If you support ending new human life up to the point of birth, then I doubt there’s much hope of convincing you that a heartbeat is something worth protecting. Democrats (at least most elected ones) fit into that box, and if they don’t, their party crams them in there or harasses them until they quit.
And ironically, they don’t really have a choice.
The “people before the politics” party does not brook dissent on the matter. You follow their lead, or you are the enemy. So, politics before people, not that you didn’t know that or see it coming. That is why they are unhappy about a recent ruling out of Alabama regarding the personhood of frozen embryos. It pute people before politics by giving personhood status to the unborn.
The state’s highest court decided that “extrauterine children” – or unborn children “located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed” – are children, and they are covered under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor law.” It is an obscure example that does not exactly apply to unborn children inside the uterus, but it has opened a door that the conception to live-birth abortion advocates can’t abide; if Alabama got that, it could spread like a virus.
If the unborn are recognized as people, they have rights, and you can’t indiscriminately kill them. If they can’t kill them, all that tax money laundered to Planned Parenthood returns to Democrats as campaign contributions dries up. How, then – given the complete disregard for young women’s privacy and safety (transwomen) – do they keep them voting for team blue? Related: The Baby Killers in the Lump of Cells Collective Just Had a Narrative Aborted
Personhood is a recurring problem for the political Left, where it is more likely to take precedence on the right. Parents before politics, if you like. Part of which is the rights of the unborn recognized in the Alabama decision.
A local constituent of Democrat NH House Rep Tommy Hoyt asked if he would submit legislation in New Hampshire to advance a similar position in the state to protect the unborn.
Hoyt, a proper lockstep Democrat, responded as you’d expect but with a narrative bonus that could have legs all the way to November.
For those unfamiliar, hamburger is ground beef.
You grind beef, after which you can create something that might look like this.
As opposed to this.
Hamburger heart? It’s an interesting assumption, which I assume means that Mr. Hoyt objected to illegal fetal organ harvesting by groups like Planned Parenthood (busted in 2015) because what possible good could that hamburger be to some other ‘baby’? And if the heart is hamburger, what are the other organs collected as viable transplants?
Not hamburger. Liver, that seems easy enough. Kidney, Lung tissues that our baby-making elites might need in the event their newborn children (Wagyu beef) need some sort of biological enrichment.
I didn’t have the time to chase down Hoyt’s reaction, if any, to the practice, but if I had to guess, he defended it without contradiction or any sense of hypocrisy. Choice and all.
I could be wrong.
