Cass Suntein, former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, had a question put to him on the value of Human life. The question was, “Should a foetus have the same rights as a horse?”
Here was his answer,
“Well . . . uh . . . uh . . .”
With lightning wit and sagacity such as that, I’ll have to admit that these Democrats really are as brilliant as they think they are.
Such a question may stump the Democrats but would illicit a sudden and vehement response from a Conservative, especially a Conservative Christian. The Conservative would have simply said, “That’s a ridiculous question! All babies are holy with Divinely “endowed” rights, whereas all animals are not.”
Sunstein went on to say,
“I think . . . cruelty to a foetus, I’m not for that.”
Well give that man a medal.
He also very wisely and informatively added that,
“infliction of suffering on a foetus – that’s not a good thing.”
Mr. Sunstein, thank you so much for letting us know that the, ‘infliction of suffering on a foetus is not a good thing.’ Here I was, all this time under the mistaken idea that it was a good thing.
I now can sleep well at night having that cleared up for me.
An apropos parallel would be to have Adolph Hitler in 1939 Germany sitting in a comfortable chair, being interviewed by a fellow Third Reich supporter and having the question put to him,
“Should a Jew have the same rights as a horse?”
Or, having a prominent Democrat government official in America’s nineteenth century South ask,
“Should a Negro have the same rights as a horse?”
Naturally, the Democrat wouldn’t want to be cruel to a Negro, but he did think that if you needed to kill one, well, such was the privilege of the whites.
Hitler and the Nazis, although they probably wouldn’t want to be cruel to Jews and Christians, if the necessity arose for an Aryan to kill one of them, then well, so be it.
All the pro-abortion Democrats and Republicans, likewise I’m sure, don’t want to be cruel to a baby. No no, let’s not ‘inflict suffering’ on a baby, those compassionate ‘choicers’ would say. But, if you actually do need to kill one, well, icky as that may be, that’s just the way it goes.
I got a few questions for the eminent Mr. Susntein and his partners in abortion crime: Does a baby “suffer” when a scalpel is slicing his little body into pieces?
Does a baby “suffer” when a solution is injected into the womb, burning his little body alive, dissolving him into a liquified mass?
Could it be called an, “infliction of suffering” when a baby is subjected to a Partial Birth Abortion, having a pair of scissors shoved into the back of his head so that his little brain can be sucked from his tiny infant skull?
Those of you reading this, I’d like to know: Does any of that sound, “cruel?” Or is it just me?
Why doesn’t our good and honest lachrymose speaker of the house sit Barack Obama down, or Hilary Clinton, George W. Bush, Cass Sunstein, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any of the other pro-abortion officials and ask them those questions?
I’d like to know what their answers would be. I’m serious, I want to know what each of them would say to such inquiries.
I’d like to ask Barack Obama, who was against Chicago’s Born Alive Act whereby a baby intended for an abortion is mistakenly birthed, and is allowed state protections and medical aid, I’d like to ask him if he thinks that little baby is suffering as he lays on a stainless steel table, squalling and quivering as his life ebbs from him. Since Obama voted against such protections for a baby in his Chicago senate, it would be interesting to see what his answer would be.
“I think . . . cruelty to a foetus – I’m not for that.”
I want to be there when all those wonderful, moral and loving abortionists say those words to a holy God when He has them standing before Him, knees trembling, excuses choking in there dry, constricting throats.
I DO NOT, however, want to be there when He passes judgment on them.