Yes, I am channeling Kanye West and his statement during a Hurricane Katrina fund-raising event that President George W. Bush “doesn’t care about Black people“. Well, using that liberal logic, it follows that Barack Obama doesn’t care about Black children, based on his actions regarding gun-control legislation.
Granted, those who are not ignorant about Obama’s background already knew that Barack Obama does not care about any children whatsoever, considering his strong support for infanticide and abortion in general. In between all his votes of “present” in the IL legislature, the only thing that actually energized Obama enough to not only vote “no” on legislation, but to lead the charge against it, was infanticide. Funny that the only thing Obama cared passionately about in his career — other than hating America, capitalism and White people — was making certain that babies were left to die, as he made perfectly clear to anyone paying attention when he passionately stood against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He then later made his thoughts about babies clear on the Presidential campaign trail when he stated that babies were not a blessing of life, but rather a punishment.
So it well known to anyone not ignorantly worshiping at the altar of Obama that he cares not a whit about children or babies. In fact, he cares so much that they die, that he actively stood against legislation that would save babies. Obama wholeheartedly supports the evil practices of Kermitt Gosnell.
In addition to his pro-dead children legislative record, Obama supposedly worked as a community organizer in the Chicago area. Of course, no one really know what he did in this capacity nor what, if anything, he accomplished. Considering Chicago is annually in competition as the murder capital of the nation and the vast majority of murders are committed by Blacks on fellow Blacks — including children — yet Obama has never done anything to fix this, it follows that Obama doesn’t care much for dead Black people or children.
This is made especially evident when contrasted with Obama’s reaction to the death of 20 White children in Connecticut last year. For years, Blacks — including children — have been murdered in cities across this nation. Hundreds per year in places like Chicago and Detroit. Black children killed by the hundreds by other Blacks all across the nation each year and Obama does not bat an eyelash. Yet, when White children are murdered, all of a sudden, Obama decides to take notice. Funny how that works, huh?
Yet, liberals could not care less about this.
It truly sickens me that liberals do not see how downright despicable and evil is Obama. This comment by “Veritas Omnia Vincit ” at This Ain’t Hell pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the matter perfectly:
Well I know I sound like a f#cking broken record on this, but once again dead white kids are far more sexy for something like this than dead black kids… of course we kill more blacks and hispanics every single day of the year all year long than died in Newtown but nobody gives a sh1t about those dead minority kids, because their parents don’t have any money and most of their parents don’t give a sh1t about them either or the kids wouldn’t be in gangs murdering each other…
That’s a conversation we should have, but the liberals don’t like that conversation, because their welfare state created the current status quo for blacks who now have bastard children in about 72% of their families and who abort their babies at a rate 4 times higher than whites. Blacks are less than 14% of the population, but they account for somewhere between 30-35% of all the abortions in the US… black fathers are the most irresponsible fathers in the nation, with hispanic dads not too far behind… that’s why their black and hispanic children make up 90% of the victims and 90% of the perpetrators of the homicides in NYC and have a similar percentage in other large cities across the nation.
Nah f#ck those conversations, let’s just keep showing some sad, rich, white folks whose children suffered a terrible tragedy and make some rules up that won’t make any other rich, white folks kids any safer than they are today. And let’s just keep pretending that the Adam Lanzas are the real danger in America when it comes to the average persons chance of being murdered… that way we can all keep our heads in the f#cking sand and pretend it’s all good, even when it’s not.
Liberals never want to talk about what they have done to destroy the black family, they just want to call conservatives and centrists racists whenever you question a black politician’s view point. Well guess what liberals, it’s not racist to use an FBI statistic and ask why blacks and hispanics commit just about every murder in NYC… it’s just uncomfortable, because it will inevitably lead to a discussion that liberals don’t want to have, that their vision of the dependency state has destroyed the black family and, if left alone, will also destroy the hispanic family over the next couple of generations. Liberals are better at destroying minority families than any white supremacist group could ever dream of. Thanks to liberals and abortion, instead of 48 million blacks, there are only 32 million blacks in America, because black women have destroyed 16 million black babies before they ever set foot outside the womb…
Nah we don’t want to hear any of that Veritas, we just want to keep whining about scary black guns that kill less than .02 of the total murders in the nation because it’s politically expedient to do so. We don’t want to have anything to do with a real discussion because that’s too hard… well f#ck all of you liberals I am sick and tired of the same horsesh1t every day from your unimaginative, repetitive, little brains.
