Skip to comments.Ann Coulter: 49 MILLION TO FIVE
Posted on 06/03/2009 3:08:05 PM PDT by Syncro
49 MILLION TO FIVE
June 3, 2009
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.
Read more at AnnCoulter.Com
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
Read the rest at AnnCoulter.Com
The only question left is, will God use the Chinese, Russians or muslims to judge our culture with.
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
I think I hear heads exploding...
All the above.
If its wednesday night it must be time for an Ann Coulter column....plus the Red Sox are on tonight. Yes!
She thinks and talks like many of us, on this issue -—
Or maybe “great minds think alike!”
“I am against shooting abortionists, but I don't feel like I can impose my beliefs on others”
“I am pro-choice” on the subject of shooting abortionists.
Because is a TRUE SOLDIER.... a fighter!
i’m sure the libs would never have a problem with the Tiller Killer being waterboarded and held indefintatley at Gitmo to find out if he is part of a larger domestic “terrorist” organization..........
Yeah, because all 3 are certainly more moral societies than we are, obviously...
“A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.”
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.So you can buy politicians.
Who'da thunk it
Well done, Annie.
If our Unborn don’t deserve every advantage at freedom then what the hell are we a free country for ?
I find mothers who have abortions just as guilty as the father who drives them to the clinic and the doctor who kills the child
Blood will be on their hands just as much if theyu had shot a bystander on the street !
Think I’m hsrsh ?
Oh well think what you want murder is murder and no supreme court should be able to tell you the divines plan for life...
The ELCA Social Statement on Abortion , adopted by the 1991 Churchwide Assembly, acknowledges the issue's complexity, noting that it "evokes strong and varied convictions about ... human life and responsibility, freedom and limits." The statement also offers useful guidance: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life."
A last resort
"The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life," the statement says. "Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. Therefore, as a church we seek to reduce the need to turn to abortion. ...We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her."
The statement adds: "The church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion." These are the threat to a woman's physical life; when pregnancy has resulted from rape, incest or sexual violence; and fetal abnormalities incompatible with life.
Basic faith convictions undergird the ELCA statement. Created in God's image, we see all of life as a mysterious, awesome gift. As a community of forgiven sinners, Christians are free to make just and caring choices. In fact, the statement says, "we have both the freedom and the obligation to engage in serious deliberation on moral matters." A compassionate community, praying and standing with those in struggle, is called neither to judge nor justify but to support people making difficult moral decisions.
The Lutheran | August 2000 | Since You Asked
By Norma and Burton Everist
And you harsh?
Nope, not compared to God’s take on this!
You could always go medieval on their ass & rip them apart limb from limb like they do babies. /s
Yanks Rule! No tears For Tiller. You cannot kill that many babies and not like doing it.
I used to be a member of an ELCA church, although they fought the parent board on a lot of issues. Now I’m a Southern Baptist.
...or our own president...
We don’t need those images here at Free Republic
People here are mature and intelligent enough to understand the situation with out graphics of that nature
My money’s on all three.
Your point is valid, though I don’t fault Kelly for posting it because we have become a visually-oriented society.
I saw one of the billboard trucks on the freeway a couple years ago with the aborted baby’s parts shown next to a dime for perspective and as painful as it was to see, I had to give the driver a thumbs-up for having the courage to make us face the truth about what an abortion really is.
Ann’s not backing down one inch. Bravo!
I love Ann Coulter.
Ann hits it out of the park.
“People here are mature and intelligent enough to understand the situation with out graphics of that nature?”
We are so screwed!
The ELCA is the leftist-extremist/politically-correct Luthern want to be. They embrace many non-Biblical principles.
Only the "Lutheran Church Missouri Synod" and "Wisconsin Synod" Lutherans are true to Lutheran Doctrine.
Perhaps a bilboard campaign would be more effective if it had animated representations showing each step of the process. No need to show the actual babies, but show it like they have the emergency procedures on airplanes.
And maybe have each billboard only show one or two of the steps in the process, so drivers will catch the next picture or two a couple miles down the road/freeway.
It would be especially effective if it showed a partial-birth abortion with the scissors and the vacuum.
If the MSM media thinks that this most common of elective surgeries is licit and ok, then why don’t they show us Tiller performing one of his “procedures”?
