Is this what "pro-choice" has come to?

I have seen many comments by democrats painting every conservative with a broad brush in the Akin debacle and asking: “how can people support this guy?” I don’t support this guy Akin in the least. Rape is rape and any other explanation is asinine to argue. The principled argument of punishing an innocent life for something a criminal did is an argument to be had. But Akin’s comments are not defendable.

But here is my question for all of you self-righteous democrats crowing about a woman’s right to choose: How can you support a guy that believes leaving an innocent human being, on a cold slab to die, after a botched abortion is acceptable and not evil? Well that is what President Obama believes and has supported as a US Senator. So where is the outrage?

So think hard about an asinine remark compared to a guy supporting legislation to let innocent babies die a cold cruel death. Are you proud of this? How do you defend this? How can you vote for such evil? Answer that and then we can talk about Akin.

I ask you: Is this really what “pro-choice” people support?

 

Sen. Obama’s controversial history with the ‘Born Alive’ legislation

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act drew a firm line in the sand—no killing innocent humans after they have been born. It was a line Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama refused to accept.

• Obama voted four times against legislation to protect and care for infants accidentally born alive during late-term abortions. The carefully worded bill had no effect on abortion rights.
• A federal version of the bill passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote.
• For four years, Obama has said that he would have voted for the federal version because it contained a pre-birth "neutrality clause" the Illinois legislation lacked. When this claim was questioned, he said his critics were "lying."
• New documents show that Obama voted on a version identical to the federal bill, which included the so-called "neutrality clause. " He voted against it.

Babies left to die

In Illinois, witnesses discovered that living babies were being left to die following a certain abortion procedure. In this procedure, called induced labor abortion, the pregnant woman is given drugs to dilate the cervix and induce contractions, forcing the premature baby out of the uterus. Sometimes the baby is born dead (killed by the force of the contractions) but other times the infant is born alive—a "live-birth abortion."

No More Personal Accountability…

The tragic murder of George Tiller a man who performed late term abortions in Kansas is bringing to light one of the most important issues in society today; personal accountability.

Left wing blogs and left wing activists are trying to paint the entire community of people that oppose abortions in the same light as the man who killed Tiller. Their argument is that the act of this one crazy deranged man was influenced by Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, talk radio, preachers, and anyone opposed to abortion that has spoken out against the act. They believe if it wasn’t for the opposition to abortion and the legitimate debate about what abortion is Tiller would be alive today. They argue that any open and free debate can influence people to do tragic things like murdering the people they disagree with. If we believe this to be true we must shut down all speech including theirs.

The problem with the left’s argument is they leave out the one person responsible for the act of murder; the murderer. The personal accountability we each have over our actions is the true issue here. Every day people make personal decisions to engage in behavior that is both good and bad. No one holds a gun to our head to behave in certain ways. People are influenced by TV, radio, Blogs, and personal conversations. If we hold to the left’s current argument we will need to hold everyone else responsible for influencing bad behavior except the person that is truly responsible. The only people the left ever hold accountable for anything are conservatives.

The left continues to argue even after years and years of contrary evidence that people aren’t responsible for their own lot in life. They believe minorities are poor because of racism, the alcoholic continues to drink because of conditions beyond the drinkers control, children behave aggressively because of a chemical imbalance, and rich people get rich because they were born into wealth. The list goes on and on. The denial of personal accountability in both good and bad circumstances is ignored.

People are poor because they never finished their education, people are drunks because they choose to drink, kids are aggressive because parents don’t do their jobs, the rich get rich because they take risks and work 15 hours a day seven days a week. They are the way they are because of the choices they make. There are some exceptions but for the majority of us in life it is personal decisions that get us where we end up in life.

That is the case with this murder of Tiller. The murderer was responsible for taking the life of Tiller. O’Reilly, Ingraham, talk radio, Blogs, religious leaders will continue to debate the issue of abortion and the impact it has on society. That is a debate that must continue and they have no accountability in the murder of Tiller. The murderer is the only one responsible for taking Tiller’s life…

Shame on Notre Dame…

The argument is simple and this analogy should suffice:

It is equivalent to a Synagogue in Germany inviting Hitler to give a sermon on human rights because he was the political leader of the country. It is an exchange of ideas with someone that disagrees with your views in a position of prominence but do you legitimize their position by allowing this forum and then showering him with an honorary membership to the Synagogue?

Seems problematic to me and the solution is simple; they should rescind the invitation…