As am I.
More good comments:
2/17 Air Cav Says:
April 10th, 2013 at 1:31 pm
If I told you that twice as many blacks are murdered by blacks EVERY SIX MONTHS than were killed by the KKK and other white-supremacy groups between 1882 and 1968, you would probably not believe it. And I couldn’t blame anyone for disbelieving that astounding statement. It cuts against the indoctrination grain. The source, by the way, is Tuskegee University.
Common Sense Says:
April 10th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Read this the other day:
It is not, however, just handguns that must be discussed when discussing gun violence. This gets to why we cannot have a meaningful conversation in this country and never will. To do so will get you branded a racist.
“Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).”
“Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).”
“Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000.”
This information is from a 2011 United States Department of Justice report released by Obama.
So if you summarize the data, the problem is with black males between 18 – 24, both as perpetrators AND victims. But I guess having a bunch of them standing behind you while talking about gun control wouldn’t be sympathetic to the bleeding hearts out there the way 20 little white kids will, even though they would “look like Obama’s son if he had one”.
Veritas Omnia Vincit Says:
April 10th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
@15 There is indeed a reason why a missing white woman in Aruba was national news for months, or a white woman who killed her daughter was national news for a year… white folks go missing lots of lead stories…blacks or hispanics, not so much.
But hey, we’re not racists or anything. After all everybody is equal under the law, sort of, depending on your race and economic status that is… well and also who you are related to…
@16 Not at all surprised, here’s another “fun fact”… thanks to abortion, almost twice as many black children die in the womb each year than blacks of all ages die from all other causes…
I’m not done with all my research but in ’09 a total of 286,000 blacks died from all causes and all ages… that same year about 423,500 black babies were aborted…
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children?
April 10th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
From the Secular Right and DOJ report:
The most common gun violence, by contrast, is drearily predictable and is the source on average of nearly ten thousand homicides a year. Such violence occurs overwhelmingly in certain locations of cities — over the past 30 years in Boston, for example, 75 percent of the city’s shootings occurred in 4.5% of its area, whereas 88.5 percent of the city’s street segments experienced not a single shooting. Urban shootings are retaliatory or the product of the most trivial of slights. They are committed by handguns, not assault rifles. Victims and perpetrators usually know each other, absent bullets going astray. Reforming the involuntary commitment laws and beefing up mental health services are largely irrelevant to these shootings, since though the shooters have serious problems with impulse control and are clearly a danger to themselves and others, few would be deemed mentally ill. And both victims and perpetrators are disproportionately minority, by huge margins. New York City is emblematic of the country’s gun violence. According to victims and witnesses, blacks commit 80% of all shootings in New York, though they are 23% of the city’s residents. Add Hispanics and you account for 98% of all shootings. Whites commit a little over 1% of shootings, though they are 35% of the city’s population. These disproportions pertain across the country.
And i’m sure they had background checks completed.
These got me to thinking… Considering ~90% of gun violence is committed by Blacks and liberals/Democrats think Blacks are too stupid to be capable of showing ID to vote, and thus claim that requiring ID to vote is “racist!!!”, wouldn’t it also be “racist!!!” to create more gun-control laws? If Democrats/liberals say voter ID laws are “racist!!!”, then aren’t gun-control laws “racist!!!” as well?
That’s the takeaway from President Putt-Putt’s recent speech on his desire for Amnesty: Obama: “That fence is now basically complete; They’ll never be satisfied.”
Bryan Preston sums it up nicely (emphasis added):
As predicted, the president spoke in El Paso, Texas today, where he conflated legal and illegal immigration, pushed for the DREAM Act, and showed his longstanding contempt for the rule of law as regards our immigration system. President Obama knows the DREAM Act is dead in the water, as is the overall push for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code for amnesty. Everyone knows all this, and everyone knows the policy is going to go nowhere for the remainder of Obama’s term.
He is pushing this issue now purely for politics. He is playing Hispanic voters for suckers while the national economy melts down, the way Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. He has played them for suckers throughout his presidency.
