News |   Obits |   Sports |   Business |   Opinion |   Things to Do |   Life |   Blogs |   Photos |   Video |   Data |   Jobs |   Homes |   Autos |   Buy/Sell


Here are some more victims

  • Follow Letters

Someone spoke, and hundreds of people, including 426 children, died from a chemical weapon. President Obama and the world reacted in shock and horror!

The one who spoke: Bashar Assad, the dictator of Syria. The dead from chemical attack were Syrians, adding hundreds to the 100,000 already dead in the two-year civil war. The top diplomat of the United States put it this way: “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Forty years ago, seven black-robed men spoke. Hundreds, then thousands, then millions died – all children. Some died from chemical attack, some by dismemberment and the smallest removed from their temporary abode by a vacuum. These who were slaughtered are indeed the world’s most vulnerable people.

These are the as-yet unborn – children slaughtered by their compliant mothers, the greed of abortionists and the aid of the federal government! A total of 55 million unborn babies have been slaughtered since the seven black-robed men spoke, almost 4,000 each day since that black day in 1973.

There is no burial ceremony for these unborn children as there was for those killed in Syria. There are no graves with markers. That is verboten – decreed by judges at the behest of the perverted mind-set of those advocating slaughter of unborn children. Instead, they are abandoned to the trash bin or the sewer!

As this is written, Secretary of State John Kerry has waxed eloquent over the shrouded bodies of Syrian children. Obama is dithering over conducting an illegal war to “exact retribution” against Assad to save face after his red-line threats.

There will be no retribution for the slaughter of the as-yet-unborn – at least not in this life!

Charlotte Baker

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (36) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
deestafford
24017
Points
deestafford 09/06/13 - 01:14 am
10
4
The sad thing is

what kind of contributions would some of them have made to the world. Even those who would have turned out to be moochers did not deserve to be murder in the wombs of their mothers for convenience. To the liberals a baby until it is out of the womb and can live on its own is nothing more than a tissue mass. That attitude springs from the Darwinism worshiping of the left.

soldout
1280
Points
soldout 09/06/13 - 02:41 am
8
4
excellent letter

Is a mind that is able to decide killing an unborn child is okay capable of any wise decision or capable of being a leader? I don't think so. Can a voter who votes for a person who thinks killing of the unborn is okay able to avoid the reaping from the sowing of that vote? I don't think so.
This has created a spirit of death but not just for the unborn baby, but also for those who voted for those who think it is okay. We ask how can there be so much violence among liberal voters? It is easy; it is called God's law of sowing and reaping. You can either have it work for you or against you. He said in His Word that we get to choose life or death and many are choosing death. They vote for it and then they reap it in their personal lives. No judge can repeal the law of sowing and reaping! If you vote for the liberal you invite the spirit of death into your life.

carcraft
24343
Points
carcraft 09/06/13 - 05:29 am
8
2
The Liberals argue

The liberals argue that it is a choice between a women and her Doctor. The PROBLEM is that they won't condemn even the most horrific procedures, such as those at Gosnel's Clinic. Obama helped pass a bill that allowed a child born after a botched abortion to be set aside to die. Obama will not condemn partial birth abortion which is the stuff of slasher movies. Now Obama wants to claim some moral high ground against Assad?

soapy_725
43555
Points
soapy_725 09/06/13 - 07:01 am
1
0
Desensitized to innocent slaughter. Germany or America?
Unpublished

Desensitized to innocent slaughter. Germany or America?

Bodhisattva
5647
Points
Bodhisattva 09/06/13 - 07:15 am
3
11
The American Taliban again

The American Taliban again wishes to force its religious beliefs on all. If only we were a theocracy. Thankfully, we are not.

Fiat_Lux
14853
Points
Fiat_Lux 09/06/13 - 07:58 am
8
1
Non responsive, Bod.

Just the usual trite screech from the soulless leftist talking points. This is not about religion, despite that reality escaping you. It's about a person's LIFE. Millions of human lives.

And one can only wonder in amazement that people such as yourself can actually believe you have the wisdom and knowledge to decide when a person is a human being and when that person should be allowed to live.

The two points you and that court arbitrarily claim authority over are deciding WHEN a baby is a person, and WHETHER it can be killed.

How can one human being decide such things for another human being, an innocent human being, one who hasn't willfully committed some horrible crime?

The day of reckoning is not just coming; it is upon us. Life is no longer precious for so very many, so they don't care even about others' lives. They'll take a life for a few dollars and for a social slight, or to look tough, or for no reason at all. People like that are all around us.

