This article from Elizabeth Spiers in the NYT is true, bats*** lunacy. Let us examine the ways. nytimes.com/2021/12/03/opi…
1. Bearing a child and giving it up for adoption is significantly less difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic for the child than, you know, stabbing it in the head and sucking it into a sink.
2. Adoption is often a pretty good thing, as the author acknowledges. But wait...she'll buy it back momentarily.
3. Your birth mom wanted to give birth to you and give you up for adoption, and you benefitted from that. Now you argue that your birth mom is upset she missed years with you. You know what would have stolen all of the years? ALL OF THEM? Killing you in the womb.
4. Both your birth mom and adopted mom are happy with the adoption decision. But you're paternalistic enough to doubt their happiness.
5. You also resent being "used as a political football" because you were adopted. Glad you're here to resent things. You know what would have prevented that? You being aborted.
6. You say that you think abortion is a form of health care. But this entire article is an acknowledgement that abortion takes a life, because you're here to write the article.
7. You say that Maria still feels the pain of adoption and you say that adoption is traumatizing. You know what could be painful for the mother and is certainly both painful, traumatizing and deadly for the child? You guessed it.
8. You say adoption is not an "unalloyed good," that there are no "right or wrong answers." I'm pretty sure I found the wrong answer, though: killing you in the womb.
9. This take that human biology is an imposition is completely pathological. "Forced to give birth" implies that the intervention is the pregnancy rather than the abortion. And the "biological design" by which you become attached to your child is not an evil. This is sick.
10. If you're worried that the biological bond between mother and child will be "taken away" by adoption, I know of something else that will take away that bond. Permanently. It rhymes with shmabortion.
11. Adoption is certainly less traumatic for the child -- remember, the person writing this is a woman who was adopted -- than being killed.
12. She says there's a difference between 40 weeks and 4 weeks, but it is doubtful she would be fine with late term abortion restrictions.
13. BIOLOGICAL BRAINWASHING???!!!! To love your kid????!!!!!
14. More "biological brainwashing" insanity. And you have to love the argument that a mother can't choose to put her child up for adoption because of that biological brainwashing but can choose to kill it.
15. Then she makes the utterly specious argument that pro-lifers ignore the problems of child-rearing. That argument is always idiotic...
...Pro-lifers do care about raising kids. But the argument itself is nonsensical. It is like arguing that we should not ban murder of the homeless unless we also provide them state-subsidized housing. You can argue for the housing, but the ban on murder is non-negotiable.
16. Only Democrats talk about women being "punished" with a child, a la Barack Obama. No pro-lifer talks this way.
17. I can think of a trauma for a child far worse than relinquishment trauma. Can you?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Iran's attack on Israel is unprecedented. It is obviously and definitionally an act of direct war, after years of using proxies to attack Israel. The scale of the success of the allied defense against Iran's assault is near-miraculous. 🧵
And Iran should be grateful that defense worked. Iran is a terror state, and it is the leading cause of conflict in the region. Only the technological superiority of Israel's defenses, the intervention of the United States, and the coordination of Sunni states prevented the attack from starting World War III: if Iran had been successful, Israel would have had no choice but to devastate Iran.
Iran did this because they believed there was daylight between the Biden administration and Israel -- daylight created by the absurd position of the United States trying to stop Israel from finishing off Hamas.
1/ BREAKING: Following my reporting on rampant DEI in medical schools, U.S. Congressman Greg Murphy, MD, is introducing legislation to end federal funding — including student loan funding — for any medical school that practices DEI. 🧵
2/ The bill, called the Educate ACT, would ban the anti-white admissions standards that Duke uses to hire surgeons, which I exposed last month. Murphy tells me that the DEI policies at Duke are “repulsive” and need to end.
3/ Here’s what @RepGregMurphy told me: “Duke’s attempt to obliterate a fair and colorblind admissions process to hurt white, male applicants is repulsive. This is not art school for goodness’ sake. Lives are on the line in operating rooms, hospitals, and clinics. Color and gender have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to successfully diagnose and treat patients. Such an attempt to inject this notion into medicine is beyond sinister. My bill will put an end to this nonsense once and for all.”
1/ BREAKING: We've obtained internal emails from UCLA's medical school -- supposedly one of the best in the country. If you want to understand how DEI and anti-white, anti-American hatred have been mainlined into the medical profession, you need to see this.🧵
2/ These emails come from a mandatory class called "Structural Racism and Health Equity." UCLA med students are told to read about wars of “Indigenous resistance” – in which Native Americans killed thousands of white people – to “imagine what liberation could look like."
3/ Students are also taught about "Blackness and Indigeneity" & "how we can imagine a world in the aftermath of settler colonialism and white supremacy." Just to really drive home the point, students are also urged to read an article titled, "Decolonization is Not a Metaphor."
1/ DEI in medicine means that even if doctors injure patients, they might still be protected (even promoted). It means that top hospitals are abandoning key metrics when hiring surgeons. And it means research by whites may be disregarded. Here’s what I've found… 🧵
2/ Sources tell me Wake Forest Medical School is about to graduate Kychelle Del Rosario – the med student who injured a conservative patient and bragged about it. Wake Forest allowed Rosario to lay low and take a voluntary leave of absence when this scandal broke.
3/ I’m also told that UPenn Health has hired Ewen Liu, Del Rosario’s classmate who said it “seemed ‘karma-tic’” when she injured the patient who mocked her pronoun pin. Wake Forest showered Liu with awards for excellence in patient care, and she now focuses on “LGBTQ+ Health.”
2/ GARM has subjective guidelines for what it considers “safe” for advertising, and its corporate partners seem to be interpreting these convoluted rules to fit a narrative. Here's their “Brand Safety Floor” - “content not appropriate for any advertising support.”
3/ How are @LOrealGroupe (Garnier) & @Mastercard’s sponsorships of bondage & strippers at this NYC Pride Parade not “Adult & Explicit Sexual Content,” and a “Sensitive Social Issue?" Is this “safe?”
🧵Here’s how the World Economic Forum is quietly working to demonetize and deplatform right-of-center voices, including @realDailyWire, using authoritarian tactics and hall monitor “fact-checkers” like @NewsGuardRating.
2/ 90% of all global ad dollars are controlled by members of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), which includes brands like @Hersheys @Disney @ProcterGamble. In 2019, they launched the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), which was then adopted by the WEF.
3/ GARM is an unholy alliance between huge advertisers and social media companies like Google’s YouTube, China’s TikTok, Meta’s Facebook & Instagram, and even Twitter/X and Snapchat. GARM developed something they call the “brand safety floor & suitability framework.”