Posts Tagged ‘baby killer’

Dear President Obama – I Almost Wish Your Mother Had Aborted You

January 23, 09

Yes, you heard me right. I, supposedly the self-proclaimed good and obedient Christian, am (almost) cursing President Obama to his face. Call me an un-Christian hypocrite, but that great is my righteous anger against Obama’s exceeding sin.

Just as the 46% of Americans who voted against him feared, the first thing he does when he becomes President is to throw his full weight behind the detestable act of abortion.

Obama has now signed a bill that uses American taxpayer money to fund abortions WORLDWIDE:

Separately, the administration in the afternoon issued a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.

Obama signed the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

It’s telling that 58% of those polled oppose this initiative, a higher percentage than the popular vote Obama got in the Presidential Elections:

Fifty-eight percent of Americans said they disagreed with the president’s decision to give overseas funding to family planning organizations that provide abortions…

I’ve said it before… Obama’s rabidly pro-abortion policies kill a higher precentage of BLACK babies than any other race:

This is the President who transcends racism and has redeemed the Blacks??? If he hadn’t been lucky enough not to be one of the black babies making up 56% of all US abortions, he wouldn’t be around to be the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, TM, today. And this is the gratitude and thankfulness he shows.

He has voted FOUR TIMES to let babies that survive abortions die… These are babies outside their mother’s wombs, the definition of infanticide.

Tell me, Mr. President… Would you prefer to have been aborted by your mother?

This child’s future is a broken home.

He will be abandoned by his father.

His single mother will struggle to raise him.

Despite the hardships he will endure…

This child will become the 1st African American President.

Life. Imagine the potential.

Ironic, isn’t it? As the video suggests, just one casual abortion by Ann Dunham (Mr. President’s mother) could have ended up saving the lives of tens of millions of babies in the next 4 years. I say it might just be worth it just for that alone.

(Oo, you wanna report me for issuing a death threat against the President? My motive is merely to reduce the societal struggle of a family here, and my capability to commit the crime is that time machine over in the corner there.)

Or how about your two daughters? Have you told them lately that they are ‘punishment’ for your mistakes with the current First Lady?

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” – Barack Obama

To President Obama, the fact that already one out of five of all pregnancies end in abortion worldwide isn’t enough (as reported by the Guttmacher Institute – and these are not including unreported/illegal abortions).

Barack Obama is evil, full stop, and I am disgusted that anyone in the world looks up to him.

And so is the Vatican:

ROME: A senior Vatican official on Saturday attacked US President Barack Obama for “arrogance” for overturning a ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions overseas.

It is “the arrogance of someone who believes they are right, in signing a decree which will open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life,” Archbishop Rino Fisichella was quoted as saying by the Corriere della Sera daily.

Obama signed the executive order cancelling the eight-year-old restrictions on Friday, the third full day of his presidency.

“If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, with all due respect, it seems to me that the path towards disappointment will have been very short,” Fisichella said.

“I do not believe that those who voted for him took into consideration ethical themes, which were astutely left aside during the election debate. The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team,” he added.

Every one of you in America who voted for Obama, and every one of you who voiced support for him in the rest of the world… The blood of 1.2 million babies every single month is now on Obama’s hands, and it has stained yours as well.

May you beg God’s forgiveness for being a part of this evil-monster-masquerading-as-a-caring-President’s unspeakable sins.

From The Ryskind Sketchbook:

If Abortion is Legal, So Should Killing 27-day Old Babies Be

May 15, 08

Peter Singer is an atheist. He is also a proponent of abortion.

Here are some of his quotes on why the right to abort a fetus based on its mental capacity should be extended a little further:

“My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness.”

“Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness… make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings.”

Atheism and Child Murder, correlated by Wikipedia on Peter Singer

Get that? Peter Singer argues that fetuses in their mother’s womb can be legally, morally, ethically aborted because they have no conciousness… No self-awareness… No mind.

This is exactly what everyday pro-abortion groups argue.

The difference is that Peter Singer takes this argument to its logical conclusion – that since babies in the crib are similarly non-sentient, they should also be legal to ‘abort’.

Now, the everyday abortion-lover will decry such a horrific, monstrous worldview. That is not who we are!, they will protest.

But really, what’s the difference? Both are similarly un-sentient, un-self aware, not fully concious.

So by what logical disconnect do abortion supporters argue that killing babies in the playroom is worse than killing babies in their mother’s womb?

Is it because killing an infant is so visual and impacting, as opposed to a mother undergoing an abortion who does not see the bloody, gory mess that is ripped from her womb?

Bloody, gory mess such as in this video.

