Obama supports unlimited slaughter of children

I'm pretty sure supporting pro-choice legislation doesn't equal supporting the unlimited slaughter of children.

 

I guess you'd have to look at his history on the subject.

 

I tend to agree with the critique of the sensational title.

However, it appears that with his strong pro-abortion stand one word would make the statement on of fact instead of sensationalism:

Obama supports unlimited slaughter of unborn children.

 

That is not the question, you are correct.

The truth is that Sen Obama does not support the unlimited slaughter of all children, only one class that he has no regard for. He has children of his own, his not promote their slaughter.

Of Hitler it might have been said, "Hitler supports unlimited slaughter of Jewish children." It would have been incorrect to say that the supported the wholesale slaughter of children in general. (Simplified for purpose of argument, I realise that Hitler supported the slaughter of other groups as well.

Obama's pro-abortion stance is wicked enough on its own without a need to sensationalise it. He has no regard for an entire class of Americans, unborn children and for that alone should be opposed by all who have a regard for life.

 

It is clear that I am not saying there is a lesser class of child. All are of equal worth.

I agree with you here Rev, I don't know why you can't accept that.

I do however feel that the title of your thread is sensationalist. If, however, that helps some to see the horrors of a pro-abortion president, then so be it.

 

You guys are nit-picking the title.

How about this?

'Obama supports unlimited slaughter of millions of children'. This is a true statement, correct?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

The key to me is that there is a limit in his mind - he limits his approval of slaughter to the unborn.

That is enough of a reason to oppose his presidency, IMHO.

 

Not necessarily the unborn only. He has said children are a punishment and supports murder even after a live birth. A child who has been completely born. Evidence of this has been posted in this forum before.

 

Roger, he has supported legislation to let born babies that have survived an abortion to die of exposure on the table without any support.

 

Come on folks, the only point I am making is the Sen Obama does not support the "unlimited slaughter of children."

It is limited to the unborn, or as been pointed out, those born as a resulted of abortion.

He is not out to kill our children.

My comments on this thread about being totally opposed to his election are typically being ignored.

 

I guess we could re-title the thread "Obama supports unlimited slaughter of black children" which would be true since most abortions performed in America are to abort black babies - it's been called by some black relgious leaders - Black Genocide. :tear: But his words are sweet, he's "one of them," and the black community fails to see that Black Genocide is what Barack Hussein Obama is about while he gets their votes. If he had any character at all, he would be condemning Black Genocide (or any abortion or slaughtering of the unborn).

 

This is true. Obama is not out to kill any children whether it be born or unborn.

He does however support the murder of unwanted children AND will do everything in his given power to allow others to kill their unwanted children. Thus his hands have blood on them because he has been given the power to vote yea or nay on the murders and has voted to let the slaughter continue.

It does not stop with Obama. Obama has been given power by voters to make such decisions. Many voters voted for Obama for this very reason, to keep these murders legal and acceptable. Some voters who do not believe abortion is right or should be legal still voted for Obama, even though they know full well that he will be sure to appoint judges who will allow the slaughter to continue.

All of these voters have blood on their hands. If one knows very well a leader will do something so appalling in the sight of God as voting yes to the painful slaughter of little babies, and still yokes up with them and helps to place them into power through their vote, then they are absolutely as guilty as the woman giving the ok to slaughter and the so called "doctor" who performs the actual ripping apart or piercing of the skull.

God Bless! raying:

 

Oh I'm pretty sure "unlimited slaughter of children" extends to all children. That's kind of the meaning of the word "unlimited". Obama is unabashedly pro-choice, but he does not support the slaughter of any child without limitation. Your title is awful.

 

Is the title more awful than casting a vote for one who supports the murders of unborn babies?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

The title is a blatant lie. Make of that what you will.

 

Respectfully, the title is not a lie. It may need some critique if questioned, but it is true. As already pointed out, he did not say "all" children in the title.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

"Unlimited" means "without limit". The title therefore means "Obama supports the slaughter of children without restriction". This is a complete lie. Obama may support the slaughter of certain children, but he has never even come close to supporting their unlimited slaughter.