On Monday, Macon, Georgia joins hundreds of thousands of pro-life people of all political parties in marking the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
Read how President Obama praises this decision that has led to the slaughter of millions of babies waiting in the warmth of the womb to be born:
Obama praises Roe, says decision protects women’s health and freedom
January 24, 2011
President Barack Obama issued a statement on January 22 praising Roe v. Wade, the infamous Supreme Court decision that struck down laws across the nation protecting unborn children. In the 38 years since the decision, 53 million unborn children have been slain in their mothers’ wombs.
The president said:
Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
My comments:
I am left dumbfounded by the following statement of President Obama:
(Roe v. wade promoted the) fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Let's talk about private family matters then!
1. Are we to presume that President Obama believes that government should not interfere in private family matters when parents starve their children, use any means available including the death penalty to punish their children and that the sexual abuse of their children as well as incest in the home are private family matters?
2. Are we to presume that President Obama believes that government should not intrude on a private family matter when parents do not educate their children, keep them locked up in the home and do not properly clothe and feed them?
3. Does President Obama believe that government should not interfere in private family matters when parents sell their children for sexual exploitation or to make a buck; experiment on them to see how they will react to pain and neglect and torture them for the fun of it.
You catch my drift. The Barbarians and those who offered child sacrifice to their gods have nothing on us when it comes to government not interfering in private family matters as it concerns the dismembering, torturing and killing of the innocent unborn. May God have mercy on us and on the whole world!
5 comments:
Amen and amen, Father! In addition to your questions I would add, "If the Supreme Court is infallible regards their interpretations of rights, what are President Obama's thoughts on the Dred Scott Decision?" This is not meant as a racial dig but as a reminder that even the Supreme Court can make egregious and tragic errors.
Well said Father. Along w/defending life what is needed is an effort to bring to light the lie of the safe-sex lifestyle. This is why teens end up having abortions anyway, because their attempts at "safe-sex" failed. They were duped 100% by planned parenthood. Society needs to understand that they are being lied to in order to fill the pockets of the PP industry, because PP knows that by distributing birth control methods -that are not 100% effective - eventually the kids will end up there to have an abortion. What society in general sees as a solution to the problem (giving teens birth control so they can have safe sex) is actuality what is creating the problem of unwanted pregnancies because it is enabling the behavior itself. Why is this so hard to understand? Is America, from the White House down to the ghetto that blind to the truth? Or is it just that the truth is very inconvenient, therefore we choose to ignore it? Think of it this way, the way PP works is similar to the car dealer that sells defective cars, he knows that in a few months all those cars will have to come in for a repair, therefore guaranteeing some cash flow down the road. But he still sells the car.
It's cynical. We notice that the baby is dehumanised, but the woman has to be dehumanised first: there is no other source of human, that cell from the beginning is the only cell that can ever become a human. We must demand that women be treated more respectfully as the only bearers of our species. What sort of society would only want the woman's body and not its fruit?
rcg
So true Father. Your words to Gods' ears!
Yes so true and I would add why is it that when woman wants her child that her murder, when pregnant with child who also loses their life, is considered a double homocide? I am dumbfounded at times.
Post a Comment