During the recent Ontario election campaign, John Pacheco, candidate in Ottawa West-Nepean, had his signs vandalized:
"Choice" was spray-canned on the sign.
Did the sprayer have any humanity for that 20-week old baby in the picture?
Obviously not. Nor did he care enough about John Pacheco's right to free speech to not spray can his sign, but that's often the case with lefties-- free speech for me and not for thee.
What was this person advocating, exactly?
Let me show you. Look below at the picture of an unborn child aborted at 27 weeks at St. Francois d'Assise Hospital in Quebec City in the year 2005 or around that time.
What do you see?
A dead baby.
That is what "choice" amounts to.
Oh sure, the mom was spared a life of caring for this "defective" child. (And as the thesis states, the malformations weren't even that serious).
But this baby had to pay the price for it.
Look at the last frame at the bottom.
The baby's mouth was open.
That suggests to me that the baby suffered anguish as the abortionist inserted a needle full of potassium chloride into his heart.
But hey, as long as women are supreme and get to decide what to do with their bodies, right? If some poor baby has to suffer anguish and death well too effing bad.
And anyone who cares about this baby's suffering, well you're a fetus fetishizer. Not a human being with an ounce of compassion for the suffering of helpless individuals. You care too much about the small, the vulnerable and the voiceless, and not enough about feminist ideology. You're some kind of crazed loon for thinking maybe it's a bad idea to end human life, that unborn children have dignity, that people consider unborn children members of their family (or should). You are some kind of whackjob for thinking that all human beings-- including unborn children like this one-- deserve love and respect.
No, no, no, you're a fetus fetishizer. A cold, heartless, machine who gets his jollies with fake bloody pictures of aborted blobs of tissue. They make themselves believe that. The truth would be inconvenient. It's okay to perpetuate false stereotypes when pro-lifers are involved.
And when we show the bloody pictures of unborn baby, that's appealing to "emotionalism". When create emotion to mock pro-lifers, that's okay. Appeals to emotion are only okay when it serves their purposes.
It's no real wonder that feminists avoid the issue of the unborn child and instead focus on pro-lifers. Mockery and insults really makes it easy to distract people from the act and results of abortion. Oh sure, they'll point to women who've made the decision and don't regret it.
But look at the price of "Choice". Look into that baby's face and tell me you can accept the price. Just like adolescents who love to mock things they don't want to examine,they will continue insulting the opposition.They will try to make it about anything else, except the issue.
That dead baby is the issue. That is what the debate is about. And it's no laughing matter.
But they can't face up to that fact. They have to make it about the woman, who is fully capable of surviving pregnancy, not the unborn who cannot survive abortion.
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator