If you don't like confrontational language, turn away now. I intend here to call baby killers by their real names and to describe them according to their deplorable actions. If it offends you for me to call them by their deserved names, I do not care. As my late friend Russell Kirk once said, when introduced to an abortion doctor, "You, sir, are a murderer." Kirk was right. That's why I say this, in response to the Democrats' desire for taxpayer-funded abortions:
Forget it. We're not paying for you to slaughter unborn children. Abortion is the greatest evil of our time. Because of it, more than 50 million Americans are dead. Compared to American abortion doctors and the mothers who hire them, even Hitler and Stalin were rank amateurs. Yet you Democrats are proud of abortion and want everyone to be complicit in it. You want others to foot the bill for your murderous self-indulgences. No freakin' way, pal.
Let me put it plainly for you: If you practice or support abortion, you are a death-dealing, scum-sucking, child-murdering, perversity-spewing, child-dismembering, bottom-feeding sewer trout. You slaughter babies. That makes you the lowest of the low, the killers of the innocent, the exterminators of the voiceless, and the executioners of the defenseless.
Yet you flaunt your towering evil as if it were a point of pride. You are not broken-hearted or repentant for the colossal wickedness you commit, support, and defend. Rather, you push it shamelessly off onto others and try to suck them into the vortex of your shameless and depraved atrocities.
The leading figure in your party is so cravenly immoral on this point that he actually voted in support of killing the babies who survived abortion, babies who were already delivered and who were alive outside the womb. Your leader votes for infanticide, and yet you think the other party has radical views on abortion. Think again, killers. Your party is so morally reprobate that even your leader's support of infanticide itself does not disqualify him in your eyes. You are so morally reprobate that you think those who oppose the slaughter of the innocents are evil, not those who slaughter them.
27 comments:
Yes, yes. A million times, yes!
Just like Mitt Romney, can't vote for either of them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
When confronted with such choices, choose the lesser evil because failing to choose is the same as choosing the worse of the evils.
With all due respect, you can't possibly influence society for the good by calling anyone and everyone names who disagrees with your approach. Keep up your unconstructive criticism (if you can even call it that) and babies will continue to die, thanks to you.
Michaelia, That is not what I said. As with Christ himself, there comes a time and place for using invective. Invective is to language what justice is to law -- It's a way of giving folks what they deserve. Some of them deserve an verbal spanking. We are talking about people who, in response to the tolerance and respect we have shown them until now, yet still continue to slaughter their children. For them, our verbal gloves are off.
Just as Jesus called Herod a fox (indeed a female fox, a bitch fox, as it were); just as He called the scribes and pharisees a writhing knot of snakes having sex, and described them as rotting bones in a tomb and as dirty dishes; just as He called Peter Satan in front of his best friends, it's time for us to speak plainly. If we love the unborn and the poor, if we love our fellow Christians who are immersed in the defense of great evil, then we owe to them the duty of speaking plainly and accurately. We must not let them hide in the shadows of clinical and inoffensive language. That is not the way of Christ, the apostles, or the prophets. But get ready for the push back. You remember what happened to them.
I think it is safe to say that Jesus had the right to speak to people in a way that we don't.
I wonder what this conversation would be like had it been taking place 100 years ago or more? It seems in some ways that we have become so brainwashed on political correctness and so filled with worry that we might offend, that at times, we are afraid to tell the truth as it is. It has brought us to a point of such moral relativism that many don't know what absolute truth, right, and wrong are anymore. The legalized killing of infants is barbaric and ranks right alongside with child sacrifice. The only difference is in the age of the child. I believe some honest discussion of what is really happening needs to take place. The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing the problem. Most people who vote pro-choice don't even understand what actually happens during abortions and late term abortions. Yet they will continue to be uninformed unless we are willing to start speaking out as to what is happening. I believe, by not speaking out when we feel led from the Lord to speak, we become enablers to this brutal killing spree.
Disagrees with his "approach"? When one makes the assertion that taking the life of the defenseless unborn is unethical, he is not talking in terms of something akin to a political strategy. He is making an ethical statement, ie, that it is wrong. Your use of the word "approach" seems to soften the impact of the truth he is attempting to convey. Regardless of what you think of his choice of words toward those he is targeting, you can't just chalk up this most basic contention as just another of many equally valid assertions. For those of us who have been striving on behalf of the unborn, this kind of speak is frustrating. Maybe I mis-read you here, and if so, correct me. But nothing is gained in the abortion discussion if spades can't be called spades.
Michaelia,
We are obligated (A) to have the mind of Christ, to do as He did and to support or oppose what He did. (b) As Christians we have an obligation to resist the works of Satan. There is no better way to do this than Christ's way.
Anonymous,
Yep, that's exactly right.
Michaelia, Let me put it another way: Not only do we have the right to call things by their real names, we the obligation to do so.
With all due respect, what your post is really saying is that name calling will just make you and others like you more prone to continue either killing babies or providing your support thereof. Babies will continue to die regardless of how nice you are to those that kill them. Shall we give this a try? "Would you please give the babies in the womb a chance to live? They are voiceless and defenseless. I understand that you make a living by killing babies, but maybe we could some to some other agreement. And we realize that you (politicians/pro-choice folks) are just trying to get some money from us to help those who are less fortunate pay for their "choice" to "manage their healthcare." It would just be really meaningful if you didn't make us pay for something to which we morally object." Would that type of "approach" change your position on abortion Michaelia?
Please don't try to pretend that the fault lies with the author by your "thanks to you" remark. It doesn't matter what language is used, babies will continue to die. Keep up your intellectual dishonesty and babies will continue to die, thanks to you.
For better or for worse, Ken, these two are the only two who can possibly win. One of them will be the next president. One of them will be the most powerful and influential man on earth. If you vote for neither of them, then you will have deprived yourself of a say in the matter. Silencing yourself is imprudent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yet, at the same time, may it not be that there comes a time when one is forced to admit that "voting for the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil?
Ilion, Given that all candidates (and all voters) are evil, no other option is possible.
Let he who is sinless be the the one to cast the first stone. Spoken in truth, Dr. Bauman, but not in love.
How does one know what is spoken in love and what is not?
Further, you don't have to be sinless to level criticism or offer stern correction. Paul was the self-confessed chief of sinners, yet felt no reluctance at all to criticize and exhort those who proved by their lives that they deserved and needed it.
EVERYTIME someone misapplies that verse, one can be sure that he has no interest in truth or in love.
Leviticus 19:17 seems relevant here.
Paul wrote about not judging those outside of the Church. We are to rebuke and correct those within the Church, and we are to convict--not guilt--those outside of the Church.
I agree that it's hard to distinguish what's spoken out of love.
Is there not a difference between being perverse and being evil?
What an odd thing for Paul to have said.
It's no wonder John the Baptist lost his head ... he'd already lost it by calling the rank sin committed by someone "outside the church" rank sin.
As I see it, no. Perversity is evil; evil is inevitably perverse.
Are you sure you're not using 'evil' equivocally?
Post a Comment