Northam: Kill The Babies (Because They Might Get Sad)

NorthamGala

Democratic wannabe Ralph Northam’s campaign has yet to repudiate this disgusting ad done on his behalf, but the sentiment is growing among reporters and activists who have seen this that the “cloak and dagger” third-party ads — easily deniable but obviously directed — go way beyond the pale:

4 in 10 unintended pregnancies will end in termination..

But it’s okay…

Thanks to the ability to choose, children are being spared from the anxiety, and the remorse of being born into families that don’t love them, and having to deal with abuse, or even abandonment

Yes, ladies and gentlemen.  These are actual quotes from this disgusting ad celebrating abortion.

Watch the ad.  The first :30 are the worst 30 seconds of your life.

…unless you’re a baby in the womb, in which case you have the right to DIE!!

This is what Ralph Northam believes. Unless his campaign is willing to tell us otherwise.

UPDATE:  …oh this just gets classier and classier.  Guess who Northam had make this ad?  An 8th grader.  For a high school civics class, no less.

At least, so sayeth the comments section on some places…

1392704_10101383021445986_1034079504_n

To review, if you want to put out a scurrilous attack on your opponent… have an 8th grader do it.  Because that means whenever someone questions it, you’re attacking a poor kid.

…nevermind Northam’s total lack of ethics to have an 8th grader carry his water on abortion to begin with — if that story is true at all.

Slick move, though.  Shocked that some Democrats are defending it; not entirely shocked that certain Democrats are…

 

DEVELOPING…

 

  • Qwanza

    “Hush little baby, don’t say a word,

    Ralph’s gonna abort to keep you unheard.”

  • Catherine Stone McNickle

    What the hell is that? This man is a pediatric neurologist ( he will tell you this 10 times in 30 seconds), you know – a doctor that is supposed to help babies, some of which have been born prematurely. So he would rather they be aborted so that they don’t have to live some type of diminished life? What about handicapped children – are they better off dead?

  • Turbocohen
  • Turbocohen

    So.. if a late term baby is aborted, does it have a birth certificate with a death certificate printed on the other side?

  • Turbocohen

    “preemies that have lived that were less developed than some of the abortions were.”

    • Catherine Stone McNickle

      Thank you for sharing that, I wish this realization had happened to Ralph Northam. I wish he did not celebrate killing babies “that might have a hard life”.

    • David Obermark

      Trying to compare late term abortions to efforts to save newborn babies obfuscated the issue.

      Once again, trying to achieve compromise, I will put forth this.

      Most abortions occur prior to the end of the 1st trimester. There is no scientific evidence that that which is forming in the womb of the woman has anything approaching consciousness until around the 14th week of development. If it is incapable of thought, the soul is not yet present.

      14 weeks for freedom of choice, because another “person” is not yet involved. Greater restrictions after the 14th week, because now there is another person involved, a person who can not yet speak for themselves. While I describe myself as pro-choice, I would ask women to choose early, and then stick with the choice they made.

      Let us compromise on this issue. I am going to keep supporting unreasonable NARAL until you Pro-Lifers get reasonable. I have to choose the lesser of two evils because your side wants to make birth control illegal (you say that at the point of conception we have a person).

      • Tommy Valentine

        You don’t have consciousness until age 2, at least. So let’s kill them too!

        • David Obermark

          What? I understand that NARAL might try to argue that a fetus is incapable of consciousness, however even they will not try to argue that consciousness is not reached until age 2.

          • Tommy Valentine

            I’m simply following your logic. If first trimester abortions are okay due to lack of consciousness, then post-birth abortions must be okay too until consciousness is achieved.

          • David Obermark

            You are not following my logic. My logic is that at about the 14th week, the fetus achieves consciousness. If you followed my logic, then newborn infants would also possess consciousness.

            Actually, consciousness might not be quite the correct word and my vocabulary is too limited to come up with a better word. I had a young Medical Doctor tell me that the fetus is naturally anesthetized while in the womb. I do not think he is correct on that, but perhaps it is naturally sedated.