Another astute observation from Mr. Preston:
Perhaps the worst line in the president’s speech came when, in pushing for the DREAM Act, called for the US to “stop punishing children for the sins of their parents.” He is referring to parents who travel to the US illegally, bringing their children with them. But for the most pro-abortion president in American history to utter that line, and not realize how it boomerangs back on his own stance favoring partial birth abortion, is repugnant. This president seems to have little moral sense about him.
Yes indeed. And if I remember correctly, the babies themselves are “punishments.”
So, apparently Obama believes it is a-okay to punish children with death for the sins of their parents when it comes to abortion, but sending kids off to Mexico with their parents for the sins of their parents is beyond the pale.
What an evil prick.
Most of us knew all along that those who claim to be “pro-choice” are not pro-choice at all, but really pro-abortion. Now, with the hysterical outcry by “women’s groups” over the Super Bowl ad with the Tim Tebow story, we know we are correct.
“CBS’s recent decision to air an anti-choice advertisement during Super Bowl XLIV was outrageous,” a rep from advocacy group The Women’s Media Center said. “Even worse is the network’s about face from its own policy of rejecting controversial Super Bowl ads.
“The Women’s Media Center and organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice, are urging the network to immediately cancel this ad.”
First, how ironic that a group that claims to be dedicated to “tolerance” is practicing intolerance with respect to Tim Tebow and his life story.
How is choosing not to abort a baby “anti-choice”? How is telling the story of a woman’s choice to not abort her baby “anti-choice” and “controversial”?
The only way that telling the story of how Tim Tebow’s mother chose to go ahead with her pregnancy and birth of her child, in the face of great risk to both the lives of her baby and herself, is somehow “anti-choice” or “controversial” is if “pro-choice” means that the only “choice” is abortion. In other words, if “pro-choice” actually means pro-abortion.
If pro-abortion people think so highly of abortion, then fine… make a commercial of your own. Go find success stories of women who faced a choice of either giving birth to their baby or aborting their baby and chose to abort their baby and are now living a great life because of that decision.
In the meantime, STFU about people who wish to tell the story of a choice made for life and how it turned out to be an amazing success story. Oh, and stop being lying cowards and calling yourselves “pro-choice” and call yourselves what you are: pro-abortion.
[ … ] It’s a positive message of what can happen if women would consider choosing life. It is a message to women that there are other options. Who would be against that?
Well, every pro-choice group out there seems to be against that. They have no desire for women to know real choice. They don’t want women to hear that good can come from choosing to not have an abortion. [ … ]
Pro-Choice groups need to decide if they are really pro-choice or just pro-abortion. Do they really want women to know all options and know the beauty of life – or do they just want to silence anyone who doesn’t promote abortion? Unless they change their tune, pro-choice groups really should be known as pro-abortion or even anti-choice.
ALSO SEE: Star Parker – “What’s Provocative About the Tebow Super Bowl Ad?”
This is just disgusting:
And this is the Number 1 reason I could never, and would never, date a liberal. Liberals see a potential life as a negative, as a hindrance to them, as something that will ruin their lives and, apparently, as potential evil.
They never stop to think that all life has the potential for good. Each new life has the potential to bring us someone who could find the cure for cancer, someone who could be the next great President, someone simply who could change the world for the better in their own small way.
Nope, for liberals, each new life has the potential to bring us rapist pedophiles. To them, life is a bad thing and it must be snuffed out through abortion. Not only that, but all success stories must also be snuffed out through censorship, so that others may not be brought the message of life and hope and love and potential.
Pro-abortion/”choice” liberals are some the most disgusting, despicable people alive. How anyone could look at life in such a cold-hearted, calculating and unfeeling manner is simply baffling to me.
Some comments from the second link with which I completely agree:
He puts a name/face to a “proposed abortion”. The fact that he’s made great achievements makes him even more of a problem for the “choice” (irony-alert) crowd. The anonymity of the child (see constant references to “the fetus”) marginalizes the life in their opinion. Of course, that logic is built on sand, but that’s all they have.
