Obama Hasn’t Shed Any Tears Over Pre-Natal Murders

Connecticut’s liberal governor Dan Malloy invoked the term “evil” to describe the murderer’s actions that left 20 children and 8 adults dead. Liberals seem to think they get to use the word “evil” as soon as a tragedy affects children. Child abuse is evil. Child molestation is evil. And of course, murdering children is evil…unless the child is not born yet, in which case the mother has a right to murder it, and liberals will fight tooth and nail to uphold that mother’s right to murder her unborn child.

Since 1973, about 50,000,000 babies have been murdered at the hands of abortionists. That’s almost 1.3 million a year, over 3,500 per day and about 150 per hour. In the time it took the school shooter to kill all 28 people, almost a 100 pre-born babies’ lives were ended.

Speaking of the Connecticut tragedy at a press conference, Obama shed a few tears. He said:

 “The majority of those who died today were children. Beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. [LONG PAUSE] They had their entire lives ahead of them. Birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.”

 Yes, they had their entire lives ahead of them, just like millions of babies that have been murdered because women have a “right” to murder them when they’ve become a burden to the mother.

Liberals don’t get to call such tragedies as this school shooting “evil” just because children were involved. They have no basis of morality. If they can condone the murder of unborn babies as a woman’s “right,” then what exactly is wrong with someone wanting to kill a bunch of kids? Doesn’t this murderer have “rights” too? What’s the difference? Why the double standard? Do they even have a standard?

From their perspective, life is about survival of the fittest. Constant power struggles with other life forms over millions of years have caused us to go through millions and millions of genetic mutations that have brought us to where we are now, each mutation being more favorable than the last. Maybe this guy was simply exerting his power over the less “fit.” He was increasing his chances of survival by eliminating some of his potential opponents. It all makes sense now, except that he killed himself in the end. How does suicide make sense in a “survival of the fittest” paradigm?

It doesn’t make sense. So liberals talk about evil to explain away human behavior that doesn’t fit inside their presupposed framework. But you can’t talk about evil or morality in a universe that mutated from chaos. If the shooter’s actions were just the result of a bunch of random chemical reactions in his brain, then he can’t be held accountable, and his actions can’t be called evil.

If Obama hasn’t shed any tears for the murder of millions of unborn babies, then he shouldn’t shed any tears (real or not) for the 20 kids that lost their lives. It should make no difference to him or any other liberal.