            My point is that it is at about the 14th week where some fetuses exhibit brain waves of the type which is evidence of higher order brain functioning (some start a couple weeks later). It is at this point that the woman now carries a new “person” in her womb. Prior to that it is only a mindless mass of tissue.

            Perhaps I have found a better word. At about 14 weeks the fetus has developed a mind. It is now a person. Religious people might describe it as now having a soul.

          • Tommy Valentine

            Brain waves begin at 4-6 weeks. You’re operating under a false premise.

          • David Obermark

            But there are different types of brain waves. Some of them are only associated with biological functioning such as heart beating and breathing. There are no brain waves of the type associated with higher order brain functioning prior to the 14th week.

          • Tommy Valentine

            Source?

          • David Obermark

            I have to go to bed. I will prove it if necessary for me to do so, to but I ask you to explore what you think is correct for yourself by yourself. While you explore, you will learn so much more on this issue.

            I know I can provide the link if I have to. The link to the study exists on my blog. You should be able to get the same results from a google without my doing all the work.

            YOU PROVIDE THE LINKS to refute my assertions. Perhaps you will claim like pro-lifers that a single cell fertilized egg is capable of possessing a mind and deserves to be treated as a person? Prove it.

            With a little work I can prove it, but for your side it is impossible.

          • Tommy Valentine

            Your assertions are based on the idea that personhood begins when the “mind”, according to your definition, exists. Your definition of personhood as beginning at this point is entirely arbitrary.

          • David Obermark

            It is not arbitrary. It is based upon when the portions of the brain that have to do with reasoning become functional. If the fetus can not think, it is not yet a person.

            Yesterday, when I had some free time, I went back through my blog trying to find the link I previously referred to. The link was dead, so I took my own advice and googled the subject. The last time I looked at this, there was not much available to be found, but in the ensuing years, quite a few sources have appeared. It appears my assertion that brain waves appear at 14 weeks was in error, it is more like 20 to 25 weeks. Here is one source for this which appears to be rather reputable:

            http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

            Note that it states that consistent fetal brain wave patterns appear around week 25.

          • Tommy Valentine

            I say again: arbitrary.

          • David Obermark

            Here’s the definition of arbitrary from Merriam Webster:

            “not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence”

            I choose to base that a fetus becomes a person when there is scientific evidence that it is capable of higher order brain functions (thinking), so my position clearly is not arbitrary according to the definition.

            I would imagine that you support that the zygote became a person from the moment of conception. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning on this and why that would not be arbitrary? What evidence is it based upon?

          • Tommy Valentine

            You are seeking to impose your philosophy on others.

          • David Obermark

            How is that? If anything, I have heard NARAL advocates say things like “If you disagree with abortion, then do not have one, nobody is trying to force you to.” Even they are not trying to impose their “philosophy” on anyone, except for that which might be a person in the mother’s womb.

            I am at least in favor of some restrictions on abortion. If I am seeking to impose my philosophy on anyone, then it is on those who agree with NARAL completely.

          • Tommy Valentine

            You are seeking to impose your philosophy of when life begins. There can only be two positions on when life objectively begins: conception, or birth. Everything else is arbitrary, i.e. your position that life begins when what you perceive to be higher brain function which translates into consciousness begins.

          • David Obermark

            I didn’t say life. Even a cow we slaughter for food is alive and it has a brain. But when should a fetus be considered a person? Not until it has more brain function then a cow.

            If you insist that from the point of conception we have a person then you should become a vegetarian.

          • Tommy Valentine

            You are seeking to impose
            your philosophy of when life begins. There can only be two positions on
            when personhood objectively begins: conception, or birth. Everything else is
            arbitrary, i.e. your position that personhood begins when what you perceive to
            be higher brain function which translates into consciousness begins.

          • David Obermark

            How convenient for you that what you define as not being arbitrary positions just happen to match the two most extreme, uncompromising positions on this issue. I guess you are trusting to choose between the extremes, the majority will side with you.