This reveals what those of us that stand for the unborn have known for a long time. That the term “pro-choice” is really misleading, we should call the advocates of abortion on demand, “pro-abortion” and in an absolutist sense. The only “choice” they will tolerate is the one that ends in the death of the unborn baby. I also blog for a Crisis Pregnancy Center in Whittier, California and Liberals want to close them down so the only alternative to a woman facing a crisis pregnancy is to get an abortion.
Also, it is truly sad that adoption does not even enter into the pro-abortion absolutist vocabulary. And if it does, it must include adopting to homosexual couples, even making pro-life adoption agencies close down that do not adopt to such couples. Yes, Liberals and by extension most Democrats see abortion as inherently good and seek to demonize anyone who thinks otherwise. Remember the abortion ad that called abortion sacred work?
Pro-death women believe they should have the right to decide what is best for their life, but they fail to admit the fact that their decision to take the life of the child they carry means they have taken the right of the unborn to be given life. It is the most selfish and cruel act a woman can commit against another human being, and they want to shut up anyone else who points out that they are horrible, evil people.
A woman has the choice to have sex or not, and if she becomes pregnant her choice is to give birth and keep the baby or to give birth and put the baby up for adoption.
When women have sex they don’t have to take the necessary preventative precautions because in the back of their mind they know that if they do become pregnant, they can just abort their baby. How does this line of thinking help prevent pregnancies? It is before-and-after birth control.
The essense of pro-choice is supposed to be choice: in the Roe v. Wade era, most people choose to carry their pregnancy to term.
If you are in favor of choice, you must be in favor of people opting NOT to abort.
If you want a woman to make a fully informed decision, you must let her know that people who could have chosen to abort opted to continue their pregnancy.
Let Tebow speak.
I’m not sure what all the Hullabaloo is about. The pro-murder crowd gets to spout their spiel; why can’t the pro-life folks get at least an equal opportunity to recognize one of the beautiful human beings they didn’t kill!
I often wonder which one of the murdered babies God had designated to discover the cure for cancer.
I know a woman whose husband was “missing and presumed dead” during WWII. She was left destitute, sickly and pregnant. Despite having no job and no other means of support, she carried her Son and delivered him on August 21, 1945.
Thank You, Mom.
It can’t be pro-”CHOICE” unless there are at least two options. If the pro-choice crowd is so violently opposed to Tebow’s story of life, then the pro-choice crowd should drop the charade and rename itself pro-abortion.
By calling themselves pro-choice they are acknowledging that there is an alternative to abortion that you can choose, but they only see one of those choices as “right”.
You have the right to choose whether or not to abort. If you abort we’ll cheer you on, but if you choose life we won’t congratulate you on your choice to try to raise your baby, we’ll demean and denigrate you for not killing it.
If every woman aborted her baby, where would we be?
Why is Matt and his family’s story of “Choosing Life” such a threat to these radical pro abortion groups? Power and cash. If more women choose life, they lose money and control. If fewer women choose abortion, they get fewer fetuses to kill. Their means (revenue) and their message (‘choosing life’ means ’stopping abortion’ and ‘making women sick’) must be absolute or like any other despotic propaganda, it puts itself in peril… the Tebow’s story exposes these radical pro abortion groups for the shams they are. Like that hockey stick graph is to Climategate, the Tebow’s story is to abortion… it debunks it as ’settled science’ on the progressive’s road to Utopia and must be told.
The ad should air.
Would it be a problem for the Progressives if Obama was making the ad and not Tebow? Stanley was young and pregnant. Her spouse was not around. Even in those days, women made the choice.
All the Progressives have to do is make their own ad. Find someone who has had an abortion (or wishes they had an abortion) and extol the virtues and great, life-changing experience it was. That should be up-lifting! (Am being sarcastic and pragmatic.)
In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg examines in detail the sorry history of the Progressives and their fondness for eugenics, racism and intolerance. It’s must-read history.
“You prim little Christian bitches call us murderers because you can’t imagine how a woman would choose to be anything else but a bible-thumping Donna Reed.” by Eve
No, you are called murderers because women such as yourself kill their own flesh and blood in their wombs in the name of pure selfishness. Why don’t you use contraception, two or more forms, and prevent pregnancies rather than use abortion as a birth control method after the fact? It doesn’t have anything to do with being Christian; it has to do with being a decent, loving human being who treats others like they would like themselves treated. I wouldn’t even be directing this comment at you if it wasn’t for the fact that your mother gave birth to you, so be grateful for those who choose to give life rather than take it away. And for your information many great and wonderful women who have made great accomplishments are also mothers; it isn’t a choice between one or the other – women can do both.
