These Freepers call themselves "moral absolutists" and have their own pinglist as you probably know.
They call the rest of FR "baby killers" and for a while that was hurtful to me but now that I consider the source, I don't get worked up about it any more.
Of course, the 99.999% of babies who are killed every year while waiting for the perfect pro-life candidate are an issue, but I guess the boost to the self-image of the "moral absolutists" outweighs that, big time.
THANK YOU. I’ve only been thinking exactly that for the entire election cycle.
The problem is that politics is a game of results, not intentions. We must fix our eyes on the option that will result in the fewest unborn being slaughtered, even if it means voting for an imperfect candidate. To do nothing out of ‘moral principle’ and allow this slaughter to happen is nothing more than to kill innocents while claiming to be doing so in God’s name.
Certain Freepers may counter that voting for Romney does nothing more than advance the pro-abortion agenda, but seriously? Letting Obama in to fund and kill any more DOESN’T? As if political candidates were the only deciders on abortion?
I could go on about this, but I need to think of my blood pressure...
I love that you think its ok, to kill a few babies as long as you don’t kill all of them.
How do you decide, enny minny monny mo?
psst Rape, incest, health of the mother account for 5% of abortions, so at 1.5 million a year that’s only 75,000 dismembered, burned to death, their brains sucked out, spinal cords cut skulls crushed......hey whats 75K, no biggie.