Connect with us

Democrats

HELP WANTED! Dems want pro-lifers to run for Congress

Published

on

Do pro-life Democrats exist? New Mexico Democratic congressman and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Ben Ray Luján announced on Monday that in an effort to win back the House of Representative the DCCC is willing to fund a pro-life candidate in the upcoming 2018 election.

This move by the DCCC is in stark contrast to DNC chairman Tom Perez’s statement that being pro-life is non-negotiable. Perez wants the DNC to be the party of unrestricted and unlimited abortion rights.

Now the real question is, does the DCCC want pro-life Democrats and do they exist? The answer is no and no. Pro-life Democrats don’t exist and here is the reason why. What the DCCC is advocating is the willingness to support pro-choice Democrats with more restrictions on abortion. First, we need to understand what pro-life means.

Being pro-life is believing unequivocally that no abortion can occur once life begins (I will go into when life begins later in this article). Pro-choice advocates like Perez don’t believe it is a life until the baby is born. Pro-choice light candidates believe it is life under certain circumstances.

So the reality is most Democrats, and even most Republicans are pro-choice. The fight isn’t over pro-life verse pro-choice, it’s a fight over the restrictions we are willing to accept. How do I know this? The historical data from Gallup shows that consistently people believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance stands at 29% of the time. Legal under most 13%. Legal only in a few 36% and finally 18% illegal in all cases. Gallup also states that when rape or incest caused the pregnancy, abortion should be legal, stands at 75% to 22% of the time. In the same poll, 46% considered themselves pro-life.

You see the problem. How can 46% of respondents think they are pro-life but only 22% believe it is wrong to abort a baby if caused by rape or incest.

It seems illogical and inconsistent. If you are pro-life, you believe that abortion is taking of an innocent life even under rape and incest. Now in the rape case, would you argue that it wasn’t consensual sex, therefore, that it’s okay because somehow the baby in the womb ceases to be a life. What if the incestual relationship was consensual would that be murder? Would it be logical to say that since most people don’t believe a woman should have to carry a baby to term in the case of rape or incest that most people are pro-choice with differing exceptions, and it isn’t about when life begins?

If it is about when is it right to take the life of the innocent for a genuinely pro-life person I believe that can only be when the mother’s life is beyond a doubt at risk, and no other choice exists.  At the same time, instead of aborting the baby we deliver the baby and use all our medical resources to save the life of the child.

As in war, we do everything we can to limit civilian casualties, but when we decide to take an innocent life, we do it to save others. The decision on how you weigh human life is a difficult question. Do I bomb a hospital or school which is used to store rockets which are used to launch missiles into civilian territories or do we not? These are always difficult question and decisions.

Just like in the case of rape and incest. I’m not this cold-hearted person that can’t imagine the horrors the woman went through. These acts are inhuman and some of the worse crimes a human can do to another person. I believe wholeheartedly that the woman is a victim and is not to blame. So why do I think abortion is still wrong in these cases when life has been determined?

The reason is as a pro-lifer, I believe unequivocally that the baby is a human being. The baby is the result of a terrible, unjustifiable act which the child and the mother had no part in it. We have already one victim the mother, by aborting the baby do we put the blame of the rapist on the baby and kill the child and thus create another victim.

You see that is why I’m pro-life and not pro-choice. I believe that babies in the womb are human beings and worthy of the same respect, dignity, and protection under the law which all of us enjoy.  So when the DCCC is talking about pro-life Democrats it’s not about pro-life Democrats it’s about supporting pro-choice Democrats with fewer exceptions.

If we are to say we are pro-life, we must understand what that means and at the same time when the DCCC talks about supporting supposed pro-life candidates we need to know what that means as well.

Now can there be differences between pro-lifers? The answer is yes and I believe there are two positions that are logical positions on when life begins and still be considered pro-life.

The first position is life begins at conception. So when asked when does life begin, in the beginning, is a logical conclusion. Life begins at the beginning and thus no termination of a pregnancy is permitted.

The second position is when a heartbeat exists. How do we determine if someone is dead? We determine that by an absence of a heartbeat. How do we determine if someone is alive? They have a heartbeat.

Therefore, it is an intellectually logical position to say that life begins when the heart begins to beat. This position would allow rape, incest, or any other type of termination of pregnancy before a heartbeat exists; any abortion after a heartbeat would be considered pro-choice because you are terminating a life.

The purpose of this article is to explain what pro-life really means. I hope this article has helped foster a discussion on the issue and helped you contemplate the issue and helped you think about the issue in a logical manner instead of simply an emotional reaction.

Let me know what you think.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

New rule needed: Old Ideas have to work BEFORE they can be tried again

Published

on

By

New rule needed Old Ideas have to work BEFORE they can be tried again

If the Unaffordable Care Act [Obamacare] didn’t work properly, why replace it with more of the same?

