Babies born alive after attempts to abort them are nothing new. It's common enough that Illinois tried to ban the killing of these now-born children who escaped death once; Barack Obama, the "abortion president," opposed this effort to prevent the murder of these children.
Now LifeNews reports testimony from Tina Davis, a former employee of the notorious abortionist George Tiller, that an infant born alive after an abortion attempt was stabbed by one of Tiller's part time employees, Shelley Sella, an abortion practitioner from California.
"Davis gave us a very specific eyewitness account about the incident," Operation Rescue president Troy Newman told LifeNews.com.
"We were told that the baby was 35 weeks gestation at the time of the abortion. The baby came out and was moving," he continued. "Sella looked up at Ms. Davis, then picked up a utensil and stabbed the baby in the left ribcage, twisting the utensil until the baby quit moving."
The poor kid manages to escape one attempt to kill him, but the abortionist says, "Not so fast" and goes after him again.
Even the bloodthirsty partial birth abortion, where they abort the child with a few inches of the baby's head remaining inside the mother, isn't quite this cold.
Are our consciences really so seared that we will sit quietly for horrors such as this committed on our own American soil?
6 comments:
Bob,
You're starting to make me sick. Smearing Barack Obama as "the abortion president"? Summing him up based on only one of his positions?
I'd like to hear who you think will make a good president come next January.
Have you read any of the other posts on Obama at Dakota Voice? You should look around, because it isn't practical for me to recite the full list of areas where Obama is a terrible choice for president.
But this post deals with abortion, so therefore I mention Obama's position on abortion. This is especially relevant since Obama defended this type of thing as an Illinois senator.
As for who will make a good president next January, we won't have a good president next January. McCain will be considerably better than Obama--enough that I can bring myself to vote for him--but he isn't a "good" choice either.
I have read some of the other articles about Obama. But it just disgusts me that you would *ever* use one policy statement to define a candidate.
I agree that McCain isn't a good choice (in fact, I believe our country is screwed no matter who becomes president). But I'm also having a hard time finding Dakota Voice articles that smear McCain as myopically as they do Obama. Your site touts itself as having no liberal bias...but having conservative bias is just as misleading.
Go back a ways and you'll find plenty negative about McCain, and you wont' have to go too far back, either.
But you will find a lot more negative about Obama because, frankly, there's a lot more that's negative about him. McCain is a lousy candidate, but Obama is a downright bad one. And despite your wishes for a complete and itemized rundown of every Obama policy position in every post, that just isn't practical.
As for the "conservative" bias, is it really bias if it's correct? (remember, I don't profess to run an "objective" publication like the liberals at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, the NY Times, et al do)
"As for the "conservative" bias, is it really bias if it's correct?"
Hahahahahaha I don't know, but it sure is arrogant!
I understand your sentiment, but I've backed it up over and over at Dakota Voice. Conservatism is grounded in the founding principles of this country, and in the truth of the Bible.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is grounded in secularism and Marxism, which are both counterproductive, destructive, and built on lies.
Post a Comment