He is the Chief Political Strategist for the Obama ’08 campaign. Perhaps a better title for him should be: Chief Infanticide Strategist. Yes, you’re looking at the face of the chief adviser to Barack Obama. Last night on PBS’ “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer”, he was asked if John McCain was just like President George W. Bush. He felt they were nearly identical, citing a New York Times article (we won’t discuss their journalistic integrity debacles of late) run over the weekend. He didn’t stop there. He felt it was necessary to remind viewers that Obama was the candidate of values proclaiming him a champion, first and foremost, of a woman’s right-to-choose. How drippingly sweet. By proxy, that is to say, David Axelrod is the chief infanticide proponent in the Obama camp.
That’s right, infanticide — not abortion. Alongside my effort to point out to you the man in charge of puppeteering Obama’s campaign right off the cliff of sanity, I am also relieving a word most used outside of it’s original definition and supplanting it with the proper word according to historical definition.
The term abortion was popularized in the twentieth century where it became known as the “deliberate termination of a pregnancy”. Previously, it simply meant the “termination of a pregnancy”, in other common words, a miscarriage. The two were synonyms. Ultimately, the term miscarriage came to mean the second definition while abortion took on the first once the discussion of the act itself was no longer public taboo and began entering the English vernacular.
Regardless, abortion is the event that terminates a pregnancy. By itself it appears to be neutral until we give it a context. When it comes to an unborn fetus, it’s odd how humanity attempts to rationalize the “deliberate termination of a pregnancy”. After all, the result of this action yields a 100% mortality rate. Logically, if pregnancy termination (miscarriage) results in the mortality of the unborn, then it follows that deliberate pregnancy termination (abortion) results in the deliberate mortality of the unborn.
It turns out, the English language does have a word defined by the “killing of a child less then one year of age” — it’s called infanticide. Infanticide is the direct result of an abortion. That is precisely the side of the argument men like David Axelrod and Barack Obama do not want you to understand. This is why the argument is fundamentally bent towards a woman’s right-to-choose. It sounds noble and full of valor. In actuality, the right they want to bestow on women is the ‘right’ to commit infanticide on their unborn children — the equivalent of manslaughter or “killing a human being without malice aforethought” at a minimum and murder or “the premeditated killing of one human being by another”. In that context, championing a woman’s right-to-choose would definitely soften the blow of reality compared to a woman’s right-to-choose infanticide.
What I want to know is how would these politicians respond if a microphone was put in their face after being forced to comprehend the devastating consequences of the cause they champion? How would you respond? If you’re not sure, I invite you to visit this link — Abort73.com — watch the video and consider the following:
- When has a society governed by the rule of law ever bestowed to a single person the ‘right’ to terminate life, commit infanticide, manslaughter, or murder without judicial/penal consequences?
- Who would seriously vote to elect to the highest office, in the greatest nation in the world, someone who believes it is socially, morally, and ethically acceptable to permit anyone, without subjecting them to similar recourse, to take such an action?
The right-to-choose is a political phrase designed to numb our minds from horrific tragedy existing in our midst daily. It’s the ultimate political spin to fool us into supporting a specific candidate or party. It is abhorable to consider that as a society killing our own children is a choice we deserve to make individually.
It’s a medical fact that life begins at conception. The other side of the debate is merely arguing about when, on the terms they deem fitting, that life deserves significance and relevance — that argument begins flawed and irrelevant and has no place in the discourse of who lives and dies.
All human life is significant and the possessor’s of life deserve to retain their right to life until they choose to forfeit it themselves, through penal consequences or otherwise, or by it’s surrender to biological causes. Revocation of the right to life and mortality should never be dictated or forced upon someone by another individual.
I cannot qualify, in my mind, or support someone for political office who concludes anything less than the above. I cannot help but question the mental fitness of anyone who places personal gain at the expense of a horrific, torturous death of the innocent or feels that such actions are ever justifiable. I simply will not have their blood on my hands. Now, truly, is that something you’re comfortable with?