A 2020 Democrat frontrunner just destroyed his chances with these four words

33

The 2020 Democrat clown car is putting on quite a performance.

Democrats are all vying for the votes of their most radical base by pushing free healthcare for illegal immigrants, gun control, and $1,000 welfare checks for everyone funded by tax hikes.

But one presidential candidate crossed the line by saying four words that destroyed his chances.

CNN held a town hall for the Democrat presidential primary candidates to talk about their grand schemes to combat so-called “global warming.”

Kamala Harris called for costly and unfounded Justice Department investigations into oil and gas firms.

And Joe Biden called for banning fossil fuel exports.

But Bernie Sanders took the cake.

A member of the audience brought up the idea of population control to stop global warming, and Bernie Sanders said “The answer is ‘yes.’”

He also said the government should actively fund and promote abortion by revoking the Mexico City Policy and get the government into moderating the number of children women have.

The Mexico City Policy was started by Ronald Reagan as a way to defund abortion centers globally.

It makes it illegal for the U.S. to fund non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have anything to do with abortion.

On Trump’s first day in office, he expanded the policy.

Millions of Americans were disgusted by Sanders’s response.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 60 million innocent babies have been murdered.

Self-proclaimed “scientists” have been claiming the world is overpopulated for centuries.

But despite their dire predictions, living conditions across the globe are higher than ever.

There is no population crisis, but there is an abortion crisis.

Do you agree with Bernie Sanders that the government should fund and promote abortions as a means of population control?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

33 COMMENTS

  1. “I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed Rosemary Bottcher in her article “How Do Pro-Choicers ‘Fool’ Themselves?” which originally appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.

    “It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

    Rosemary Bottcher criticized the American Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

    “The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

    “The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

    “The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

    “Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion,” concluded Bottcher.

    “Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother.”

    At a speech before the National Right to Life Convention in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on July 15, 1982, Reverend Richard John Neuhaus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church said:

    “I have a confession to make. I am a liberal. More than that. I am a Democrat… I know that among some pro-life advocates liberalism is almost a dirty word. I know it and I regret it. I know that among others there has been a determined effort to portray the pro-life movement as anti-liberal and, indeed, as reactionary. I know it and I regret it.

    “We are today engaged in a great contest over the meaning of liberalism, over the meaning of liberal democracy, indeed over the meaning of America…Will it be an America that is inclusive, embracing the stranger and giving refuge to the homeless?…Will it be a caring America, nurturing the helpless and protecting the vulnerable?

    “…The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility…

    ”The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right—simply the right to be.

    “There is another and authentically liberal vision of an America that is hospitable to the stranger, holding out arms of welcome to those who would share the freedom and opportunity we cherish. ‘Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me/I lift my lamp beside the golden door.’

    “The unborn child is the ultimate immigrant…The analogy between the unborn and the immigrant may seem strained. I fear, however, that it is painfully to the point.”

    According to Dr. And Mrs. J.C. Willke’s 1988 Handbook on Abortion, a poll was conducted at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, CA, asking: “Should there be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion?” It was found that only nine percent of all delegates to the Convention supported such an Amendment, even though it was supported by 46 percent of all Democrats nationwide.

  2. You’d think the unborn-right-to-lifers would immediately understand the animal-right-to-lifers! The case for animal rights should be readily understandable to the millions of Americans opposed to abortion on demand.

    “Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles,” writes pro-life Democrat Karen Swallow Prior, “there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a Life!’ Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence.”

    The animal rights movement, representing a cross-section of mainstream secular American society, is NOT “officially pro-choice,” but IS divided on abortion. In a 1992 interview on Dennis Prager’s conservative talk show, when specifically asked about the animal rights position on abortion, Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), admitted, “We’re divided.”

    Former television game show host Bob Barker is a conservative Republican and an animal activist. Tony LaRussa of the Animal Rescue Foundation is a political conservative. Vegan labor leader Cesar Chavez was pro-life. Vegan civil rights leader Dick Gregory was pro-life. Former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy, a devout pacifist, has expressed opposition to abortion, and in the 1980s was critical of Reverend Jesse Jackson for having changed sides on the issue.

    Dixie Mahy, past president of the San Francisco Vegetarian Society, has been vegetarian for sixty years, vegan for forty of those sixty years, and identifies herself as pro-life-and-pro-animal Matthew Scully, a conservative Catholic and former speechwriter for George W. Bush identifies himself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.” Catholic Concern for Animals is pro-life-and-pro-animal. Reverend Frank Hoffman’s http://www.all-creatures.org Christian vegan website is pro-life-and-pro-animal Compassion for animals is a fundamental tenet of the Baha’i faith, which endorses vegetarianism, says abortion is more a matter of individual conscience, but concludes, without taking a position on abortion, life should not be destroyed.