            Wrong. Your side is trying to make birth control illegal by making a zygote (single cell fertilized egg) a person. I think both extremes are evil and not at all arbitrary, but neither side recognizes the evidence available.

            I would suggest that there is nothing “objective” in either of the two positions you point to as not being arbitrary other then trying to amplify the positions of the two extremes on this issue.

          • Tommy Valentine

            Sorry, I just don’t consider opposing murder to be extreme.

          • David Obermark

            It is because I believe that you would describe aborting even a single cell, fertilized egg as being murder that I would call you extreme. The pro-choice side also has its extremists. It would be accurate to describe that those holding positions at the farthest point possible from the center as being extremists (that goes for both sides).

        • MD Russ

          That has to be one of the most asinine assertions that I have ever heard.

  • Catherine Stone McNickle

    I’m more disturbed that an 8th grader made this video. WTH?

  • Manny

    Better dead than on anxieties meds?

  • mattattack911

    Is there any evidence in the comments that the author of this post is relying upon that Northam had the 8th grader make this for him? Reading this it comes across that the repugnant video was made by some kid who doesn’t know better, Northam’s campaign hasn’t said anything about it because they don’t want to draw attention to something like this or yell at an 8th grader, and this blog is desperate to throw stuff at the wall and see if they can register some damage because the ship is going down.

    If Northam actually did promote this, that’s shameful, and I apologize for being wrong. But if it’s just some kid who supports him, what the hell are you guys doing posting this?

    • JK

      Is there any evidence that the author of the video is an 8th grader?

      • mattattack911

        Just the comment that the author of this post cited. We do know that it wasn’t from the Northam campaign officially. All I’m saying is that this is way too tenuous to post “total lack of ethics” in all bold and act like it’s anything more than grasping at straws. There are plenty of principled reasons to oppose Northam, including his stance on abortion, but not that some moron made a dumb video in support of him.

      • jus sayin

        Besides the bad grammar? Whoever wrote it doesn’t write any better than an eighth-grade student. If it was written by “professionals,” they are pretty pitiful–even apart from their twisted morality.

  • midwestconservative

    You’re supposed to capitalize proper nouns. Hence “virginians” should in fact be Virginians.

  • midwestconservative

    In any event I don’t think Dems need to repudiate this ad. This is what they believe. The Clinton “safe, legal, and rare” is no longer in the Democrat platform. And was in fact taken out just last year. Abortion at any point in time is considered “normal” by many on the Left.

    • midwestconservative

      Agreed, but they have a right to express their beliefs.

  • Britt Howard

    8th grader, huh? Wow,school run indoctrination is worse than I thought.

    • Warmac9999

      The indoctrination is consistent with a political ideology that values the collective over the free individual. Abortion and euthanasia are ideas from the collective who see people as soulless biological machines to be dispensed with when they are not productive as defined by some arbitrary and politically correct standard. Eventually, those on welfare become expendable as the misery of collectivism deepens. Right now, those on welfare are useful because they provide votes —- but once the vote is no longer necessary, then they are the most expendable. (Mao, the individual so praised by a female member of obama’s administration, slaughtered over 70 million of his people in Great Leap Forward experiment.)

  • Fred

    You people are ridiculous. I could make an ad saying The Bishop thinks yoga leads to satanism and that gay rights is worse for black men than the Klan, slavery and Jim Crow. Wait, those would all be TRUE. You folks are pathetic.

  • MaidMarion

    Does anyone have information on who is behind the referenced “www.registertovote.org”?

  • BrianKirwin

    If only the pro-abortion folks had parents who felt the same way…

  • Jerel C. Wilmore

    Ummm, guys, sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn’t a Northam campaign ad. There is no disclosure statement saying that it was approved or paid for by Ralph Northam. You are attributing to Ralph Northam the words of an eighth grader who created something without Northam’s permission to Northam himself? Really?

