In case you don’t know about this story, a woman was accused, convicted, and now sentenced for killing her month old baby in a microwave. Note the judges description.
DAYTON, Ohio (AP) — A woman was sentenced Monday to life in prison without the chance for parole for burning her baby daughter to death in a microwave after fighting with her boyfriend. Common Pleas Judge Mary Wiseman lashed out at 28-year-old China Arnold….
“No adjectives exist to adequately describe this heinous atrocity,”Wiseman said. “This act is shocking and utterly abhorrent for a civilized society.”
I think the judge is exactly right. But how does this differ from the late term abortions that Democrat candidate Obama supports? A month? It isn’t burning, because we know that abortionists inject saline to burn the babies in the womb. They also jam things into their skulls and rip off their limbs. So what is the difference? How does candidate Obama defend this? Defending it isn’t above his pay grade, because he and his wife have defended it for some time.
Is it possible that the senator from Illinois is simply OK with the heinous, the utterly abhorrent?
I think this is indeed the case. Candidate Obama has argued against the partial birth abortion ban. The senator’s wife, in a fund raising letter for her husband, said that partial birth abortion was “a legitimate medical procedure.” This is the procedure where the abortionist sucks the brains out of a child in the birth canal or shoves scissors into their skull or decapitates them at the neck.
The senator voted against the protection of infants born alive after an abortion and is the only person in the Illinois senate to actively speak against this act. In Illinois, babies born alive after an abortion were left to die. The babies would suffocates because their lungs were not fully developed. This excruciating process could take hours before resulting in the infants death. These infants, discarded by their parents would be put out of the way without ant medical treatment until they died. Presidential candidate Obama thinks this is a valid activity our society and defended this evil. For Obama, nothing is more important than a woman’s right to kill her child. Nothing.
In fact, candidate Obama has said that the “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal abortion law passed in the past 35 years. Come on in abortionists, bring your hooks and your scissors and your vacuums and your saline. Have a place to toss the live births you didn’t want, because president death will be in the White House if candidate Obama is elected. He would finally win his fight to destroy the lives of children in as gruesome a manner as that of one month old Paris Talley described in the story above. What is the difference? Just one month.
Killing the most defenseless members of our society is a heinous and utterly abhorrent act. Candidate Obama disagrees. He wants to defend the legality of suffocating innocent life for hours. He defends the legality of abortionists sucking the brains out of infants in the process of being born. Perhaps the only thing as abhorrent as the evil act of infanticide are those that have the unmitigated gall to defend and advocate it.