It’s a pattern replicated far too many times. There is a small expansion of government based on a ‘new’ idea that inevitably fails to work as promised. This is replaced with an even bigger expansion of government to solve the issues of the original program. When this also fails to work, an even bigger government expansion fails even more spectacularly. Each time the ‘new’ idea repeatedly fails making the situation far worse.

Instead determining what actually can work, the same mistakes are made over and over with the futile expectation of different results. If an idea is flawed, the results will always be the same no matter it’s size or overreach.

Old ideas have to be shown to work BEFORE they can be tried again

There is a perfectly easy way to avoid repeated failure. Look at what works and reject what doesn’t. If the basic idea of a law or government program is a known failure, why bother trying it again? Ever-expanding government programs of failure only lead to ever-expanding failure.

Consider just a couple of examples of this pattern:

  • Government controlled healthcare systems.
  • Government controls on Liberty [i.e. ‘Gun confiscation’]
  • Ever increasing taxation that has led to ever diminishing tax revenue.
  • And the Great, Great, Great, Granddaddy of them all: Socialism [Collectivism]

Government controlled healthcare

In the case of the Unaffordable Care Act [‘ACA’ or ‘Obamacare’] there would be no need for a new overarching system if it were functional. But it’s promises never materialised, so the Left is now clamouring for something even worse. With it now being ruled unconstitutional, the whole concept of government control of health care has been called into question. We should always take into consideration other ideas that actually work instead of heading down the same dead-end road.

The Left’s ideas on healthcare have been a series of ever-increasing failures of ever-increasing over reach by the government. They never admit to failure, they just keep on clamouring for more without any word on funding

For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) agreed with the contention that the Democrats should now push for an even bigger expansion of government control over everyone’s life with “universal health care”. Medicare and Medicaid failed to solve the problem, so the Unaffordable Care Act was layered on top. That is also failing, so the ‘solution’ offered by the nation’s Left is even more control of Government control of healthcare. Never mind that we cannot afford the $42 trillion price tag for a new government monstrosity over the next decade, never mind that it violates the basic precepts of the Constitution. History and logic tells us that it cannot work, so is there is no point in trying it all over again.

New Ideas based in Liberty

There is no point in going in the same direction, repeating the same failure with the same ancient ideas. However, as JD Rucker pointed out, we need to support positive ideas instead just acting in opposition. In that context, these are some examples of alternatives to healthcare under the control of the government.

Direct care or Concierge Medicine

This is a system where patients pay a retainer fee to a physician for personalised care. The retainer fee lets the medical professional work with a smaller number of patients so they can have far easier access with lower co-pays. This type of practice would be combined with catastrophic care for emergencies.

For most people this sounds far better than impersonal service and high deductibles of a government-run system with far lower costs. The individual would be the priority rather than the collective. A much better system than one that combines the customer care of the DMV, the empathetic demeanour of the IRS and the cost efficiency of the Postal service.

Other plans to fix the mess of government-run health care

Then there are alternative ideas such as those in a recent Heritage foundation report that outlined some of their ideas to to replace Obamacare. The main point here is to return to plans that put choice in the hands of individuals.

The takeaway

Thus we have two contrasting visions of how things should work (or not in the case the ancient ideas of the Left). The nation’s Socialist Left wants to pile on a new overarching government plan due to the failure of the existing overarching government plan. We can’t afford the cost in Liberty and dollars of the old plan, nor can we even begin to afford the cost in Liberty and dollars of the ‘new’ plan. History tells us that the ‘new’ version of the same old ideas will fail to work as promised. This will cause the need for the Left to have another go at the problem that will also fail to work.

The Left can talk all they want about fighting for people, but the results of their ancient ideas speak for themselves. Only needs to cite the horrific conditions of Venezuelan healthcare to see how much they ‘care’ about people. We of the Pro-Liberty, Conservative Right have the advantage of ideas grounded in Liberty that have been proven to work. These can reverse the trend toward freedom crushing government systems that do not work no matter how expansive or expensive.

The choice is clear, keep on going in a direction will see everyone paying dearly in dollars and Liberty for a ‘new’ government program that won’t work. Or trying a new approach with fresh ideas that actually work and maintain our freedom.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Leftists keep crying wolf: How ‘racist’ has lost all meaning

Published

on

By

Leftists keep crying wolf

The Left needs to start coming up with real arguments instead of relying on the crutch of name-calling.

Nick Kangadis , @TruthOfChicago of MRCTV makes the point that Leftist name calling has destroyed the emotional impact of certain words, leaving them without any practical debating points. Not to mention that a fair amount of time they are merely projecting their maladies on their opposition.

Does the action of being called a “racist” mean anything anymore? You’d think for being people that constantly talk about how tolerant and inclusive they are, the Left sure are hellbent on removing any weight actual racism carries, among other labels they like to arbitrarily place on people. The funny part of the whole thing is that the people who always cry racism seem to be the biggest racists.