And some of the men on that court in 1973 did that to us. They decreed that the human ife of innocents was unimportant. And those innocents who made it out alive have largely believed those men. They quite reasonably and like all the generations before them, don't distinguish between the unborn and those who made it out alive in terms of whose life matters. Now none do.

So, Bod, why don't you start thinking more pragmatically. It's not about your emotional response to other people's religious beliefs, after all. It's about civilization and survival and basic humanity.

localguy55
5477
Points
localguy55 09/06/13 - 08:06 am
8
2
Obervation and Questions

Bodhisattva,

I can't wrap my finger around this "definition of when life beings thing". It is hard for me to say because some people want a different answer other than conception, you know from the start. Everything must start from a beginning, so it stands to reason that the beginning is the most important part of anything we do. But this flys in the face of some other's points of view. So, when does life begin, or does it really matter as long as the fetus is still in the womb, is it not a living human. Is it when the baby can live on it's own outside the womb without assistance. mmm, I have a friend on a ventilator because a foolish stunt when he was young. He is alive but needs assistance. Does he stop being human? Perhaps God should have made us self aware and able to communicate right at conception. That would clear up a lot of things. But God is not so eager to solve human problems before allowing us to mess things up really good before stepping in; and perhaps not even that. God has the answers and he wants humanity to grow hearts ( love) and heads ( logic) on our own. In other words, he has given us the capacity to solve issues like these. Now, He sits back waiting to see if we do the right thing. I hope we don't disapoint.

t3bledsoe
14223
Points
t3bledsoe 09/06/13 - 08:08 am
5
4
Comment

I HATE ABORTION, BUT I don't believe the use of chemical weapons which breaks international law should be put into the same catigory. Perhaps it must be put in a much more sever crime!! A poster posted a link that showed a 10 week old aborted fetus which upon seeing, I find it difficult to believe the government has made this legal!!

t3bledsoe
14223
Points
t3bledsoe 09/06/13 - 08:13 am
3
4
Politics of abortion

Conservatives want to put ALL OF the blame for abortion on liberal Democrats. One can be a Democrat WITHOUT being for abourtion!! Another reason Democrats DON'T OWN ABORTION is because there has been more than one Republican President and more than one Republican controled congress!!

Red Headed Step Child
4006
Points
Red Headed Step Child 09/06/13 - 08:45 am
5
1
When you break it down to

When you break it down to simple facts, killing is killing - regardless of the method.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 08:49 am
8
2
Bod...tell us how the desire
Unpublished

Bod...tell us how the desire to prevent someone from killing another person is pushing your religious beliefs on someone? Should we legalize murder, since it is forbidden in the bible? How about theft....I suppose we shouldn't push that religious belief either.

InChristLove
22420
Points
InChristLove 09/06/13 - 08:59 am
8
3
Days such as this I wish I

Days such as this I wish I could give Bod more than one thumbs down.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 08:59 am
7
2
What is amazing is the name
Unpublished

What is amazing is the name calling (American Talliban) that you get from the left when you show the desire to save the life of children. It seems to me that the selfish desires of some outweighs the preciousness of the most innocent life in the mind of these vile people. Some even justify some forms of killing children over others by saying "it's the most humane way." Sorry, but just because it is a humane way, does not make it ok to kill a baby.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 09:06 am
7
2
Ok Bod...here's a challenge
Unpublished

Ok Bod...here's a challenge that I doubt you will step up to. Tell us the exact time that it is no longer ok to kill the baby/fetus. Tell us what is different at that moment than from the moment before it that makes it ok.

t3bledsoe
14223
Points
t3bledsoe 09/06/13 - 09:40 am
1
5
COME on HA PLEASE respond

"Some even justify some forms of killing children over others by saying "it's the most humane way." Sorry, but just because it is a humane way, does not make it ok to kill a baby"

So is this a comment about "the morning after pill" being humane? I said this the other day and I still say it! If you are against abortion "IN ANY FORM" then explane to me why you believe even this method is not humane.I saw your link yesterday with the picture of the 10 week aborted fetus, AND YES you accomplished what you intended to do!!