    John Stuart Mill wrote: “The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves — the animals.”

    Animals are like children. Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

    In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey writes: “In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us.”

    When told the animal rights movement is divided on abortion, Serrin Foster, Executive Director of Feminists For Life, said understandingly, “The Children’s Defense Fund is also divided on abortion.” Feminists For Life has many vegetarians and vegans. Serrin identifies herself as a vegetarian.

    From 1992 through 2003, James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Buddhist, published Live and Let Live, a pro-life / animal rights / libertarian ‘zine. The ancient eastern reincarnationist religions Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all predate Christianity, all oppose abortion, all teach ahimsa, or nonviolence towards humans and animals alike to the point of vegetarianism, all are vegan-friendly, and all teach that abortion and war are the karma for killing animals, and that therefore, we cannot end abortion nor bring about world peace until first we abolish the killing of animals.

    This knowledge, however, does not rest with everyone. Not all pro-life-and-pro-animal people advocate the reincarnationist strategy for ending abortion and bringing about world peace. Shay Van Vlieman, founder of Vegans For Life in the late ’90s, said she doesn’t expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime: she would just be glad to elect a president who will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insists she is not a Republican, but a libertarian!

    During the late 1990s, Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, feminist, vegan, past president of Feminists For Life, moderated an email list for pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans. Rachel is now a psychology professor, and has written several books on nonviolence. In 1998, the Animals Agenda ran a cover story on the debate within the animal rights movement over abortion. Vegan congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio), one of the most liberal members of Congress, was pro-life throughout most of his political career.

    Pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans are found within the “consistent-ethic” movement: pro-lifers opposed to capital punishment. A significant number of “consistent-ethic” Christians were / are vegetarian or vegan: Rose Evans, Ruth Enero, Rachel MacNair, Albert Fecko, Carol Crossed, Bill Samuel, Mary Krane Derr, Mary Rider, Father John Dear, etc.

    Mary Rider, a practicing Catholic, wrote in Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical in 2002:

    “So we teach our children to walk softly on the earth and to embrace nonviolence as the only legitimate means of conflict resolution, on both a personal and a global level. We are aware of the excessive, privileged life we lead as educated, first world U.S. citizens and of the responsibilities to which our privilege calls us. We try to live simply. We eat low on the food chain. We try to buy nothing new… We try to respect all life and carry that message forward in all we do… Because we value people and relationships over things… First world consumption kills people around the world… Pollution, environmental devastation, corrupt governments, war, sweatshops… all are a are a result of our desire to buy more at a lower price… We believe each person has a right to live a valued and respected life free from hunger and discrimination…”

    The threat of overpopulation is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a human population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans. Even if abortion advocates argue shifting to a plant-based diet, a vegan diet, isn’t enough to stave off overpopulation, in light of the data showing the depletion of energy, food, fresh water, land space, raw materials and resources as well as the heavy contribution to air and water pollution, deforestization, and global warming caused by a meat-centered diet, how do abortion advocates — warning about overpopulation consuming the world’s resources — justify consuming animal products?

    If vegetarianism were merely about “fit” or following a peculiar set of “dietary laws” why are pro-lifers offended by pro-choice vegetarians and pro-choice vegans? Clearly, they’re offended because they know vegetarianism involves the animals’ right to life, and thus these pro-choicers appear to value animal life over human life under some circumstances. And issues like animal experimentation, circuses, and fur have nothing to do with diet, eating, nor food, but do involve the animals’ right to life. Leonardo Da Vinci, Count Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Susan B. Anthony, Percy Shelley, Rosa Parks, etc. were all vegetarian, and none of them were Jewish nor Muslim.

    For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action offers an introduction to animal rights ethics within Christianity alongside directly related sanctity-of-life issues, like the possible rights of unborn children. The book’s foreword is written by Mary Eberstadt, senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, a Catholic who identifies herself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.”

    Author Charles Camosy responds to criticisms from academicians Peter Singer and Lynn White, Jr., that the misinterpretation of “human dominion” (versus compassionate stewardship) is responsible for the current ecological crisis. Camosy indicates that Christianity cannot be blamed if humans with their imperfections distort their own religious teachings, that Christianity did not give rise to the industrial revolution, and that real Christianity — as it was meant to be practiced — is at odds with market-driven ethics and mass consumerism (a point made decades ago by liberal Protestant theologian Dr. Harvey Cox). Camosy concludes: “I became convinced that, if I wanted to be authentically and consistently pro-life, I should give up eating meat.” Dozens of books have been written on Christianity and animal rights. Camosy merely provides an overview of animal ethics in Christianity.

    Steve Kaufman, head of the Christian Vegetarian Association, was raised Jewish, and is now serving in the United Church of Christ, America’s largest pro-choice Protestant denomination. Steve expressed interest in Democrats For Life, his only reservation was whether Democrats For Life favors criminalizing abortion. Some animal advocates and activists (like Catholic vegan columnist Colman McCarthy) oppose abortion, but don’t think criminalization is the answer.

    In 2004, on the Democrats For Life email list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll which found animal activists evenly divided on abortion. This either indicates animal rights really are a bipartisan cause which conservatives can support alongside liberals, or it indicates many liberals are uncomfortable with abortion!

    In 2014, Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  3. Instead of demonizing Democrats, if pro-lifers really want to end abortion, it’s going to have to be bipartisan. I told Jim Frey of Berkeley Pro-Life that we (Democrats) never see pro-lifers venture beyond their own base. Rather than reach across the aisle to Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc., and try to bring them on board with protecting unborn children, they just play to the same old Ronald Reagan / Oliver North crowd.

    If pro-lifers really want to end abortion, opposition to abortion must come from across the political spectrum. Pro-lifers are going to have to venture beyond their own base and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals etc. to distinguish abortion from arguably victimless crimes like marijuana; to argue on secular grounds that the unborn are persons (secular arguments are religion-neutral, and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics) and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc. to see the killing of the unborn on par with domestic violence, hate crimes against LGBTs, etc.; and make the case to Americans that it’s possible to protect prenatal life without taking to draconian measures violating a new mother’s privacy and civil liberties in this regard.

    Robert Casey, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said he believed a pro-life liberal Democrat would easily be elected president: conservatives would vote for a pro-lifer, and liberals would vote for a Democrat articulating opposition to abortion as a secular and nonsectarian civil rights issue. In 1994, even archconservative Pat Buchanan had kind words for Robert Casey! If pro-life Democrats had greater visibility in past decades, perhaps Carol Crossed would have been the first female speaker of the House.

    After the 2016 election losses, Nancy Pelosi admits that the Democratic Party’s support of abortion has not been a winning issue. Pelosi spoke to the Washington Post about whether her party should support pro-life candidates or require that candidates support easy access to taxpayer-funded abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

    Struggling after heavy election losses in 2016, many in the Democratic Party are debating whether to support pro-life candidates, especially in rural areas where voters tend to be pro-life. Some, like Pelosi, appear to be recognizing that the party’s support of abortion-on-demand-up-to-birth is losing them voters.

    Unfortunately, rather than seeing the abortion issue as a real loser for Democrats, especially in red states (crucial with winning the Electoral College!), Pelosi blamed Hillary Clinton’s loss on pro-life voters themselves! Clinton supported the unpopular platform of forcing taxpayers to directly fund abortions, and she promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand up until birth, if elected.

    Pelosi told the Washington Post : “You know what? That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States—the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president. Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively by that.”

    Pelosi, who supports abortion but describes herself as a Catholic, said many in her Catholic family are pro-life. She also mentioned U.S. Sen. Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, a Democrat with a mixed record on abortion.

    “You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?” Pelosi said.

    Jay Ware, a black Democrat in Illinois, said on the Democrats For Life email list as early as 2004 that it should be automatic: just as the Republican Party supports pro-choice candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger in blue states like New York and California where pro-lifers can’t win and even has Republican president George W. Bush campaign for them, Jay Ware said the Democratic Party should similarly support pro-life Democrats in red states where pro-choicers can’t win, and have Democratic presidents campaign for pro-life Democrats, etc.

    “The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

    –Hubert H. Humphrey

    Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

    Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

    Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

    Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion”destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

    Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

    Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted.” However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

    During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

    A “conscience clause” which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014, “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  4. In 1991, when I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area from conservative San Diego, my friend from college, Chris Hull (attending grad school at UC Berkeley) told me my pro-life views probably wouldn’t be accepted here.

    I countered that there are *liberal* pro-life groups, like Feminists For Life.

    Chris reacted with disbelief, mimicking Richard Nixon leaving the White House in disgrace in 1974, his hands outstretched, giving the “V-for-Victory” sign… as if by referring to “pro-life liberals” I was describing some nonexistent “silent majority.”

    In early 1992, I contacted Feminists For Life, and told them I’m into animal rights and pro-life feminism. Feminists For Life gave me contact information for SF Bay Area residents Rose Evans and Ruth Enero.

    I was told Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical on the religious left, is supportive of animal issues.

    Rose sent me back issues of Harmony, and some pro-life liberal bumper stickers. When I asked her about the Seamless Garment Network, referred to throughout Harmony, she explained:

    The Seamless Garment Network (SGN) is a coalition of peace and justice organizations on the religious left. The SGN takes a stand against war, abortion, poverty, racism, the arms race, the death penalty and euthanasia. Animal rights, like ecology, nuclear power, gun control, or the drug war, is a topic of serious discussion among SGN members. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has signed the SGN Mission Statement.

    “We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, the arms race, the death penalty and euthanasia.

    “We believe these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.”

    When I attended a pro-life meeting in Pleasanton, CA, I was surrounded by conservatives. They reacted with mild skepticism when I said I see many parallels between animal rights and prenatal rights (thoroughly documented in my 2006 book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion).

    They could tell right away that I’m a pro-life liberal. They were all praising Rush Limbaugh, who I’d never heard of before, and saying, amused, “Oh, you’d like him…”

    One woman said she was home-schooling her kids, distrustful of the public schools, and said she was pleased by Rush Limbaugh’s referring to feminists as “feminazis.”

    When I told her it’s hard to trust Bush Sr. on abortion as being genuinely pro-life as he ran for president in 1980 as a pro-choice Republican, saying he disagreed with Ronald Reagan about Roe v. Wade, etc., she replied, “I’m voting for Pat Buchanan.”

    “I couldn’t do that,” I responded, and said instead, “Jerry Brown. If he were pro-life, he’d be perfect.”

    One gentleman was a high school biology teacher and clearly a conservative. When I asked him how he deals with teaching his students evolution, he said he teaches evolution, but points out the flaws in evolutionary theory as well.

    But he said with regret that America has been on a moral decline since prayers were removed from the public schools.

    I was thinking to myself, “My God, there are actually people who hold these views!”

    As I was leaving the pro-life meeting, the woman who said she was home-schooling her kids and a friend of hers saw me near my car, adorned with pro-life liberal bumper stickers (many thanks to Rose!), and said, “Oh, we wondered whose car that was. Liberal and pro-life bumper stickers.”

    I answered, “Haven’t you heard of the Seamless Garment Network?” (even though I hadn’t heard about it myself until earlier in the year!)

    She responded, “Yes, we’ve heard of it. It was started by some leftist Cardinal. We refer to it as the ‘straightjacket network.’”

    “Seamy!” said Ruth Enero, in a phone conversation years later, saying that’s how one of her relatives referred to the SGN.

    In 1993, when I was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as a contract employee (fortunately, none of my work was defense-related!), my friend Terry Burt, a Vietnam veteran and a pro-choice Democrat, liked to listen to Rush Limbaugh, even though he disagreed with Rush Limbaugh on abortion… Terry Burt, apparently unaware of Atheists For Life, Democrats For Life, Feminists For Life, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), the SGN, etc., considered opposition to abortion to be an extremely conservative position… and couldn’t understand my identifying myself as a pro-life Democrat!

    “I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher, in the Tallahassee Democrat. “It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

    The only frustration I have with the left, therefore, is its failure to see abortion as a secular human rights issue… especially those who claim to espouse nonviolence, e.g., are antinuclear or antiwar, or support nonviolent civil disobedience.

    During the spring of 1989, for example, a huge “pro-choice” rally in Washington, DC was endorsed by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Studies in Atlanta. The abortion issue was framed solely in terms of “choice,” rather than in terms of the possible rights of the unborn, possibly violating someone else’s rights, endorsed by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Studies, etc. I found this incredibly Orwellian! It’s like many on the left have trouble seeing abortion as a secular human rights issue; seeing it as an act of violence against the unborn.

    Similarly, in the mid-‘90s, a group of recording artists released an album benefiting the abortion rights movement: Born to Choose. The title also struck me as Orwellian: We are “born to choose” whether or not someone else may be born “to choose.”

    And in 2007, I saw a car with two bumper stickers: one of them read “Create Peace” and the other read “Pro-Choice.” The owner of the car apparently saw no contradiction between the two slogans.