This is the same “compassionate” crowd of progressives that cheered When it was announced that Ronald Regan had alzheimers. They are not compassionate in the least. I myself am pro-life. My real stink is don’t use public monies for YOUR choice Eve. You can be filled with hate and rage. Your sad little red wagon to pull. I just will not enable you with MY money to snuff out a life. Democrats find it O.K. to kill babies but not terrorists or death row inmates. Can you at least try and get a little consistent. One is innocent and the others got thier day in court or CHOSE to be killers (terrorists). It shows how weak your argument is.
Peeps like EVE get very agitated and militant when you challenge their ability to legally murder babies – this is their big chance to experience the exhilaration of snuffing out a life. It makes them feel GOD LIKE – even though they don’t believe in God. Funny how “progressives” are really regressive when it comes to the innocence of American children.
The left say they are the party of science, yet science itself, via 3-D ultrasound, is proving everyday that fetuses are, gasp, ALIVE!!!
How do the NOW types reconcile the excess of 22 million young males in abortion-promoting China with caring about women?
It is pretty clear that one of the unintended consequences of the War on the Unborn has been the targeting of females for the death sentence. It is clear that the advance in ultrasound technology is both a blessing and a new evil.
Many babies are brought to term once the mother sees life. Unfortunately, a number of people use the technology for evil. – basic screening to eliminate life that doesn’t fit their lifestyle.
this kind of behavior demonstrates that there is a certain breed of “pro-choice” women who are not really pro-choice. if they were, they would encourage women to hear stories like this, and yes, very often choose life.
It’s a given that every time someone is faced with a difficult pregnancy (including but not limited to potential medical problems like Mrs. Tebow’s, Down’s Syndrome, various deformities and disabilities, conception through rape) and chooses to have the child, the pro-aborts are ALWAYS disappointed. They attack the parents for making a foolish, risky, and unrealistic decision. They don’t care the if the child turns out okay after all (like Tim Tebow) or if the child is still valued and loved by his family (like Trig Palin). They made the wrong decision, dammit, and they have no business parading that decision in public!
They’re angry because they know full well what they would do if they were in the Tebows’ or Palins’ shoes. For all of their yammering about compassion, they’re not terribly compassionate toward those they deem “inferior.” They feel entitled to a perfect child who arrives perfectly on their time, if at all. People who make diffferent decisions and are happy about it make the pro-aborts feel guilty. Even if the pro-abort has not had anything to do with an abortion, there’s still guilt. And nothing drives a progressive crazier than the feeling of moral inferiority.
They want to keep selling the idea that every abortion happens for a really good reason and if not for the destruction of some bothersome “clump of cells,” the woman and her clump of cells were doomed to a life of perpetual pain and misery. Things like medical problems, rape, developmental defects, etc. give the pro-aborts a trump card, i.e. nobody would want to have a child like THAT and you’re evil for even forcing such a horror on an emotionally fragile woman. Well, the Tim Tebows of the world pop even that balloon. What justification do they have now?
I don’t know any woman who has had an abortion who hasn’t been totally damaged by the abortion FOR LIFE. This is the truth. They NEVER get over it.
Why other women support this sort of life altering, unending trauma on other women (not to mention the killing of a human being) is beyond me. Women are brainwashed into thinking that having the choice to abort makes us “stronger.” It does nothing of the sort. It damages us forever.
How much safer would the world be if the feminist movement stood up for women?
Where is the National Organization for Women? Seriously?
Oh wait… they’re actually the National Organization for Abortion Advancement… I forgot.
Where is the National Organization for Women? Seriously?
Oh wait… they’re actually the National Organization for Abortion Advancement… I forgot.
Actually Chisum, it is much simpler than they. They are the National Organization for Whatever Liberal Men Tell Us We Are To Advance.
They oppose sexual harassment, unless it is a Liberal Democrat doing it.
They oppose oppression of women, but not from Muslims.
They are pro-choice on abortion, so long as you choose abortion.
