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.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Who is the current moneyline favorite for the Democratic nomination?

Published

on

Who is the current moneyline favorite for the Democratic nomination

An interesting metric to analyze politics is viewing the moneyline. In fact, online bookies are more accurate at predicting major elections than the partisan hack, Nate Silver and his FiveThirtyEight, who incorrectly guessed every tight Senate race except for the shady Arizona race. But the odd makers spend their time doing their analysis because there is money to be lost if they do poorly. So let’s take a look at one key metric and explore the reasoning as to why.

The lowest tier are the candidates so far out, that they don’t have a moneyline, even when speculated names do. This tier includes Jay Inslee, Pete Buttigieg, and Wayne Messam. Safe to assume that this metric gives these people less of a chance than candidates who have confirmed they aren’t running.

The second lowest tier are the longshots. These candidates range from John Hickenlooper through Corey Booker. These candidates are either not big faces in the Democratic spotlight or are at a serious disadvantage because they have been crowded out of their base. The same could be said about Elizabeth Warren, but she has a devoted core and the potential to make gains when the debates are in full swing.

The next tier are the vultures. Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, and Amy Klobachar need death to survive, metaphorically speaking. The vultures have their sights on a clear target: Joe Biden. If they can feast on his corpse, they’ll survive. But perhaps its Bernie’s corpse they should be gazing upon instead. In truth, I think Yang is more dark horse than vulture, but both appear dark on the outside.

Alas, we have our favorites. Beto O’Rourke, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris, our current frontrunner by this metric. These candidates have the most money, intersectionality points in the case of Harris, ability to win superdelegates as it currently stands, and name recognition. It’s obvious why, at a glance one would rank these names at the top. Under the surface, they also have the most stable base within the Democrat party. Don’t rely too much on polling which will fluctuate like the wind. Kamala Harris could win black vote in the south while the three other white male favorites vie for the northern swathes of the country. And the odds are almost a year out. They too will fluctuate, but I believe the moneyline accurately gives us a picture of our current frontrunners.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Even in New York, more people favor President Trump than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Published

on

Even in New York more people favor President Trump than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

She’s a media darling. She’s the leader of the hyper-leftist new Democratic revolution. She’s a creation of one of the most powerful and dangerous political organizations in America. And now, she’s having trouble getting people to like her.

According to a new Sienna College poll in New York, a mere 31% of respondents view Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez favorably. Her numbers are worse than other New York politicians, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Governor Andrew Cuomo. Compared to the President, her net difference numbers are better at -13 compared to -24 for the President, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that more people know and like the President with 36% viewing him favorably.

My Take

There’s no reason for her to be getting the attention she’s getting. Being a freshman Congresswoman means she has very little say in what actually happens in DC. But it’s not her status or her votes that matter. What makes her dangerous is the way she’s molding the minds of the impressionable leftists who refuse to pick up a calculator or put pen to paper about her outrageous proposals.

She’s the worst type of politician, one who works with the spotlight instead of focusing on educating people about what she’s doing on their behalf and how they can help. I remember when the biggest plea by those in Congress was for their constituents to help them convince their Senators to do the right thing. Now, it’s all about me, me, me; the narcissism of this new breed of politicians is striking.

The more the nation learns about AOC and her insane ideas, the less they’ll like her. We need this to happen. We need Americans to wake up to the truckloads of manure she’s trying to shovel our way. Socialism needs to be stopped immediately.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report