New York Times now admits the unborn are children in attempt to fear-monger over Trump’s immigration reform

The article details stories of women who are in the US illegally, without documentation or legal status, who are concerned that their children, once born, will not be citizens. The US is one of the few western nations to have birthright citizenship. Most of those others that have it are in South America, Africa and part of Asia.

https://twitter.com/GraduatedBen/status/1882103854600229184

The Times has long been a proponent of the idea that unborn children are not babies but clumps of cells, abortion fodder, nothing worth consideration. The article discusses a woman "who is undocumented and just a few months nto her own pregnancy [and] faces the prospect that her child will not be able to secure," the Times writes.

https://twitter.com/cabot_phillips/status/1882130787690275123

"It worries me that the new president doesn’t want to give citizenship to our baby," the woman said. "This is where he will go to school and grow up. He will speak English like an American." The women the Times spoke to said "that citizenship would guarantee their children access to health care and other vital benefits during their childhood, and provide a foundation for them to build successful lives as fully integrated Americans."

Record scratch. What? Who? Does the Times suddenly think that the unborn should have rights? And rights to citizenship no less? It took defending illegal immigrants in the US for the Times to suddenly realize that unborn children are in fact unborn children.

For decades, the Times has said that the unborn are essentially clumps of cells. They have documented the debate over whether or not viable clumps of cells have protections despite being unable to live as a clump of cells outside their mother's womb, but in defense of abortion, the going Times notion has been that the unborn are barely even worth noting when it comes to whether or not they should have the right to life.

"Changing the status quo on birthright citizenship would have major implications for countless children, even if the effort does not survive court challenges," the Times writes. But what children? Only children that aren't yet born. And if children in the womb are children that aren't yet born, what does that mean an abortion is other than infanticide?

But when that baby belongs to illegal immigrants, there is no debate on the status of the unborn—the Times asserts that they are entitled to citizenship, life, and all the paperwork that goes along with it.