In the run-up to election day (God help us all!), I would like to point out one very important fact: a vote for Joe Biden will result in the intentional killing of more children in the womb.
How? Biden has pledged to do three specific things which will result in more abortions: pass a federal law guaranteeing abortion in all 50 states, repeal the Hyde amendment, and repeal the Mexico City Policy.
The federal abortion law is a promise he has made in case the evil Amy Coney Barett moves “to overrule Roe,” as if she alone can do that. One can only assume that any such law would seek to remove restrictions on abortion and so would result in more of them. This, from a man who once promised to keep abortion, “safe, legal, and rare” and who said Roe v. Wade “went too far.”
Times change, I guess.
But let’s say you argue that a federal abortion law would just maintain the status quo of killing about one million babies per year, which is a ghastly fact by itself, and would not add to the death toll. His other pro-abortion promises are not nearly as ambiguous.
Once again reversing a position he held for decades, Biden has now promised to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. If that happens, and Democrats control both houses of Congress, tax money will be allocated to pay for abortions for mostly poor and minority people, thus furthering Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood and feminist hero) eugenicist goal of culling “those elements at large in the population whose children are a menace to the national health and well-being.”
Biden’s promise to end the Mexico City Policy, re-instated by Trump, would also result in more abortions by freeing up federal funds — your tax dollar — to fund abortions abroad, bringing our enlightened policies of population control and “women’s rights” to poor nations, helping their women to kill future generations just like we do.
So, a vote for Joe is a vote for death. Plain and simple. I know many of you will argue the same for Trump, that his immigration policies, support of law and order, or calls to repeal Obamacare will also result in deaths.
That may be the case, but any human life lost as a result of Trump’s policies, as tragic as that is, will not be the intended result of that law or policy, whereas the explicit purpose of Biden’s support for expanded abortion funding in the US and abroad is specifically and blatantly to end certain types of human lives, those most in need of protection.
That’s a big difference, and an important one, a “preeminent one.” And, one could also argue that Trump’s policies are actually designed to prevent the loss of life. Illegal immigration and the criminal underworld that supports it results in both the death of innocents and the rape of women and children. Better laws and enforcement of those laws would lessen the human suffering that results from illegal immigration.
Supporting law and order would help to restore order to cities whose murder rates are skyrocketing due to lax law enforcement resulting from mis-guided policies or outright hostility to police by local politicians. Most of those dying from this spike in violence are poor and minorities, by the way. Don’t their lives matter?
And finally there’s healthcare. Trump’s and others’ desire to repeal Obamacare is not motivated by an animus against providing healthcare to the poor or those with pre-existing conditions, as the Democrats disingenuously claim.
Rather, it’s based on the fact that Obamacare is bad policy that is unsustainable, driving up costs, and covering much fewer people than originally intended. Also there’s the small matter that certain parts of the law may be unconstitutional (maybe Nancy should have read it before she passed it?).
Trump has said many times that he would keep the pre-existing condition protection as part of any new healthcare policy, and that the point of getting rid of Obamacare is to replace it with a program that works better. He and the Republicans have a lot of work to do there, but whatever you might say about their motivation, one can safely assume that it is not to intentionally kill humans as is the intention of Biden’s abortion policies.
So, in this time when we are focused on protecting the lives of black people from police abuse, LGBT people from hateful discrimination, and all people from the ravages of Covid-19, I would humbly add that we consider also protecting the unborn from the abortionists’ gruesome tools of death and dismemberment, and consider instead providing more loving care to the women who find themselves facing that very difficult predicament.
Voting for politicians who seek to solve certain problems by killing off human life is never the right solution.
Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.
I hear you young Henry and I have a solution. I think I can prove you wrong about some of that tax the rich, nuclear is a renewable and railroads being the future. Here it is – I’M COMING BACK IN 2070 – A MERE 50 YEARS FROM NOW.
The magic of cryonic preservation is available to me now. I was told by my investment advisor that thanks to the Trump tax cuts I can easily afford the $200,000 that it will cost since I made that much passively the last 4 years to pay for my cryonic preservation. I will take notes, put them in the pocket of my parka and let them do their thing with me. When I wake up in 2070 it should be easy to see how some of your ideas have worked out.
Just in case I am right that this cryonic preservation will work (and I think I am) I have written Donald Trump, Cal Ripkin, Hershel Walker, Joey Johnny Jones and Dolly Parton to join me. I may consider a liberal female just because the process of cryonic preservation involves severing one’s head, but I’m not sure I want to see one of them again – too shrill.
In any event, I will be interested to see if we still have a viable country in 2070 (unlikely) and what has replaced it and who is in charge. I weep for my grandchildren and their future now, maybe I can apologize to them and theirs in 2070.
