Did Donald Trump Murder A Newborn Baby? Is That Why He Keeps Claiming It's Legal?
At this point it's starting to seem like he's setting up a defense.
For the last eight years, if not more, Donald Trump has been going on and on about post-birth abortions, otherwise known as homicide or infanticide, a thing that is very, very illegal everywhere in the United States and, I will just assume, the whole entire world.
During last night’s debate, it came up again. Because of course it did.
“They will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth. After birth. If you look at the former governor of Virginia, he was willing to do so, and we’ll determine what we do with the baby. Meaning we’ll kill the baby,” he insisted. “So that means he can take the life of the baby in the ninth month and even after birth. Because some states, Democrat-run, take it after birth. Again, the governor, the former Virginia governor, put the baby down so that we decide what to do with it. He’s willing to, as we say, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month and kill the baby. Nobody wants that to happen, Democrat or Republican; nobody wants it to happen.”
No, they don’t — which, again, is why it is illegal everywhere. You’d think the moderators would have pushed back on that, just a little, but they did not.
Northam, in the interview Trump was referring to, was in fact talking about what happens when a baby is born with no chance of survival. He was talking about the kind of palliative care they are given — placed in their parents’ arms perhaps, perhaps something given to alleviate pain. It’s the kind of palliative care there is a whole lot more of these days, in states where abortion is illegal, because those states are forcing people to give birth to babies who will immediately, and sometimes painfully, die.
Now, I get it. Donald Trump is not a smart man. Unlike former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, he is not a pediatric neurologist. If you asked him to explain what should happen if a child is born with no chance of survival, he would not be able to tell you. After all, according to Ivana Trump, he was not even remotely involved with his own children until they were in college, so it’s hard to imagine that he would have been involved with any tough pregnancy-related questions or issues.
That being said, it is hard to imagine that even he does not know that it is illegal to kill a newborn baby. Has he just been going his whole life believing this is legal? If he thinks that is legal, what else does he think is legal? Imagine all the crimes he could be committing day in and day out with this kind of understanding of the laws in this country!
Oh, wait …
My running theory right now — and the only one I believe truly makes any sense — is that Trump himself is a big fan of killing babies just as they are born and is setting up a defense for himself down the line. After all, if he gets caught, he can always say, “How was I to know it wasn’t legal? I kept saying it was legal and no one ever told me it wasn’t!”
In the United States, we’re very precious about belief — generally speaking, it’s considered rude to seriously question religious beliefs or beliefs about supernatural things in mixed company. The problem now, however, is that it appears as though this tendency has extended to being very precious and very gentle about people believing untrue things in general. Things that are a matter of fact and not of faith. So people (and the Real Media) will treat someone talking about post-birth abortions the same way they’d treat someone talking about ghosts or magic crystals or the Bible. It’s not a fact, it’s a “sincere belief” and therefore it is not to be questioned.
It’s very different than when one is dealing in facts. Generally speaking, if you are dealing in facts and you care more about whether things are true than whether or not they adhere to a narrative you like, you don’t mind explaining, citing your sources or even being proven wrong. Personally, I’m a big fan of being proven wrong! Please! If I am factually incorrect about something, I would like to be told, just as I’d like someone to tell me I have toilet paper attached to my shoe — which, uh, has happened more often than I would like to admit.
The Right uses the grace and politeness people extend to those who believe unprovable things to their advantage. They use it to make the parents of children with fatal fetal anomalies look like monsters so that they can win elections. They use it to make the Left, in general, look like baby-killing freaks.
But it’s gone far enough, and it’s time to start being mean about it. It’s time to ask him for proof, to ask every one of his surrogates for proof, for specifics. It is time to torture them about it. Because, at this point, anything else is admitting and accepting defeat.
PREVIOUSLY:
I’m gonna mangle this quote, but there’s a line about “journalism is not listening to one side saying it’s raining, the other saying it’s not, and determining that it’s impossible to know for sure. Journalism is opening the fucking window and sticking your hand out to see if it’s raining.”
In that, CNN once again last night failed that most basic of tests.
I have witnessed the unspeakable agonies suffered by the parents and families of profoundly medically compromised newborns. It impossible for me to attempt to articulate the overwhelming ache of arms empty of a desperately desired and loved warm bundle of love.
I have watched devastated parents desperately cradle their precious child after gently removing them from incubators and an overwhelming tangle of lines, hoses and tubes for the few invaluable moments before the dreaded inevitable occurs.
DAMN these motherfuckers and their sick, psychopathic neurosis regarding death. These selfish fucks don't even begin to understand LIFE.