    If pro-lifers really want to end abortion, opposition is going to have to come from across the political spectrum, and not just from the far right. Instead of playing to the same old “Ronald Reagan / Oliver North” crowd, pro-life Republicans are going to have to cross party lines, reach across the aisle, and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc. to see killing of the unborn on par with domestic violence, hate crimes against LGBTs, etc.

    The animal rights movement, like the Democratic Party, is dominated by secular progressives. The animal rights movement, like the Democratic Party, is divided on the issue of abortion, and so far, pro-lifers haven’t even managed to convince the majority of animal activists that killing the unborn is on par with killing animals, what to speak of distinguishing abortion from arguably victimless crimes like marijuana, etc.

    Some pro-life liberals who immediately come to my mind are former Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff — a self-described “liberal Jewish atheist”; writer and former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy; the late governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania; and Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, human rights and women’s rights activist, and environmentalist. Of course, I can’t forget Carol Crossed of Democrats For Life, either, who was kind enough to write the foreword to my own 2006 book on the subject.

    A popular liberal bumper sticker reads: “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when the state of Texas executes one!”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

    • You left out that they should look into why you are such a WHACK JOB. Everything you just stated is ILLEGAL. The only thing it will bring on is population control when the civil war breaks out. But you are not going to like it. You will be one of the first ones killed.

      • This is one deranged human being. And quite a loser who has all this time on his hands to write these long, drawn out, boring and factless posts. I suggest population control is in order, starting with this troll.

      • “When you are with other people” what an assumption! I doubt Vasu has seen the light of day in years. Grandma just tosses down a sandwich every day or so and he keeps copying and pasting…its what he does best.

  5. Bernie Sanders is an old decrepit sicko but somewhat he did say about the one thing that is wrong with our planet.
    We (myself included) are too many, especially in China and India and the need for food and WATER is turning the planet sideways, somewhere recently I read that !!

    • If you’d do a little research, you would find that most of the developed countries are suffering from a lack of population–they are almost all below replacement level, despite what the climate change hysterics would have us believe. China’s problem is that they have had the one-child policy imposed on them for so long they now have far more men than women and they may never regain a balance.

  6. Murdering the most HELPLESS of all citizens, the unborn child is an ABOMINATION. That, right there, should EXCLUDE anyone from the qualification of POTUS. That unborn citizen IS A CITIZEN, and declaring open season with such a BARBERIC procedure is MURDER, against the U.S. Criminal Code. It is also against the Word of God, The Bible (Proverbs, Chapter 6). There is NO CLIMATE CRISIS, NO OVERPOPULATION. Only REPROBATES like BERNIE SANDERS who wants to be the next DICTATOR. DO NOT VOTE for this reprobate!!! That goes for the REST of the DEMOCRATS as well . . . Team Trump and his allies 2020.

  7. LMAO! He just contradicted what RvW is all about! The woman’s “right to choose”…

    These Libs just cannot stay on the same road… they have no principles at all!

    Set aside the FACT that abortion is simply the MURDER of an INNOCENT child…

    They cannot stay consistent… either you are for a woman’s right to choose or not… Oh, now I understand, it is only OK if they want to kill the baby!! Not if they want to have the baby!!!

  8. How can these people talk about killing babies like it is nothing.Within the last 30 months I was with 3 people as they took their last breaths on this planet.My Mother, My Mother in Law and my Wife. The thing that got my attention and made me contemplate life and afterlife and many other things.All 3 of these people in their final hours talking to someone that I could not see and I am not talking about delusional rants by coherent speech names were even used.This makes me wonder if there are things we have no knowledge and people like Alyssa Milano who is proud of her self for killing 2 babies and Politicians who act like abortion is a good way to take care of an inconvenience instead of murder.I am not saying what it means but I would hope these people would think about what they are doing and maybe ask God for forgiveness

  9. And they call Trump racist? All he wants to do is have people immigrate to this country legally. Bernie wants to help kill their children.

  10. I can understand having an abortion if it’s due to rape or some sick family member getting someone pregnant but it would be in the first trimester. My main question is, is when does a person or baby fall under the protection of the Constitution? I would say as soon as a heart beat is detected.

  11. I’m tired of my wife I think I will abort herbshouldn’t men have a right to control there life just like a woman. Hummm would love a good answer to what is the difference from one of these super smart libs

    • No, but I do agree if a woman can decide to abort 50% of the genetic material provided by the man against his will- and he has no say in it – as it is her body- then he should be allowed to say he will not support the child she decides to keep against his will. If he wanted an abortion and she decides to give birth then it is only fair he can opt-out of paying for it for the next 18 yrs. After all, it is his body, his choice, he should not have to pay against his will- Right?!