If the PEOPLE don’t rise up soon you certainly are screwed. I pray that you will rise up!! CO
Coulter raises a moral dilemma for liberals. If moral relativism applies to the issue of homicide in abortion, as liberals claim, on what basis can they draw the line on not imposing morality on others? How does the liberal reasoning and rhetoric hold up here? What is the liberal basis for imposing morality in other situations? They have a problem on their hands if the shooter doesn't buy into their idea of morality. So abortionists do not accept the idea that unborn children are buman beings deserving of a right to life. What about those who would extend that to other classes of people? Are they free to invoke the "personally opposed but..." clause? Where would it end? Old and sick people?
And the last one can say “Burma Shave”!
This is what you call perspective and when you have perspective the truth is usually crystal clear!!!
“No need to show the actual babies?”
Well, I and 49 million dead babies disagree.
Is He not allowed to use you?
..but I support you, Jeff Head and others who have the courage to post them.
Syncro, folks simply do not believe a baby is inside a womb, a baby mere days from being born, a baby torn apart by a physician using horrible means.
Folks will pretend it doesn't happen if they don't see it!
They've been pretending for 36 years, and 54 million dead babies later!
IMO those pictures should not be posted unless the purpose of posting them is to shock specific people into realizing the holocaust that is going on. If they are posted willy nilly on every thread and every bulletin board, I believe that people may develop an immunity to them.
I have seen more of those pictures than I care to see. I don't need to see them every day on every thread to remind me of the holocaust that is going on and I don't believe they should be widely and regularly published simply because they exist.
If somebody comes on a thread and starts claiming that babies are not being murdered or that fetuses are not really babies, then you can and should respond by posting the pictures. But to simply post pictures to the choir or as a general attempt to "shock" the public, I do not believe is a practice I would condone.
40 posts and no pic ?
Apparently one was posted and was removed.
There seems to be an argument about whether they should be posted on every abortion thread. I, for one, don't think they should.
Every time I see one I am shocked a little less. I don't like that feeling. I would hate to develop an immunity to the shock. Personally I don't know how the people who post them here so often can stand to look at them. I can't.
Never mind. :-)
You said it, Punk. And you're right.
I think it should be legal for babies to kill abortionists.
Fair is fair, right?
Probably all three. At the present time we have obama to work on us. By the time he [obama] turns us over to the other three, there won’t be much left of us.
On the bright side, Tiller has learned that he was bull shitted by some, that Almighty God did love the babies he created and He will avenge their blood.
Now he is tormented day and night forever and the innocent babies he tormented are comfronted.
Just think,a million years from now Tiller will still be tormented and it won’t even make a scratch on eternity.
Like always Ann hits it out of the ball park.
4,000 babies killed a day in the U.S. alone and somehow the left thinks that is perfectly fine. One lunatic shoots an abortionist who would kill a baby the day before it’s due date, and all hell breaks loose.
Interestingly enough I was watching Fr. Pavonne last night when I tivo’d Fr. Benedict’s Sunday Live on EWTN.
Fr. Pavonne said 22% of people responded that abortion should be allowed without absolutely no restrictions when asked in the latest Gallop poll.
It is estimated that 22-24% of the population is psychopathic. I should not have to explain the connection.
That is a different venue than that which I commented upon.
There are several others on this thread that agree with your billboard suggestion.
When you get them up all over the country, FR mail me.
That being said, I am aware of the leftist abortionist multi-billion dollar business propaganda that still keeps too many people in the dark as to what abortion really is.
Just to make it clear, the quote is what I said, but you added the question mark.
People here are mature and intelligent enough to understand the situation with out graphics of that nature?
You obviously don't believe that people here at Free Republic are mostly mature and intelligent.
I disagree, no problem.
And I don't disagree with using that type of image in certain situations to startle people into seeing what really happens when some "tissue" is gently taken from a woman's body. (please note the sarcasm)
I have been on more than one thread lately where graphics of the nature of what you posted were put up, and in virtually all those cases the mods chose to remove them.
You know where you’re going to end up for that one. :)
“I have been on more than one thread lately where graphics of the nature of what you posted were put up, and in virtually all those cases the mods chose to remove them.”
so much for “Free” Republic