Because by 12 weeks (which is the First Trimester, totally legal to abort) the fetus already has hands, ribs and a face… Just like the 4-week old baby in the crib.

You go to this link, follow the links there to the pictures, and tell me you can guiltlessly go through with an abortion having those images in your mind.

Let’s take it further… If soundness of mind and mental activity is the criteria we use, then involuntary euthanasia of vegetable-ized hospital patients should be as legal as abortion.

Both the fetus and the mind-cripple do not have sentience or conciousness on par with human adults.

The only difference being, give them both another few months, and the fetus would be fully functioning and on its way to full sentience. Whereas the mental cripple would likely not.

So why is it moral to end the life of the fetus, but deplorable ‘eugenics’ to end the life of the mental handicap? Shouldn’t it be other way around? The fetus has up to 80 years more of life to go, the comatose geriatric only half a decade.

Oh, wait… Liberal doctors are already justifying their forced euthanasia of less-than-fully-sentient patients:

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it.

Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities.

Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is “rational” will have their deaths facilitated.

Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer’s, it’s all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.

And now they want to euthanize children.

Or imagine if your brain got zapped in some electromagnetic accident. Your conciousness and sentience get reset to zero, your vital systems cease to function without artificial aid.

However, you would begin to recover your thoughts in about, say, 9 months. After 5 more years, you’d be well on the road to 100% capability again.

How justified would it be to put you to sleep before those crucial 9 months had passed, on the basis of you having no discernible mental capacity? Would it be fair, knowing that you would begin to be self-aware after 9 months and then would become more sentient every day that passed?

So likewise, how justified is it to abort a human fetus before he or she is born, when it is certain that after 9 months he would be fully functioning physically and begin to develop full sentience not long after that?

How does killing an individual a few weeks before he gains full legal rights make it any more excusable?

To close, I conjecture that the pro-abortion liberal individual will never even attempt to address the logic that Peter Singer demonstrates.

Because if they agree with him that the right to live should be basd on mental capacity, that means that they advocate the legalized murder of infants less than a month old.

Whereas if they disagree with him that the right to live should be basd on mental capacity, that means they are guilty of the murder of 1.2 million human beings every single month.

A false dilemma? Less false than you might think.

As this report says, if the baby is killed with chemicals or a scalpel while in the mothers womb… It is a legal abortion.

If it is aborted yet survives the attempt, but left to die in the clinic… It is murder.

Killing a baby in a crib = MURDER

Killing a pregnant woman = DOUBLE MURDER (one for the woman, one for the unborn child)

Killing a baby in the womb = LEGAL ABORTION


Abortion is murder, any way you try and spin it.

Pictures of Aborted Fetuses – They Look Human, They ARE Human

January 25, 08

Abortion sickens me, but ‘pro-choice’ abortion suppoters who argue that ‘the aborted gunk is just blood and mucus’ or ‘an embryo or a fetus isn’t a human’ sicken me even more.

Killing a baby in a crib = MURDER

Killing a pregnant woman = DOUBLE MURDER (one for the woman, one for the unborn child)

Killing a baby in the womb = LEGAL ABORTION


If you think not-born-yet = not-human, then take a look at the following links. Even at the totally-legal-to-abort First Trimester (0 – 3 months pregnant), you can’t deny the explicit humanness of the tiny baby.

They can even survive so well, that 50 babies survive attempted abortions every year in the UK – and then if left to die, is counted as infanticide. So killed in womb = abortion, attempted kill then left to die in clinic = murder.

Take a good, long look. Puke your guts out, then come back and tell me how the following are not considered humans – living and growing, until they were murdered by abortionists.


Google Images


Meanwhile, thousands of pro-life supporters marched on Washington in protest of the 35th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which removed the human right to life of unborn babies in favour of the right of irresponsible mothers to not be emotionally annoyed.

And of course, this is how the supremely biased, lie-beral MSM portrays it, via Ryskind:


It’s not like peaceful and dignified Walk for Lifers don’t have enough rabid, anarchic opposition already.

More cartoons:








See also:

Full Uncensored Video Footage of Abortion on Spain TV

Liberal Vampires Would Kill Millions of Stem Cell Babies to Live Longer

SCHIP and Abortion Moonbat Back-to-Square-One Argument

Liberal Definition of A ‘Person’

Back to the Future Stem Cells

Are Your Babies Inside Your Parents?

You Reach Your Right Hand In, And Pull The Baby’s Brains Out

Hey, Do You Think We Should We Kill Babies?

Are Your Babies Inside Your Parents?

Mommy Why Don’t You Love Me

%d bloggers like this: