Joe Biden: "LIFE Begins at Conception" (But it's okay to take that LIFE)

Joe Biden carefully carved out his stance on abortion in the Vice Presidential Debate with Paul Ryan. Not wanting to sound "extreme" and likely wanting to pander to women voters, Uncle Joe made the most illogical case a person can make for abortion. Here's what he said:

"With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a -- what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. 

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and -- I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. 

I -- I do not believe that -- that we have a right to tell other people that women, they -- they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court -- I’m not going to interfere with that" - NY Times

Joe believes it's a life, but doesn't want to "interfere" with a decision between the mother and the doctor as to whether that LIFE will live or die. Once again, he believes it is a LIFE. He said that. I am not taking anything out of context. "Life begins at conception."

I cannot believe a politician - or anyone - can get away with this hypocrisy. Joe, how can you accept that a fetus is a life and not believe you have a right to interfere on behalf of the unborn child? We tell all citizens they cannot murder - except in cases of self-defense - so why can't we tell a woman she can't destroy a life, even if it is inside of her body? Do you agree with the Declaration of Independence that one of the God-given rights is to LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Didn't you swear an oath to defend the Constitution? How can you claim the voiceless, powerless fetus is a life, but then claim you don't have a right to tell the woman she can't kill it? Who speaks for the fetus? Why does the mother's "choice" trump the baby's RIGHT to LIFE?

What's particularly disturbing is that a few sentences before that, Joe said, "Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help." When it comes to abortion, who is it in the equation who can't take of himself/herself? Is it the mother? The doctor? Who needs the most help? Who needs the most protection? Sure, the mother may be in a bad position, but death is usually not on the line (and if it is, most pro-lifers support abortion as an option). Perhaps Joe should change his statement to "taking care of [voters] who can't take care of themselves, [voters] who need help." Votes seem to speak the loudest to politicians!

I am pro-life and I think we have a duty to protect the unborn - who can't help themselves. I think people should make better preventative choices if they don't want to have a baby. I know, that is so self-righteous of me to see that as a viable option. But, discussing the rightness or wrongness of abortion is not my purpose here. I am pointing out the contradiction in Biden's abortion position. I disagree with those who say that a fetus is not a life, but I can at least concede that there is debate about it. And if a fetus is not a life, then I can at least understand how a person could justify abortion. What I cannot accept is someone who believes it is a life and supports a mother's "right" to take that life.

It doesn't work, Joe. You can't have it both ways and given the choice between LIFE and any other "right"...LIFE is the trump card!

Still, while Biden's position is completely illogical; it's not quite as disgusting as Obama's abortion position:

'Liberal In Nature' FREE on Kindle!

For a limited time, my book - Liberal In Nature - will be available for FREE on Kindle. Please check it out and leave a glowing review! :) Below is a synopsis of the story:

Following a crushing political defeat, Andrew, a self-proclaimed liberal, flees society to live in the wilderness. He settles in a beautiful, isolated valley that is rich with mountains, streams, animals and lush vegetation. Andrew feels he has finally found Utopia, even as he struggles to find his purpose there.

After several months of observing the patterns and cycles of the valley, Andrew realizes that nature is not the natural utopia he once believed it to be. He sees squirrels that gather more nuts than others, a bear who dominates and bullies the other animals, a misunderstood wolf who is the victim of prejudice, trees that don’t get as much sunlight as others, salmon who can’t spawn because of oppressive waterfalls, deer who have to work too hard for their food and much more. With each organism seeking only its own self-interest, there is no one to regulate the valley and promote fairness among the plants and animals.

Andrew takes it upon himself to bring hope and change to the valley by encouraging fairness and equality. Applying his liberal ideology, he intercedes on behalf of oppressed and underprivileged organisms as he strives to fundamentally transform the valley. He sees himself as a savior to the valley and he tries to earn the animals’ trust by easing their burdens. His meddling, however, disrupts the balance of nature eventually producing unexpected and undesirable consequences.

Is nature fair? Is there redistribution of wealth in the wilderness? Can you create a welfare state amongst animals? Are there winners and losers in the animal kingdom? Can fairness be achieved? What happens when certain animals become too dominant? Liberal In Nature addresses these questions and more while touching on important social and political issues such as: abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, the economy, education, energy, global warming, gun control, health care, homeland security, immigration, private property, the relationship between religion and government, social security, taxes, the Tea Party, terrorism, and welfare.

Liberal In Nature is a witty, satirical political novel aimed at anyone who has an interest in politics. It is layered with parables, metaphors, irony and humor, making it an extremely entertaining read for Conservatives, Liberals and everyone in between!

Learn more at: Liberal In Nature's Website.

Komen For The Cure: Like A Dog To Its Vomit

"But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own avomit again; and the sow that was bwashed to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:22

Last week, the Komen for the Cure Foundation announced it would no longer award grants to Planned Parenthood, in part because of investigations into Planned Parenthood's practices and policies. It stated the move was not made because Planned Parenthood's role as - let's be honest - an abortion clinic. However, Komen founder and Chief Executive Nancy G. Brinker did say "[y]ou have to be sure you are granting to the right people."

The Komen Foundation experienced a tremendous backlash of threats and vitriol from pro-abortionists and abortion-supporting groups. At the same time, Komen also saw a huge boost in its donations from those supporting the decision.

This morning the Komen Foundation reneged on its decision to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood by stating that it "will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair."

Right and fair to whom? The women that Planned Parenthood deceives? Fair to the unborn children that have their skulls crushed for the purpose of "saving women"? They know their original decision was "right and fair". They know they were on the right side of the issue, but for political purposes and to avoid the fury of the relentless left, they - like a dog returns to its vomit - returned to their folly. Like a sow that is washed - washed clean of the blood of innocents - returns to its wallowing in the mire, so has Komen returned to its life-consuming position of supporting and funding a morally defunct organization.

They stated previously, "[y]ou have to be sure you are granting to the right people." The same goes for people who gave money to them. Those people thought this organization was changing. They thought it was carving out a better future, which actually focused on helping women. They were wrong. They granted their money to the wrong people.

The Komen Foundation should refund ALL donations received since making the announcement to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood. They should fess up that they are selling out women and fetuses for convenience and politics. They should choke on the vomit and re-join Planned Parenthood in the mire of evil.