition of all but the most radical. 
Ah the smell of Liberal hypocrisy. If just one life can be saved? No, if just one more ultra-Liberal law that tramples basic human liberty can be passed by exploiting tragedies is more like it!
Article Global Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon Eli Pets

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *