So, electing Trump and his administration proposing the end of birthright citizenship is what it took to make 'The New York Times' admit the preborn aren't just a clump of cells. It's about time.
We’ve finally found what it takes for The New York Times to admit unborn babies are not just a clump of cells pic.twitter.com/je6g9MgnL7
— Cabot Phillips (@cabot_phillips) January 22, 2025
Wow this is telling. Unborn children suddenly become living children to leftists when it’s convenient https://t.co/mpgYFfZ2cV
— Diana Silva (@P21Silva) January 22, 2025
It's crazy because usually Leftists view children as very inconvenient.
It's only a baby if the woman wants it born. https://t.co/064o8mSuZ6
— David Shelton (@JeorgeIII) January 22, 2025
It's only a citizen if the United States wants it to be. Funny how that works.
While the Senate votes for infanticide… https://t.co/LTXAU6XMGy
— Lynne Marie Kohm (@LynneMarieKohm) January 22, 2025
It makes zero sense.
Wow, imagine that. https://t.co/4QUPDQxdXL
— HASOTTEE (@HASOTTEE) January 22, 2025
NYT double standards. Showing true colors. Suddenly unborn children are persons when it’s convenient for their narrative https://t.co/j6wL1kqivc
— Buffy Coat (@BuffyCoaty) January 22, 2025
Of course.
Alignment with the revolution—that's what it takes for the NY Times to say unborn babies aren't just a clump of cells. https://t.co/1MdE2gzJjD pic.twitter.com/v9IADWuP4a
— Yuri Bezmenov's Ghost (@Ne_pas_couvrir) January 22, 2025
If we call the unborn baby a 'citizen', shouldn't it be murder if we kill him or her in the womb? Isn't that violence in the womb?
Probably not, it’s a “clump of cells” right? Right? https://t.co/9rHDyp2v3l
— RXDLXGHTS (@rxdlxghts_) January 22, 2025
So, if we deport the mother who is here illegally before her 'clump of cells' is born, this becomes a non argument, right? Maybe any visitor visas should state a woman must leave the United States if they are pregnant with a clump of cells because we won't allow a clump of cells to magically become a baby here.
Your unborn WHAT?! https://t.co/sJzOlCpQBc
— ProWomanProLife (@MCron1906) January 22, 2025
This is a real departure from their usual language.
What’s this “unborn child” stuff? 😀
— JBLS (@csd9byptmr) January 22, 2025
Babies not intended to be slaughtered are…babies, even to leftists. https://t.co/XdGi734zkc
We’ve finally found what it takes for The New York Times to admit unborn babies are not just a clump of cellshttps://t.co/HpAYBHj5Pf
— Brenda (@BrendaBrundus) January 22, 2025
Seems as if they are just a bunch of their mother's cells, they should take on the same citizenship status of her. That seems fair. If Mom isn't a citizen, neither are her cells.
Clump of birthright cells
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) January 22, 2025
That will be their next claim.
Is the NYT admitting here that only women have babies?
— JWW13 (@JWarrenW) January 22, 2025
It sounds like this is exactly what they are saying.
And they don’t say pregnant person. They say woman and her unborn baby. It is truth but also more sympathetic. 😌
— BCN Blogger (@YourBCN) January 22, 2025
Shhhh.. it's only a clump of cells if the baby isn't an illegal alien shhh
— ☾ . j i k o ⋆₊ ‧ ˚⊹ (@lisey_ann) January 22, 2025
Obviously.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member