I don’t even know what to say to this. Climate change is a big issue and will require a pretty massive change to how we do things. If you want to have a decent future for your grandchildren, we need to take action now otherwise the planet will be near uninhabitable by 2070.
How awful for you M. Vorosmarti to have to dwell among ignorance. I have NEVER seen such an array of totally uneducated, cultish, unthinking people in my entire life. I admire that you at least attempt to inject some intelligence into the conversation, but alas to change not one mind. Trump doesn’t care about the environment, nor do his supporters. Furthermore, ain’t it obvious: TRUMP HAS NO ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE PLAN TO REPLACE THE ACA. NOT NOW, NOT TOMORROW, NOT EVER. He doesn’t care about what people need, of if they die. COVID is a preexisting condition that won’t be considered if trump gets his way – all you millions of virus infected people in the red states? No insurance. But that’s what/who you voted for. A man who couldn’t care less about you.
What a bunch of malarkey!
“Trump has said many times that he would keep the pre-existing condition protection as part of any new healthcare policy, and that the point of getting rid of Obamacare is to replace it with a program that works better.”
Yup, I know it’s a little off topic but unraveling the ACA without an alternative detailed plan was not smart.
To be honest, although it is kind of silly to say that Biden is “killing” unborn babies, which are just clumps of living cells, I do believe that we should have more federal, state, or local birth control programs. It would really free up TONS of welfare dollars instead of going to some mother who has 10 children and does not even work hard, it could go to public healthcare, schools and roads, poverty alleviation, and more training for police forces. Although I do believe in population control because overpopulation WILL destroy the planet unless we colonize Mars or the Moon or something else due to the fact that humans produce tons of waste and emit tons of carbon dioxide. So that’s my hunch.
-Side note…You were once a clump of cells.
Now to really upset some folks:
-If you want to reduce humans, sterilize the “broodmares” producing 10 children….do it once…it’s much less expensive that multiple abortions for the same woman.
Now on to world pollution:
-India and China produce lethal amounts of pollution….have you ever been to a large Chinese city…the air is brown because China has so many “soft coal” fired power plants….and when you shower the water washes off brown …..if you fly into India you can smell the cow dung cooking fires 100 miles out at 40,000 feet over the Indian Ocean, and open 50′ wide drains dump raw sewage into rivers from cities of millions.
There you go Bro’…
3 good points Vics
My take on the 2 that may be upsetting.
1. Brood mares may be a bit strong, but it is important to know that the iconic Planned Parenthood was founded with exactly that as its main goal. Google Margaret Sanger..
2. Yea, India and China. That’s always my response to climate change warriors. I say “There may be some connection between coal burning for electricity, but there’s only 50 of those plants in the US. There’s over 5,000 in India and China, so shouldn’t we start there instead of here?” No one has a good answer for that except some will say we can’t control what India and China do, which is very true.
So why hamstring the US and let its global energy competitors off Scott-free? Answer – because it is not about energy or coal or even electricity – it is about making the anti-business movement more powerful. You know, the ones that can’t better themselves thru opportunity – instead tear down those more successful to “level the playing field” Barf!
To answer your second point, we need to be reducing our carbon emissions to net zero and everyone needs work on reducing their carbon impact. Yes China and India have more coal power plants than we do, but China has been investing heavily in renewable energy tech. Building out their Ultra High Voltage Direct Current transmission lines to get power from the middle of nowhere to cities more efficiently. Building lots of nuclear power plants, to replace existing coal fired power plants. The US is not hamstringing itself, it’s the opposite. All industrialized nations except for the US are a part of the Paris climate agreement. Coal is dead in the US, natural gas and renewables are much cheaper to operate. No amount of deregulation is going to make coal jobs come back, it’s just not a good financial decision.
It’s not a anti-business move, in fact if natural gas power plants would not be competitive with wind and solar if the oil industry didn’t get ~20 billion in subsidies every year. If anything it’s businesses being smart and seeing that oil is not the future and investing in renewable energy.
I do think we should tax the extremely rich at high rates, because there is no way for them to spend it all. There is also a fixed number of good investments, eventually the extremely rich run out of good investments and start investing in dumb silicon valley startups. A certain amount of wealth inequality is necessary, no one would be an offshore oil worker if it paid the same as a job at kroger. However, the money of the extremely rich would be better spent on infrastructure improvements and helping people who can’t afford college attend, because a better educated work force is a more productive work force.
Oh OK, young Henry. I got it. Not only are the Chinese investing in renewables (nuclear is renewable? Maybe so), you are saying the ultra rich in America should be investing in these things as well. Fine. Here’s a plan- let the rich keep their money provided they invest in something that produces renewable energy.
