If abortion isn’t killing babies…then why are these pictures so disturbing?

WARNING The link below contains pictures of the aftermath of abortions.


Link

Animal rights advocates argue that in order to make their case they must show terrible photographs, such as baby seals being clubbed to death. If there’s a place to look at such pictures, why shouldn't there be a place to look at pictures of abortions?


Gregg Cunningham of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform says, "Abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror. Until abortion is seen, it will never be understood."

Pro-abortion columnist Naomi Wolf observes, "The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics....[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy."

I am not intending to turn this blog into one only about abortion but I think this is an important worldview issue and should be addressed.

Judicial activism

"I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want."
-Barack Obama

That isn't what judges are supposed to do. Judges are not there to be activists. They are there to apply the law based off of the Constitution of the United States of America. Why is it we even have a written constitution if judges can just make their decisions on what they personally think is fair?

Activist judges used the due process clause 14th amendment to say that anti-abortion laws were violating women's constitutional right to privacy. Not sure what that is? Well here you go:

"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." (source)

I guess that whole depriving a person of life thing only applies if your mother finds it convenient. Now some will say that we don't know when a baby in the womb should be called a person. They may even say it is above their pay grade. Well if we don't know when then why don't we err on the side of caution? Everyone knows that human life begins at conception. To deny that is just sticking your head in the sand. Why is it ok to end that life simply because the mother doesn't want to take responsibility? What if the mother of an infant no longer wants the responsibility? If the baby is ok to kill at 6 months in the womb why can't he be killed at 1 month outside?

I have no doubt that if elected president Barack Obama will appoint activist judges to the supreme court. I base that off of his record and previous statements. He will sign the the freedom of choice act which will make partial birth abortions completely legal again.

If you think it is a good idea to kill babies in this way then by all means vote for Barack Obama. If you don't then vote for someone else.

Sign this guy up for public office.

A person who claims to be "pro-life" is not being truthful if they are supporting a "pro-abortion" political figure.

Another very provocative statement. I am hoping it will stir up some conversation. Let me know what you think, either in the comments or by sending an email to worldview.experiment@gmail.com.

Maher Mockery of Muslims May Backfire