Nolte: No, Texas Valedictorian, a Law Protecting Unborn Babies Doesn’t Kill Your Dreams

[mystery-ak]

Nolte: No, Texas Valedictorian, a Law Protecting Unborn Babies Doesn’t Kill Your Dreams

John Nolte 3 Jun 2021

The fake media are all abuzz over a high school valedictorian who dumped her prepared speech to lash out against a Texas law that, starting in September, bans abortion after the unborn baby’s heartbeat is detected.

What no one’s pointing out is how the very premise of this speech is ridiculously dishonest.

You can watch the full speech here, but here’s the conclusion, where she summarizes her preposterous argument:

    I have dreams and hopes and ambitions. Every girl graduating today does, and we have spent our entire lives working toward our future. And without our input and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us. I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail, I am terrified that if I am raped, then my hopes and aspirations and dreams and efforts for my future will no longer matter.

    I hope that you can feel how gut-wrenching that is. I hope you can feel how dehumanizing it is to have the autonomy over your own body taken away from you. … This is a problem, a problem that cannot wait, and I cannot give up this platform to promote complacency and peace when there is a war on my body and a war on my rights, a war on the rights of your mothers, a war on the rights of your sisters, a war on the rights of your daughters. We cannot stay silent. Thank you.

Let me solve this problem for you without having to butcher an innocent and helpless baby…

It’s called adoption.

No one in this country is forced to lose their “future” because they gave birth to a baby because no one in this country is forced to raise a child. That’s just a fact.

Earlier in the speech, she raises the specter of rape and says the incoming law doesn’t exclude rape victims from the six-week time limit. Are there still rape victims out there who don’t immediately take the Morning After pill, which avoids conception and is something Texas is not even talking about outlawing?

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/03/no-texas-valedictorian-law-protecting-unborn-doesnt-kill-dreams/

[goatprairie]

This girl is a prime example of why liberal women shouldn't be allowed to vote. I still claim that the reason the great majority of white, liberal women vote for Dems is to protect the "right" to kill their kids.
I've done informal polling on the matter among female friends and family members at different times to just one person. They all said abortion "rights" was the prime reason they voted for Dems. Even some older ones who were past their child-bearing years said they voted for Dems because they were worried that 16 year old girls wouldn't be able to get an abortion if Republicans got elected.

[Sled Dog]

Let me solve this problem for you without having to butcher an innocent and helpless baby…

It’s called adoption.

No one in this country is forced to lose their “future” because they gave birth to a baby because no one in this country is forced to raise a child. That’s just a fact.

Earlier in the speech, she raises the specter of rape and says the incoming law doesn’t exclude rape victims from the six-week time limit. Are there still rape victims out there who don’t immediately take the Morning After pill, which avoids conception and is something Texas is not even talking about outlawing?

Even easier than adoption...don't have sex, toots.   That's how respectable young ladies avoid getting knocked up.  Works EVERY time.

As for rape?   Does Toots support the idea of capital punishment for the alleged rapist? 

I bet she don't.   But it's okay to murder the baby, because the baby is guilty as sin...no, wait, the baby didn't even exist when the rape was committed.   There's something in the Constitution forbidding ex-post facto laws, isn't there?   How can a person be, not even charged for a crime when the crime happened before the person existed in the first place, but sentenced to death for a crime that happened before he came into existence?

Great logic they teach today's slutty bimbos, hey?

And what if she said she did support capital punishment? You know, with a trial, and witnesses, and the accused's right to face his accuser and appeals and all that, before giving him some nice go-to-sleep medicines?  She wouldn't want just anyone accused of rape to be dragged out into the yard and shot in the head, right?

But that's what she wants done to a baby, but saline injections are sooo much more painful than a merciful bullet to the brain. 

Rodents, especially the slutty teen kind trying to sound intelligent, are such complete hypocrites.

[jmyrlefuller]

I have an even better idea than both of the above suggestions.

