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
...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
Thanks
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?”
Are they?
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.
JMHO.
Marlowe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.