      Oh, I am a woman so this is not sexist this if fairness!
      You see this is what the world would be if leftist did not get to pick and choose who has rights and who does not.

  12. LMAO Vasu past your 4 books to see if any one else had some thing to really say and guess what? There was!
    Bernie you are a hypocrite.

  13. These leftists are really one sick bunch!! It’s almost they though they are playing a demented game as to whom can come up with the most disgusting or irrational platform to back and run with it!! This idea actually sounds like a page right out of Hitler’s manifesto …. And Leftists followers call us racists and brainwashed!
    OMG!!!!

  14. Glynn: I do not believe in abortion but I do believe in birth control. Any one that is receiving any type of government assistance should be sterilized, male and female, after their first child is born. This would help the U.S. both financilly and help not having unwanted children with abortion. Abortion is murder.

  15. So, apparently, Sanders now wants to be President of the World and dictate that everyone can have only a specific number of children (number as yet unspecified but I am sure he will want to make sure to reduce those white people- you know to ease his woke white guilt.) He does realize the average American family has 1.9 children- meaning we are having fewer children than the number of parents to replace!

    If he wants to tell Africa to have more abortions fine go there and Run for their president- or join the UN and become one of their interfering busybodies- But do not expect the American Taxpayers to fund it!
    At least not until after you have solved ALL Of Americas Problems- Zero Homeless People, Zero Drug Problem, Zero Mentally Ill, Zero Children without Fathers, and on and on…Then we can talk about the procreation of people from other countries!

    But how come I get the feeling when he limits the number of babies (since we all know he has a problem with listening to them cry) he will not expect it from the illegals – they will be allowed as many as they like right? And his argument will be- as the left says- the Americans are having too few babies!

  16. Maybe someone should ask the Chinese how well forced-abortions and 1 child law went for them- So well that they undid it a few years ago and are able to have multiple kids again, so well that there are literally entire villages of 20 something males without a single girl in sight- So well they raised a generation of spoiled over-indulged brats, so well they aborted millions more baby girls than boys!

    So Bernie has four kids and I think 5 grandkids- so two of his kids and three of his grandkids is he ready to abort to save the planet?!

  17. How to Debate Liberals on Abortion:

    John Morrow, a pro-life Christian taking a stand against abortion on secular human rights grounds, converted me to the pro-life cause, when he was debating pro-choice liberals (and they were dominating the discussion!) on USENET, from 1986 – 1988.

    Prior, I was under the impression that abortion was solely a “religious” issue, and we shouldn’t impose our “religious beliefs” upon others.

    The sad irony is many pro-lifers see animal rights not as social and moral progress for all mankind, but as someone else’s “religious belief” which they think doesn’t apply to them. A lot of people look at abortion that way, too, you know!

    1. John Morrow said he disagreed with the Republicans for failing to provide enough social support for children once they’re born.

    In 1992, pro-life Democrat Robert Casey said he would strongly support Lynn Yeakel who was then running against pro-choice Republican Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.

    Yeakel favored abortion-rights, too, but, Casey said, “we agree on all the other issues.”

    Casey stated further that he would not leave the Democratic Party. The anti-abortion Republicans, he insisted, “drop the children at birth and do nothing for them after that.”

    Barney Frank similarly commented that for Republicans, “Life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

    2. John Morrow said his opposition to capital punishment led him to oppose abortion.

    3. John Morrow compared discrimination against the unborn to homophobia and xenophobia when debating pro-choice liberals.

    4. John Morrow said he supported sex education.

    5. John Morrow said he supported contraception.

    6. John Morrow said when Roe v. Wade came down, a different set of morals was in place: even mainstream secular American society would not accept single mothers, there were “shotgun weddings,” homes for unwed mothers, etc.

    I must point out that when the Mary Tyler Moore show premiered in 1970, they decided against making her character a *divorced* woman, thinking Americans weren’t ready for it!

    7. And John Morrow said health care in the U.S. should be “federalized” i.e., “socialized, like it is in the UK.”

    We Democrats have been pushing for health care reform since Harry Truman.

    (When I repeat John Morrow’s arguments, the right wing attacks me.)

    “The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

    –Hubert H. Humphrey

    Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

    Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

    Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

    Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion ”destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

    Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

    Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted.” However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

    During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

    A “conscience clause” which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here