At last -- The Truth, from a person with "guts"
On Crossfire this past Friday, I finally heard someone use the word,
”kill,” instead of abortion. As you may know, the show is hosted by
a Conservative and a Liberal and usually two guests are invited, with
the same opposing views. Crossfire is on CNN, which is owned by
the billionaire liberal Ted Turner, who once said the Ten Commandments
Laura Ingraham, who recently wrote a book about Hillary Clinton called
“The Hillary Trap -- Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places,”
represented the Conservative side and Patricia Ireland, the president
of NOW (National Organization of Women), which really should be called
the National Organization of Liberal Women, -- the Liberal side.
During the discussion, the abortion issue came up and Ingraham
instead of saying abortion, said the word,“killing,” when referring, to
the act of an abortion. That shocked me -- at last someone with “guts,
” who is not afraid to tell the truth and say the killing of a baby on
national television. I watch many of these types of shows, on cable
and otherwise and this is the first time, a pro-lifer strayed away from
the euphemism -- abortion.
When Ingraham uttered the truthful words that all pro-choicers hate,
she was quickly talked over by the liberal host Bill Press, as liberals
always try to do, when they don’t want the truth to be heard. They
will raise their voice and ramble on and on, hoping no one caught
the truth. But it was too late -- the words were out, plain and clear.
So much so that Patricia Ireland, who was to speak next, appeared
flabbergasted. She actually said, “I can’t remember what I was going
to say.” If you know Ireland, she’s never at loss for words.
She must have been stunned by the truth as if thinking to herself,
“how dare she say the babies are killed -- why these are just abortions.”
This is what happens, when people dare to speak the truth -- “the
killing of unborn babies,” instead of “abortions.” It leaves the antagonist
dumbfounded and groping for words.
Prior to and after Roe Vs Wade, there were many shows arguing this
issue, -- where have they all gone? Today, pro-lifers have much
more ammunition -- clear ultrasounds, onset of heartbeat, brain
activity, onset of pain, formation of extremities and organs etc.
The living human being in the mother’s womb, is no longer a lump
of non-sentient tissue, as they tried to shove down people’s throats
in those days and still told to women today at abortion clinics.
The Media, which is overwhelmingly liberal, will not touch this issue
with a ten foot pole. They know pro-lifers would make mince meat
out of the pro-choicers.
I’ve been trying to get pro-lifers to NEVER use the word “abortion,”
especially on TV or where there is a large audience. It’s too soft
a word. To begin with, it’s the wrong terminology. The definition of
abortion is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is viable
outside of the womb. In the wholesale killing of unborn babies that
are done today, the fetus IS viable inside the womb. It has to be
killed first. This is called a surgical, or induced abortion. Plain
abortions, which are spontaneous abortions, are nature's way to
expel a non-viable embryo/fetus. (dead embryo/fetus.)
The definition of viable is: capable of living. And the embryo/fetus
IS capable of living inside the womb. Again somewhere along the line,
to suit the pro-choicers, the meaning of viable when it pertains to the
killing of unborn babies, now means: the fetus is able to survive outside
of the womb. Forget that it can survive inside the womb -- apparently
that's not important anymore.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of the pro-choicers using the semantic
game -- twisting words around to make the killing of unborn babies
sound more palatable. And I’m tired of dictionaries being revamped
to suit pro-choicers.
To be accurate and truthful, pro-choicers should use the words:
induced or surgical abortion, to differentiate them from spontaneous
abortions, but this doesn't sound as innocuous as just plain abortion.
When pro-lifers use the word abortion, they’re playing right into the
hands of pro-choicers. They don’t want you to say, “the killing of
the unborn babies” and yet that’s exactly what is done.
What a golden opportunity wasted. It’s as if pro-lifers don’t want to
hurt the feelings of pro-choicers. As if pro-choicers care about the
feelings of babies, who are torn limb from limb and many of them
feeling excruciating pain.
Have you noticed that the latest euphemism for the killing of unborn
babies is the “right to choose.” First it was the right to have an
abortion, then it was pro-choice and now the right to choose.