Speaking of being humane, is it your deffenition of humane to deny both of us the enjoyment of continueing to debate each other? Shouldn't we see it as being a good thing to spark even more debates? I can't ask any planer than this!!!!

faithson
4846
Points
faithson 09/06/13 - 09:42 am
2
3
The law is based upon 'privacy'...

argue what you must, but the law was argued into existence on the premise that a women's right to 'privacy' overcomes YOUR moral indignation at what IS a 'private' matter, not YOUR interpretation thereof. The morality of the act is not pertinent. The unassailable right of a women to choose IS.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 09:48 am
4
3
Privacy? So if a mother
Unpublished

Privacy? So if a mother wants to privately kill her 2 month old child, it's ok or do you step in because of morals? Tell us the difference.

You know slavery laws and Jim Crowe laws were argued into existence also, but it doesn't make them right.

Why do you care nothing about the unassailable right of the child to live?

Bizkit
29337
Points
Bizkit 09/06/13 - 09:51 am
4
2
I thought secular people

I thought secular people argue you don't need religion to be moral? I concede taking a life is wrong, but also recognize we do sometimes condone killing too. I see it as a medical procedure- not a license to kill. I think abortion and the death penalty are wrong too but I accept the reality. It seems dogs receive more sympathy for mistreatment. People murder people everyday although it is illegal in every state- that is a personal choice. Course you can legally kill people too- like Zimmerman shot Martin. Zimmerman had the "choice"too. Faithson is correct the SCOTUS didn't address the morality of abortion just the right to privacy. So I hope the court will address NSA spying.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 09:50 am
4
3
T3....Sean (the board
Unpublished

T3....Sean (the board moderator) has told me that I can't tell you why I'm not responding to you. I will say, that just because you kill the child "the morning after" does not make it any more humane. If I were to kill a person painlessly, I guess you would argue that it was the most humane, so it is ok?

t3bledsoe
14223
Points
t3bledsoe 09/06/13 - 10:31 am
2
1
Hatred of abortion

OK, I get it. We both hate abortion, BUT if women are going to continue the pactice in a country where it is legal, WHY shouldn't women be encouraged to use the morning after pill? ALSO, if you are lumping me in with the people who are for abortion, and because I am a Democrat, you are not correct and not being very fair about your judgement.

Topsy Krets
101
Points
Topsy Krets 09/06/13 - 10:34 am
0
0
The pro-life movement is rife
Unpublished

The pro-life movement is rife with misinformation and lies. This isn't to say that all pro-lifers lie, nor that all pro-lifers agree with the lies that are perpetuated. However, time and time again, it's been shown that many pro-lifers are either misinformed or are purposefully disseminating false information, like the repeatedly debunked link between breast cancer and abortion, the myth of post-abortion syndrome, the usage of imagery that is claimed to be of aborted fetuses but is often miscarriages, etc.. A study has found that 87 percent of pro-life-affiliated CPC's ("crisis pregnancy centers") provided either false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion.

Societies thrive when women control their reproduction (particularly when combined with gender equality- something that *can* be present in pro-life circles, but overall is much more closely aligned with the pro-choice side). Not only does being able to have the number of children you want, when you want and are ready for them, reduce poverty (as Hitchens so beautifully says: "The cure for poverty has a name. It's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you throw in a handful of seeds, the floor of everything, in that village, not just poverty, but health and education, will increase."), but we have also observed that countries that have higher infant and maternal mortality rates are those which are more politically unstable as well. Some have even gone so far as to link abortion access to crime reduction. Happy, healthy, wealthy, peaceful societies are those where the citizens are well-educated about a vast array of reproductive choices and have access to an arsenal of tools- abortion included- to help them ensure whatever choice they make.

corgimom
28395
Points
corgimom 09/06/13 - 10:34 am
4
4
You know what the most

You know what the most popular surgery in the US is?

A D&C. An abortion.

But if you call it a D&C, and if you have health insurance, then it's ok.

As I have said many times, in Jewish law, abortions are legal until quickening is felt, which happens about at 20 weeks. The Bible is about Jewish people (Old Testament) and Jesus (New Testament), a Jew.

So the idea that those are murdered people and that abortions are wrong, doesn't follow with Biblical teachings.

Fetuses don't have souls.

As for partial birth abortions, they are rare, but they are necessary. Nobody has the right to tell another person that they must die and complete a life-threatening pregnancy.

If people want to believe that abortions are wrong, they are free to do so. They shouldn't get one.

But nobody has the right to tell another person that they CAN"T have an abortion. Ever.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 10:35 am
4
2
I'm against slavery, but I
Unpublished

I'm against slavery, but I guess if I lived when it was legal I would have just accepted the best form of slavery instead of showing courage and trying to get the entire dreadful thing abolished.