Rules for the rational: Never substitute name-calling for a real argument

It’s one thing to frame the debate with a label or proper term, it’s quite another to simply use pejoratives without basis in fact.

We use the terms Leftist or Socialist-Left because those are the proper terms for those people. Conversely, we eschew the terms Liberal or Progressive because they are false descriptors of the Left. Some have tried to argue that the two ‘L’ words of the same length are interchangeable when that is not the case. Leftist are of collectivist bent, while Liberals are individualists.

Similarly, the vaguely defined term ‘Progressive’ runs counter to the post-modernism of the Left. The term national merely relates to or is characteristic of a nation. By the same token, the moniker ‘Liberty grabbers’ for Leftists describes their true nature in that they are no longer advocates of Liberty – despite their ongoing exploitation of the term‘Liberal’.

This is not the case with the Left, they have the unfortunate tendency to use pejoratives such as ‘Racist’, ‘Sexist’, ‘Fascist’, to excess instead of utilising real arguments. Presumably, one is supposed to be figuratively set back on their heels defending against these types of baseless allegations. The danger for the Left is these words have become a poor substitute for rational debating points, not that they ever had much of those in the first place. After all, their best argument in favour of collectivism is that it’s either never been tried before or it’s being tried everywhere.

The takeaway

A rational argument is far better than those worn out pejoratives that are usually based on information they don’t have. In most cases, one cannot know if they fit into those pejorative categories. But that never stopped the Left from using them anyway. The Left’s tactic of projecting the words ‘racist’, ’sexist’ ,’fascist’ has become both sad and amusing. Their desperation in using the follow-up tactic of circular logic in applying those words is also becoming obvious to everyone.

As those words lose their emotional impact from excessive overuse, it will become clearer to all that the Left has no real arguments in favour of it’s socialist national agenda. But most likely it’s racist, sexist or fascist to notice that.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Democrats

Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto O’Rourke

Published

on

Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto ORourke

When the next session of Congress begins, Beto O’Rourke will officially be an outsider. He will no longer be part of the swamp. He’ll be a private citizen because he lost his election bid to replace Ted Cruz as Senator in Texas. This loss will prove to be the best thing that could have happened to his political career.

Beto O’Rourke is on track to be one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It seems like everybody on the left loves this guy. Despite his destructive far-left ideology, he was able to get closer than anyone would have expected to unseating a Tea Party Republican in deep-red Texas. He was also able to raise more money than anyone else in the midterm elections, raking in more money than the #3 and #4 on the money list combined.

Had O’Rourke won his race, he would have been held to his promise of not running in 2020. Even though his promise was stretched to include winning or losing in 2018, the narrative is quickly changing. With no campaign promise that could come back to haunt him in 2024 had he won his Senate race, backtracking on his no-run 2020 promise is easy.

A recent MoveOn poll actually has him ahead of the competition for the first time, edging out Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. He even got more votes than Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker combined.

Beto O’Rourke narrowly tops wide-open MoveOn 2020 presidential straw poll; Biden is runner-up

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/beto-o-rourke-narrowly-tops-moveon-2020-presidential-straw-poll-n946501The most popular potential candidate was O’Rourke, D-Texas, who was selected by 15.6 percent of respondents, followed by Biden at 14.9 percent, and then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 13.1 percent.

It’s another sign of O’Rourke’s surprising popularity among national Democrats and a potentially troubling indication for Sanders, whom MoveOn endorsed in the 2016 Democratic primary. That year, 78 percent of MoveOn members voted to back Sanders over Hillary Clinton

His popularity with the progressive far-left is evident, but he also has some mainstream Democrats turning to him as the best person to go up against President Trump in 2020. Now that he’s going to have free time on his hands, let’s look at three reasons why he should be considered the early frontrunner:

  1. Nationwide Appeal: He may be from Texas, but Democrats won’t hold that against him. If anything, it will have the opposite effect by giving him credibility for doing so well in a red state. It helps that he was in a punk rock band and brandishes a style that’s not stereotypical of any place in America. You won’t see him wearing a cowboy hat any time soon.
  2. Fundraising Prowess: Ted Cruz was the best GOP fundraiser during the 2016 primaries and Beto O’Rourke dominated him in 2018. The only person who could be considered in the same sentence with O’Rourke on the money side is President Obama. If they teamed up (and they will if he gets the nomination), they could draw some serious cash that will dwarf Hillary Clinton’s impressive 2016 haul.
  3. Time and Energy: No need to rush back to Washington for an important vote like the half-dozen Senators who are probably running for president. He also won’t be hampered by 70=year-old legs like Biden and Michael Bloomberg. O’Rourke, is young, energetic, and has nothing better to do than prepare his 2020 bid.

It’s discouraging to know this far-left, gun-grabbing progressive has an inside track to the Democratic nomination. The thought that he could be President should terrify every right-thinking American.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report