The Sanctity of Human Life... But Only for a White House Tour?

As the POTUS endorses abortion - up to birth- as if the fetus is not a living being whilst in the womb,

Is it not the epitome of irony that, when visiting the White House, a pregnant woman must add the unborn child as a 'Visitor' and if the gender is unknown, you can mark the gender as M or F, but if wrong, the info must be updated at birth.

Here is a bit of the story

"We have received a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born," Shafer wrote. "Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It's an easy process."

The newsletter then proceeds to spell out how "the baby's security information should be entered" into the White House system, including such details as: "GENDER: if the parents know put that gender down if not, you can enter either M or F as we'll ask you to update it at the time of birth." All of the information should be updated "once, the baby is born," the newsletter instructs.

This begs the question, "Is an unborn child a person or is the fetus a non-living entity or some kind of manitou that only is considered human if a 'visitor' at the White House?

It is as if definitions are interpreted on a whim.

Next, they will have TSA pat down the unborn child to verify the fetus is not a terrorist.
This would be a most intrusive measure for the mother-to-be and a duty of epic responsibility for any TSA agent, whether possessing average mentality or that of a closet pervert enjoying the touchy-feely routine.

How can you advocate abortion yet consider the fetus a threat to the White House?

If this is not political madness, I don't know what is.

Source

Nothing to see here, folks. Just another massive fail hiding under far-right hucksterism.

OP, if (for argument's sake) you consider your source OK to promote as the basis for your claim, wouldn't you maybe have been inquisitive enough to delve further into your source's source and their veracity, or -- further -- even the original document in question?

I posit you didn't go that far because, if you had taken your partisan blinders off for a bit, perhaps you would have seen that this is *nothing* of the sort of thing as you couched it in your thread title and comments.

At it's original source, the White House memo is instructing tour directors and those in congress relevant to people seeking tickets to visit the White House _in advance_ to notify them if there is a pregnant woman involved in the tour (i.e., someone who may give birth to a 'third person' prior to taking the tour _at a future date_*). And if the unborn's sex isn't known at the time of the application for the ticket to the tour, to simply guess at the sex and amend the application upon arrival for the tour or in advance of arriving for the tour.

Wow! This is some far-reaching stuff by the right-wing nutjobs.
I live in the mountains, and I've got a lot of molehills in my yard (all true); I've learned over the years that you can't kill the moles with Kool-Aid, but you sure can use it to stimulate both the moles, the trolls, and the enfeebled imaginations of a bunch of 'ignant' folk.


* And, for the record, I am a man who has children. And who has dealt with a pregnant wife. And who has both a tourist's and a local familiarity with D.C. I cannot imagine taking any tours in D.C. at any time of year with a pregnant wife, nor with a newborn in tow. I did a 7-day cruise with my wife when she was 5 months pregnant with my first-born son sailing from out of New Orleans, and that first night coming out the delta when the ship's stabilizers were cut off... I thought that was gonna do her in for the duration of the cruise.

reply to post by Forrest


I would like to give you a star because the OP is just saying what he is supposed to say, not a lot of truth and much faux outrage.