“Progressives own the Holocaust, a fact they conveniently ignore today. Funny how they make a big stink about everyone else owning up to their history, but when it comes to them, they are exempt from their own rules.”
Actually, when the logical outcome of their policies literally demonstrates pure evil, they revise history. Hitler was a right wing fascist, don’t ya know. (See Goldberg, Jonah)
Women have abortions and live the rest of their lives regretting their decision, but even they are not allowed to convey this message in public. A woman was on The View one time speaking to this exact issue, and those ‘View’ women shut her down quick – they weren’t going to tolerate anyone stating in their forum that women actually regret making the choice to kill their unborn.
I’d just like to say that when a pregnant woman’s life hangs in the balance, it is her decision to make between her life or the life of the unborn child. Some do not make the choice and leave it to God, and others make the choice – I don’t really know of anyone who would think a woman choosing her life should be condemned for doing so.
Tim Tebow is a great role model for men and boys. I hope my son’s have his conviction and dignity.
For anyone to complain the ad should be censored is ridiculous and shows their contempt towards life and their determination to end life. IT is a sad day in America when it is controversial to stand up for celebrating life and family.
Excellent reply (with which I agree completely) to a comment left at this equally excellent post by Doctor Zero on the topic of abortion and the right to life: Victory Against Despair
A few points:
1) “. . . in fact, at most Planned Parenthood facilities, proper sex education accompanies every abortion.” Rather like bolting the barn door after the horse is gone, n’est-ce pas? According to many investigations, Planned Parenthood is indeed pro-choice . . . as long as the “choice” is infanticide. Oh, and what the hell is “proper” sex education? More to the point, who has been appointed to determine the answer to that question? Planned Parenthood? Clearly, in the opinion of many, parental input is optional . . .
2) “Or worse, will let a woman bleed to death during a ‘back alley’ procedure, simply because she’s immoral?” So does that mean that Society is guilty for every fatal heroin overdose because it has chosen to outlaw heroin use? When people choose to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior, the consequences are their responsibility . . . including the homicide of that person’s child.
3) “Make abortion illegal, and, like the wonderful anti-drug laws, abuses will still continue.” So we should quit making laws, because 100% enforcement is impossible? The point of law is only secondarily to punish the guilty; the primary purpose is to place the opprobrium of civil society on behavior that is detrimental to it, in order to discourage it and to stake out the boundaries of civil behavior. I don’t know what the penalty of law should be for the pitiable teenaged mother that is the liberal poster child for infanticide, although I have some ideas for the medical assassin involved. Even if the consensus of society is that it should be probation and counseling, similar to drug abuse, at least the penalty of law would demonstrate that we as a society place value on ALL human life.
4) “The same group that cries that government is ‘too much in our business’marches and fights for stricter laws and regulation as regards something that affects 2% of the population annually?” No, we’re arguing that law should be made at the state level. You know, like we do for murder. Is it your contention that, to be consistent, conservatives should consider legislation against murder to be “too much in people’s business”?
Oh, and my personal favorite . . .
5) “The same group that screams ‘right to life’ is also in favor of capital punishment, or silently applauds when an abortion clinic is bombed?” Yes, conservatives do hew to Locke’s formulation of the rights to life, liberty, and property. It is also an indispensable tenet of civil society that a possible consequence of violating the law is the forfeiture of one or more of these rights. Is it your contention that, to be consistent, conservatives must oppose the imprisonment of criminals because their right to liberty is absolute? Or that they must not be fined because their right to property is absolute? It is the contention of many conservatives (though not all; most Catholic conservatives are NOT in favor of capital punishment precisely because of your implicit criticism) that there are crimes for which the right to life itself is forfeited, usually for the deliberate and malicious deprivation of the right to life of another. Treason and child rape frequently come up as well, properly so in my opinion.
As for abortion clinic bombings, they also are a violation of the law. The principled pro-life conservative, I think, sees these in a similar fashion to the way that a principled abolitionist would have seen the crusade of John Brown. While the broad aim may be the same, the tactics pursued by Brown or by any of the abortion-clinic bombers (especially those that deliberately killed abortionists) damage the very rule of law that makes civil society possible. Civil society, in turn, is the only thing that makes judgements such as that which holds that infanticide is wrong possible.