---

Kamala Harris's Abortion Extremism Threatens Social Security; Would Elderly End Up At Risk From Euthanasia?

(Steve Welsh - SCW 11.4.24)

Kamala Harris has made prenatal killing, prenatal filicide, a cornerstone of her campaign.

The biggest threat to Social Security and Medicare is demographics, and the biggest impact on demographics is abortion.

As a result, pro-abortion extremists like Kamala Harris are, themselves, part of the biggest threat to Social Security.

Surgical abortion also already has killed off well over 60 million Americans in their mothers' wombs, interfering with human diversity, and short-circuiting those Americans from ever becoming future workers paying into Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security and Medicare always have rested on population balance, with larger numbers of active workers paying into the system, to support retiree recipients.

Social Security is not like welfare. Those retirees already paid into the system in the past, back when they were active workers, supporting retirees of past eras.

Now it is their turn to receive benefits, having paid into the sytem in the past. Yet the population has a different balance than before, with Americans in their prime, and younger Americans, having being gutted in numbers by abortion.

Meanwhile, a rush to allow a flood of legal immigrants, or unlawful illegal aliens, from countries with strong abortion restrictions, only offsets the demographic imbalance to a limited degree.

Of added concern is the fact that pro-abortion extremists like Kamala Harris have painstakingly created a climate of killing, and a climate of violence, in as cold-blooded and nonchalant a manner as possible, celebrating the killing as something wonderful, to be regarded with both complacency and adulation.

Similar morbid manipulations have occurred with euthanasia, the deliberate killing of the sick or disabled, including infirmed elderly.

The same deadly abortion movement that has undermined Social Security financially also creates a climate where there might be less resistance to the idea of killing off larger numbers of elderly, in a context where killing them off would save money.

Meanwhile, the ability to "get by," has been further undermined by economic mismanagement by the same forces promoting abortion. Cold-blooded, morally bankrupt support for abortion has been accompanied by incompetence at managing the economy.

One can only imagine the arguments that might be made, to suggest that certain subsets of the elderly, perhaps with less money to support themselves, did not have as much of a quality of life, so that a morally psychopath perspective would argue that murdering someone was a sign of empathy and solidarity with the murder victim. There undoubtedly with an effort to "push the envelope" about which circumstances were argued to be negative enough to warrant killing off elderly victims in the name of delusional false compassion.

Of added concern would be whether the argument would be made that the elderly victim, themself, "chose" to be murdered, by being groomed into submissiveness to being killed, or by being killed against their will, grounded upon a legal fiction that the killers were acting in the place of the murder victim as legal decionmakers.

Declining financial support undoubtedly would contribute to circumstances impacting quality of life. There also would be financial pressure to come up with excuses to kill off recipients of benefits, under circumstances where a critical mass of politicians, such as Kamala Harris, and renegade judges, already have been part of decades of mass killing of defenseless unborn children.

Key Words: Social Security, Medicare, 2024 Presidential Election,Donald Trump, Abortion, Filicide, Prenatal Murder, Abortionism, Kamala Harris, Democrats, Women