Clinton or Obama, Do They Really Represent Your Views?

Take a damn good look at this picture. You pro-choice supporters and MoveOn.org fanatics did this. Please spare me the emotional shock and indignation. What in the hell did you think your "viewpoint" and "opinions" would result in if put to action? I served as a coroner for many years and bloodied my hands with just about every macabre deed humans inflicted upon themselves and others. A picture like this still twists me to the ground and to this day I cannot tell you if anger or sadness consumes me more. If any of you think that late term abortions ceased after the "Partial-birth abortion ban of 2003" you better do a little investigating to fully understand the differences in jargon between partial birth and late term abortions. Can abortions be performed to save a mother's life? Yes they can and the procedure is completely legal. Can an abortion be performed to minimize risks to a mother's health and her ability to have children in the future? If you think they can't you're really kidding yourself. There is an army of government officials (Senators and Representatives) that redirect your taxpayer monies to legalized murder clinics across the country. Your taxpayer dollars still fund physicians that perform these vicious acts with little more concern than if they were surgically removing a plantar's wart.


The point reaches far beyond the issue of whether late term or partial birth abortions should be performed and how many actually are performed as decided by a doctor "looking into circumstances regarding the health of the mother." Pro-abortion activists have swayed the public consciousness to believe in the absolute lunacy of their proposition. Where does life begin? We think life begins here because the cellular transfer of blah results in blah and blah doesn't happen until blah moves two inches to the left. Abortion supporters through the exquisite parsing of medical and legal terminology determined for you (not with your participation) that some galactic scientific controversy exists because no one really knows when the life of a baby begins. So much for intelligent and modern science. Even Darwin would regard this argument as delving into a world of at least mild political retardation. I'm sorry, I'll call the baby a fetus to be fair. So if you look at the photograph of the murdered infant above I think we can agree that the child looks viable and capable of sustained life. Obviously I don't know the exact circumstances of the child above but for the sake of a sane argument let's say that this child was vacuumed and crushed based on the mother's decision or "choice." What was the state of this baby, infant, little person, or fetus prior to what you see at the tragic and grisly end? At some point during or after the female egg's fertilization by male semen was there ever a chance that this innocent child could've possibly evolved into something else? Have any mothers ever went to a gynecologist or obstatrician after becoming impregnated only to hear the earth shattering news that what's inside them is not a child but a lizard, platypus, or baby hippo instead? "You know Mrs. Smith we in the medical community can never quite tell what's going to develop after what we term impregnation. Apparently something went very wrong during the zygote phase. Would you like to have a baby hippo or would you like to discuss termination? By the way we'll leave the father or husband out of this because the courts, abortion supporters, and general public believe him to be inconsequential. If you choose to have the hippo we'll be happy to contact the San Diego Zoo to discuss the possibility of adoption"


Where does "His Highness" Barack Obama and the "Shrillish" Mother Clinton stand on this issue? Probably where you thought they would. On March 12, 2003 Hillary Clinton voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except to protect the maternal life of the mother. This was Senate bill S.3, vote number 2003-51. She generally supports the death penalty for heinous crimes committed against innocent victims. Does anyone but me see the not too subtle juxtaposition here? His "Barackness" takes what liberal elitists coin the moral high ground. Obama though claiming to be a stalwart member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is also an abortion supporter. In proving my theory that Obama is mostly eloquence and extremely short on substance, listen to this. Regarding abortion Obama minces, stumbles, and as is the case in most of his stump speeches says absolutely nothing. "This issue is very complicated for me. This issue rises above the moral dimensions surrounding it." Obama you're such a coward. Just come out and say that you unequivocally support abortion and for those of us with brains do us the common courtesy of taking church and Christ away from your affiliations. We prefer you don't cling to "token" religious symbolism. There is nothing about church, Christ, and abortion that fit together at all unless you're denouncing the practice. You too support the death penalty for those convicted of committing heinous crimes on innocent victims so you and Hillary both talk the talk but stumble on the walk.


Let's end this with some concrete observations. Life begins at conception. Any argument to the contrary is nothing more than smoke-filled coffee house crap.


What you see in the photograph at the top of the page is no different in substance than a like photograph of a gunshot wound to the head of an infant.


Abortions are performed after sustainability on a regular basis. Yes that means after fingers clutch and little feet kick. Rarely do ultrasounds indicate that the growing infant has an elephant's trunk instead of the usually recognizable human features.


If we buy the only argument that can be made in that little babies in mothers' wombs are human children, we have and continue to fail miserably. Isn't it sad to see the American justice system provided more representation and safeguards to O.J. Simpson than to innocent babies incapable of finding a voice of their own? Are abortion supporters really going to say children like those pictured above don't feel pain or the warmth and closeness of their mother?


Perhaps Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will volunteer to attend a workshop in which I'll volunteer to teach them some of what I feel would be practical examples of some of the vicious procedures implemented. Don't fret, I'd only close the vice or squeeze the forceps hard enough to give them a sustainable headache in which they soon wouldn't forget. After all, are they going to claim they feel more pain than the child above? I don't "scientifically" see how they could.


Regardless what side of the debate you find yourself on let's at least make the dialogue honest and on even footing. The radical feminism movement wholly supports any and all forms of abortion because of their honest intention to destroy the traditional family which in the long run equates to genocide. Abortion concerns regarding a mother's health represents an infintismal percentage of the cases under discussion. The truth is, abortion in modern times is about an anything goes culture steeped in flawed moral relativism. Modern abortion is ultimately about selfish choices and the inability to assume responsibility for personal choices and a destructive lifestyle. Don't let the abortion supporters fool you. Choice for protection of the mother in factual analysis pales in comparison.


I'll talk to you later in the week.