Stop treating children like they're ruining your life and recognize that they are a fundamental part of life as a living, breathing member of the animal kingdom. Reproduction keeps the human species moving forward. We are not immortal.

If you're just going to live for yourself, like your pleasure and your status is all that matters, then you, my lady, are a narcissist. And you're consuming scarce resources needed by the rest of the human race to keep us moving forward.

[HoustonSam]

As for rape?   Does Toots support the idea of capital punishment for the alleged rapist? 

Does she support the same right for the young man who will get her pregnant as she asserts for herself : the right to walk away from any obligations scot-free simply because he chooses to?  If she asserts the right to engage in sex leading to pregnancy and then decide that her future will be better without the child, can he make that same decision for himself and be completely free of any accountability?

Or does she argue for the sole, unilateral right to decide on an abortion, such that not only the child's life but also the young man's future financial freedom is completely up to her and her alone?

If it's solely her "choice" then it's also solely her responsibility; why should she be unilaterally empowered to obligate the man to child support?  But like all feminism, abortion is simply about options for women and obligations for men.  Abortion should not be legal at all, but if it is to remain legal then men deserve the same consequence-free option to indulge in irresponsibility simply because of their "dreams."  At least a man's "choice" simply to abandon the child doesn't kill the child.

[Sled Dog]

I have an even better idea than both of the above suggestions.

Stop treating children like they're ruining your life and recognize that they are a fundamental part of life as a living, breathing member of the animal kingdom. Reproduction keeps the human species moving forward. We are not immortal.

If you're just going to live for yourself, like your pleasure and your status is all that matters, then you, my lady, are a narcissist. And you're consuming scarce resources needed by the rest of the human race to keep us moving forward.

while I do not disagree that children are wonderful.   (Mine were....someone else's...? ), there's a time and place, and young people should not be spawning until they're emotionally ready for the task, or the child suffers.

And some whiny broad just graduating from high school how can't figure out that she won't get pregnant if she doesn't have sex is clearly not mature enough to raise a child, and may never mature to that point.   Some apples spoil on the tree.

And another thought about rape:

How about if she carries a concealed pistol so she the remove the part of the rapist that's giving the both of them so much trouble?

I bet she's against the human right to own and carry guns, too.

[Sled Dog]

Does she support the same right for the young man who will get her pregnant as she asserts for herself : the right to walk away from any obligations scot-free simply because he chooses to?  If she asserts the right to engage in sex leading to pregnancy and then decide that her future will be better without the child, can he make that same decision for himself and be completely free of any accountability?

Or does she argue for the sole, unilateral right to decide on an abortion, such that not only the child's life but also the young man's future financial freedom is completely up to her and her alone?

If it's solely her "choice" then it's also solely her responsibility; why should she be unilaterally empowered to obligate the man to child support?  But like all feminism, abortion is simply about options for women and obligations for men.  Abortion should not be legal at all, but if it is to remain legal then men deserve the same consequence-free option to indulge in irresponsibility simply because of their "dreams."  At least a man's "choice" simply to abandon the child doesn't kill the child.

What if the sperm donor unilaterally decides that he's going to identify as a female.   Can he then demand his...HER...right to an abortion be respected?

[Hoodat]

Let me solve this problem for you without having to butcher an innocent and helpless baby…

It’s called adoption.

In Texas, the mother doesn't even have to do that.  Within the first 60 days, any new mother can surrender her baby over to a health care provider with no questions asked without penalty or charge.

[Absalom]

Natural Law, birthed at Creation, has eternal primacy over all Man made Law.
Abortion, the killing of the unborn, is an absolute violation of Natural Law.
This reality was respected and understood from the dawn of Man till the
Enlightenment, traversing multiple hundreds of thousands of years.
We have abandoned the Natural Law as our guidepost and the results are palpable
for which humanity w/pay the ultimate price.
Allowing & encouraging behavior such as abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism
and their kindred psychoses, is the self-infliction of a death sentence on humanity.