“I will always defend the right of a woman to choose,” is the liberal
candidate’s battlecry. They don’t like to use the word, “abortion”
anymore because it means to kill a baby.
CHOOSE WHAT? If someone came here from a foreign country,
they wouldn’t know what they were talking about. Maybe they
mean, the right to choose to write whatever you want to; or to
choose whatever religion you want to; or the right to say whatever
you want to.
Why can’t they finish the sentence? Could it be, that they mean,
they will always defend the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby,
if she so chooses?
Wow!! But that sounds so cruel and merciless. They can’t possibly
mean that -- can they -- to kill a human being? How could a civilized
society adopt such a policy? No, they can’t mean that.
But then, what does it mean, when they say, “I will always defend a
woman’s right to choose?" I wish they would make it clear and say
exactly what they mean -- but then, is it possible that the truth would
hurt them? ---BINGO.
WHY do Pro-life candidates let them get away with using these soft,
palatable sugar coated words? In debates, why don’t they ask,
“what do you mean, ‘the right to choose.’ If you’re referring to the
right to kill her unborn baby, OF COURSE, I’m against that. When
God says “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” I believe Him and I will NOT sell my
soul to satan, just to be president.”
I guarantee you, that pro-life candidates would have all those on the
fence on their side if only they had more faith in God.
What a difference between: “the right to choose” and “the right to kill
her unborn baby.” It’s as if I’m in the twilight zone -- I can’t believe
the ineptitude and lack of ingenuity of pro-life candidates.
I cannot believe they’re still using the word, "abortion" instead of,
“the killing of unborn babies," which is the truth.
I cannot believe they’re still saying Partial birth abortion instead of
Partial-birth infanticide or murder, which is the truth.
I cannot believe they’re afraid to invoke God’s name, or the Holy
Scriptures. Isn’t it amazing that the politician, who invokes God’s
name the most is that paragon of virtue, Bill Clinton?
I cannot believe their reluctance to vehemently denounce the killing
of unborn babies in no uncertain terms and to educate the public as
to why they are abominable --biblically, scientifically and just out of
Why they can’t even win on the most diabolical and repugnant acts
ever committed -- the barbaric partial-birth murder. I’ve never heard
this procedure described on TV or in the newspapers by pro-lifers.
You know the pro-choicers will never describe it.
How is it possible that people would vote for Al Gore, Hillary Clinton
and all others who would condone such a gruesome and painful act,
if they REALLY KNEW the exact procedure?
And Hillary is constantly saying, she is all for the children. She
wants to alleviate their suffering and give them better health care.
She forgets to mention that she doesn’t care if they’re killed, when
they’re 3/4 born, and suffer excruciating pain in the process, as
long as it will make their mother’s life a little easier and she keeps
getting the big bucks from Planned Parenthood and all the other
killing mills, NARAL, NOW and the Hollywood Filth Industry.
What Hypocrisy! Excuse me - I think I'm going to be sick. Pro-aborts have
a way of turning stomachs as well as hearts, not to mention their penchant
for killing without conscience.
I must tell you of a web site, where you can vote for the person you would like
to have as George W. Bush’s running mate. My personal choice
is Alan Keyes, a Catholic, who follows the doctrine of his faith, and
the Holy Scriptures and speaks out against all abortions. A fantastic
debator -- easily won all the debates he was in. If he were to debate
the running mate of Al Gore, the outcome would not be in doubt.
It would not be a pretty sight in the eyes of the pro-abort democrats. It would be downright pitiful for them.
Wow! George W. Bush and Alan Keyes -- a GREAT ticket.
Go to the following website and vote for Keyes for vice-president:
Alan Keyes Petition: www.petitiononline.com/Keyesvp/petition.html
Also, at the same site, vote for the
Human Life Amendment Petition
Please spread the word. If we choose to be silent, the preborn will continue to be silenced forever. Won't you please choose for them and for life by casting your vote for men who will uphold the Sanctity of Life?