    • JK

      Not a lick of evidence to say the author is a kid and it’s indisputable that the ad was done on his behalf.

      • mattattack911

        Well, technically you are wrong, because both Shaun’s post and Benjamin Tribbett’s post suggest it was done by a kid, but I agree that blog posts saying it is so is very minimal evidence. However, there is not a lick of evidence, actually, that Northam or his campaign had any knowledge of or involvement with this whatsoever.

        It was done on his behalf, that’s true. There is at least one (and obviously many more) psychotic/stupid/ill informed people supporting Northam. Obviously there are some supporting Jackson too who could create similarly ignorant things.

        My whole point is that no one should let their partisan views blind them into accepting bad evidence just because of confirmation bias. That’s equally true of the folks at bluevirginia and some of the dumb stuff they post.

    • midwestconservative

      you’re defending a clearly disgusting ad? Really?

      • mattattack911

        If you read what Jerel wrote, he wasn’t defending the ad’s content at all or expressing any view on that whatsoever. He was simply saying you couldn’t attribute it to Northam without evidence, of which there is none.

  • Pingback: Ralph Northam’s Incredible (And Shifting) “Look At Me!” Ad Buy | Virginia Virtucon()

  • Big C

    When one doesn’t recognize the value of life, one doesn’t value life at all. This is disgusting. True, it does not contain any disclosure language so it’s not possible to directly link this to the campaign. I also noted one slide that referred to him running for Governor as opposed to LG. So who knows where it originated. In any event, I will never look at another’s life as inconvenient. Heaven help us.

  • Edward N Virginia

    LET’s see, to condense the supposed quote to its fundamental concepts, it would say:

    “Within the guidelines of Roe v. Wade a woman may terminate a pregnancy. Termination of some pregnancies avoids bringing unwanted infants and children into distressed family settings that sometimes involves abuse and/or abandonment of infants and children.”

    This is a true statement.

    You may not like that it is true, for whatever reason, but it is true. The point is: WHY would you not like that it is true? For some, they do not like that it is true because in no circumstance would they like that there is any termination of a pregnancy. For others, they do not like that there is ever abuse of abandonment of infants and children.

    So, since, arguably, we do not want either killing of unborn infants OR abuse or abandonment of born infants and children, why aren’t we working consistently together to ensure that all children are born BY CHOICE and provided CARE throughout life?

    A SIMILAR construction of argument would be:

    “Expanding Medicaid in Virginia – which would if expanded help many seriously mentally ill to have care which they do not currently have, and if not expanded will continue to abandon the seriously mentally ill – would expand a government financed program.”

    That is also a true statement. WHY would you not like that it is true? For some, they do not like that expanding health care involves a government-financed program. For others, they do not like that Virginia abandons the seriously mentally ill without care.

    So, since arguably, we do not want an entirely government financed system of care, or that those without care be abandoned, why aren’t we working consistently together to ensure that all Virginians have excellent access to care, in a system that involved public and private partnerships?

  • Shaun, did you pull the title of this piece from inferences taken from this non-Northam-approved video?

  • Scout

    Virtually all political literature I receive and TV commercials I watch tend to look like the products of 8th graders with social adjustment issues. Not sure this is different. But, having posted this, I would hope BD would quickly clarify whether this is Northam ad or is not. There seems to be some confusion about that. It’s important. If it is just some exercise by an individual, it has no relevance to the political campaign.

  • bennyseay

    Obviously not made by Northam’s campaign or any person/group supporting his candidacy. At the end, notice NO one takes credit/blame for it. The choice of wording throughout makes it crystal clear it is from an anti-Northam viewpoint. Just meant to inflame the less educated. Don’t fall for it.

  • I have negotiated exclusive rights to the next Not Even Close To Bring Approved By Ralph Northam But Bearing Drift Will Crap Twinkies About It Anyway campaign advertisement. Is everybody ready for it?

    Here it comes…

    http::www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jKNkEXif8Y

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.