Just give them a tax deduction or credit for something that feels good as an investment in renewables. Much more efficient that taking their money, washing it thru Washington where it always loses value and causes more regulation. Didn’t Obama already do that with Solandra or some solar company? Didn’t work, but hey – let’s try it again.
Or maybe if renewables are such a hot investment, let the marketplace decide – we could let the private sector invent and develop it. That’s how most common sense improvements and huge breakthroughs have been done in this country. Electricity, cars, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, television, American Idol, etc.
Nuclear is low carbon, and is an important part of getting us to carbon neutral. I agree the market will play an important roll in shifting to low carbon tech, however there are somethings that the market will never do. Airplanes will have to burn fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, to get get carbon neutral we will have to capture carbon out of the air and put it back in the ground. No business is going to pay for that if the government doesn’t require them to.
The market has been to slow to react to climate change. If we enacted carbon taxes 20 years ago, we would probably be in a much better position. The issue is we didn’t do that and now we have to take more drastic measures to curtail our carbon emissions. Businesses have inherently different goals than governments, a lot of the stuff necessary to reach carbon neutrality isn’t very profitable. With traditional power plants all the power is generated in one spot and distributed along power lines. As opposed to renewables that are more spread out, so that requires a fairly large investment to change modify how the grid works. That’s the current limitation in a lot of places, the turbines and panels are pretty cheap, but getting the transmission capacity to actually be able to use it is not.
One proposal is to electrify all the railroads and run high voltage transmission lines above them allowing trains to run on clean electricity and increasing the amount of power we can get from turbines on the great plains to cities like Chicago and Denver.
As we switch more things to electricity from gas and diesel, furnaces and cars for example. We will need a robust electric grid that can handle the increased load. Nuclear is important because it can run at max capacity 95% of the time, providing the base load power to make up for the intermittency of renewables.
-side note to the side note jokes on you im suicidal
Keep the lies coming and never rebut the actual argument. First off, I suspect that a large majority of Americans support the Morning After pill. It allows for response to a poor decison without even knowing if a pregnacy has occured. But, once there is a known person with a heartbeat growing inside of a woman’s womb it is no longer her body or her providence that is the issue. The issue is the other human being and the question is not if a woman has some supposed right but if its okay to chemically burn off the skin of that other person or rip off the limbs and head of that other person because ??? Stop teaching your daughters that they do not have to take responsibility for their actions but at the samw time demand that they are treated as equal in all matters. If a man punched a pregnant woman and that resulted in the death of the growing baby, they can and will be charged with Murder but in the epitome of leftist pretzel logic, that same woman has the “right” to cause exactly the same result. Critical thought is what is needed, not talking points.
Wow, I am a conservative but support first trimester abortion and easy access to birth control including Plan B. It seems that conservative voices are totally against any of these choices and Liberals are for the opposite even late term abortion. Well I think it is about the polarization..reason has gone out the door and if you are not 100% behind them (both groups) you are evil.
You are either in support of the child’s life, or you are against it. No fence straddling
Yes, that’s correct. We are forced to take a side in a fight neither side will ever win and when you do, half the country thanks you are evil. This is definitely the opposite of win-win.
That’s why I really believe abortion, while certainly aa personal issue, should be a state issue if government must be involved. Leave it up to each state. Women who need or want an abortion can get one somewhere. People who oppose the very idea of abortion can live happily in a non-abortion state and know that no evil is occurring in their town.
Not a big step really. Just overturn Roe v. Wade and it becomes a state-controlled issue. Let the states debate trimesters and methods if they want or just outlaw it entirely if that’s what they want. Roe V. Wade exists only because one group of people thinks they have all the answers and they want the political clout to control other people’s morality and decision-making at the federal level. Read that last sentence again, then explain to me why we wouldn’t be happier and freer with one more federal law removed from our lives. Again, abortions would be available for states that wanted them. You could call it Pro Choice.
The majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body. I always have to laugh at Republicans who fight enthusiastically for life until the baby is actually born. Then they don’t care about kids. Lock them in cages, separate them from their parents (NEVER should be allowed), cut school lunch programs. I wish these religious hypocrites would care about the children after they’re born too.
Would it have been a laughing matter if your mother had hired a killer (oops, I mean a doctor) to cut you to pieces when you were small, defenseless and inside your mother’s body? I think not. What a callous heart you have. Once YOU are safely born and launched into the world, in YOUR mind its ok to snuff out the life of other people before they even have the same chance you had. Please examine your heart. It needs healing
ok boomer