Topsy Krets
101
Points
Topsy Krets 09/06/13 - 10:37 am
0
0
Criminalizing abortion (which
Unpublished

Criminalizing abortion (which is typically what the pro-life movement advocates) does not reduce rates of abortion. Study after study confirms that the abortion rate stays fairly static whether or not abortion is legal, and in fact, the countries with the lowest rates of abortion are those where it is legal. I find it HILARIOUS that all of you pro-gunners don't see the lack of logic here.

Criminalizing abortion raises infant and maternal mortality rates. Without access to safe, legal abortion, women die, either in attempts to self-induce abortion, or at the hands of unscrupulous or untrained abortionists. Similarly, attempts to curb access to abortion have been shown to have negative consequences; for example, mandatory waiting periods lead to an increase in more second-term abortions (which are more risky and expensive) rather than to decrease abortion.

The logical conclusions of criminalizing abortion is absurd. If a fertilized egg that has yet to implant is considered to legally be a person, then every miscarriage will need to be investigated to ensure no foul play. How will we know if a woman who fell down the stairs truly had an accident, or if she was attempting to induce a miscarriage? Women who commit suicide when pregnant may face criminal charges instead of the mental healthcare they require. Who determines whether or not a high-risk pregnancy is worth aborting, if there's a 50/50 chance both mother and child will survive- even if the mother doesn't want to risk her life? One need only look to Romania under the rule of Nicolae Ceauşescu, where a total abortion ban (and ban on contraception) lead to "a kind of pronatalist police state, where women were subject to random gynecological exams and all miscarriages were investigated" (Michelle Goldman in "The Means of Reproduction", pg. 80).

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 10:37 am
2
3
"But nobody has the right to
Unpublished

"But nobody has the right to tell another person that they CAN"T have an abortion. Ever."

So no one should have the right to stop someone from killing their child?

"If people want to believe that abortions are wrong, they are free to do so. They shouldn't get one."

If you don't like bank robbery, don't rob a bank. If you don't like assault weapons, don't buy one. If you don't like theft, don't steal. If you don't like killing, don't kill. The list goes on, but they all depend on the false assumption that your actions are not affecting another unwilling person.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 10:38 am
3
3
If criminalizing abortion
Unpublished

If criminalizing abortion does not reduce the rate, it at the very least would punish those who commit the horrendous act.

Topsy Krets
101
Points
Topsy Krets 09/06/13 - 10:38 am
0
0
Angela, At conception - a
Unpublished

Angela,

At conception - a moment which modern science still cannot pinpoint (there is no way to perfectly calculate the exact moment the sperm meets the egg.) you have a ZYGOTE. That is one sperm cell and one egg cell that have united, and will soon multiply. Shortly after, the egg will implant itself in the wall of the uterus, thus starting the pregnancy officially. A very significant portion of ZYGOTES (that is a fertilized egg) never make it to this stage, and are 'flushed out' with the next menstrual period. This in effect means that every sexually active women has had umpteen miscarriages she never even knew about. Nature removes zygotes all the time. Every day. Early miscarriages are almost as common. Are those women guilty of negligent child murder?

Saying a woman consents to pregnancy because she has sex is somewhat akin to saying that because you drive, you consent to donate any parts of your body a victim may need just because you hit them with your car.

A baby is a baby once it's born. Before that point, it is either a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus, or whatever. not a baby. That is like saying an acorn is an oak tree. Someday, if all goes well, the acorn might very well become an oak tree. But not today.

Biology rules ;-)

Topsy Krets
101
Points
Topsy Krets 09/06/13 - 10:39 am
0
1
"If criminalizing abortion
Unpublished

"If criminalizing abortion does not reduce the rate, it at the very least would punish those who commit the horrendous act."

Then why do you say the opposite when it comes to gun control? Hypocrite.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 10:39 am
4
2
Several states charge
Unpublished

Several states charge multiple charges of murder if you kill a pregnant woman.......how does that make sense unless the child is a person?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/06/13 - 10:40 am
3
2
What on earth have I said the
Unpublished

What on earth have I said the opposite on regarding gun control?

Back to Top

Top headlines

Property tax increase OK'd

Augusta commissioners broke a seven-year trend Wednesday and agreed 7-0 to raise property taxes by 1.75 mills to cover a deficit and provide employees a small bonus.
Search Augusta jobs