Tag Archives: Democratic Party

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

I’m re-running this in honor of Rand Paul turning the tables on the Left and asking if they are OK with killing a 7 lb. baby in the womb.  I much prefer Cruz or Walker over Paul, but it was a great answer.  We need more of that!  

Also see Turning rocks into softballs where I offer some other tips on how to respond to the questions about rape, incest or abortions in general.  

We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves!

—–

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

Words matter: The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

I’ve mentioned this before and will probably only mention it six or seven more times, so please read carefully.  Do not let the pro-abortion people get away with using terms such as pro-choice or reproductive choice.  It is easy to show how false those are.  And don’t let them call you anti-abortion or anti-choice without taking the time to explain why they are correct on that claim.  You can take what they mean as a personal attack and use it to our advantage.

I used to try and be charitable and refer to pro-abortion people as pro-choice.  I preferred to get into the facts and logic and didn’t want to get people distracted by thinking we were just calling them names.  But with the latest platform of the Democratic party the most accurate term for them is pro-abortion.  

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

We should take the time to explain why pro-abortion is the correct term.  If you insist on taxpayer-funding of abortions, that is the opposite of choice.  Your are forcing pro-life people to pay for abortions.  And you are claiming that we don’t have enough abortions and that society will be better if we have more.  They don’t want them to be rare, they want more of them.  Those claims aren’t pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.

The majority of those who identify as “pro-choice” agree that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, that women should have a 24 hour waiting period before having the abortion, that parental consent should be required for teens and that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund abortions.  That makes Obama and anyone supporting the Democrat’s platform the extremists.

Consider how many people who identify as pro-choice agree with pro-life positions on specific topics, then consider how radical the Democrats’ platform is (unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortions at any time, including “partial-birth abortions”/infanticide).

Regarding “reproductive choice” or “reproductive health,” just point out the irrefutable scientific fact that a new human being is created at fertilization.  Therefore, abortions are designed to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Perverse organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice have self-refuting names.  It may seem subtle, but explaining how their pet terms are false undermines their credibility and helps point to the science and logic that are on our side.

These suggestions may seem unimportant, but they can make a big difference.  The Left uses terms to their advantage all the time, such as “marriage equality” and the pro-abortion phrases noted above.  Don’t let them get away with it.  By politely pointing out how pro-abortion their policies are and how “reproductive choice” is about birth control and not abortion we can plant seeds and persuade the middle ground about the truth.

Also, use verbal Judo and turn attack phrases such as “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” back on them.  Just say, “Why yes, I am anti-abortion.  Abortions kill innocent but unwanted human beings without adequate justification, so I oppose them.  Thanks for noticing!  You should oppose them, too.”  I’m beginning to prefer the term anti-abortion over pro-life.  It is accurate and it spells out the word they hate to say: Abortion.

Regarding “anti-choice,” just ask them to complete the phrase and then agree with them: “You are using ‘choice’ in the sense of choosing to crush and dismember an innocent but unwanted human being without adequate justification, so I am against that choice.  You should be, too.  But I favor all sorts of other choices for women: Whom to marry, what career to choose, the freedom to speak out against “same-sex marriage,” whether to fund abortions of other people, whether to own a gun, what size soft-drink to consume, whether to home school, and more.  How do you feel about all of those choices?”

How to expose the false pro-abortion outrage over Kermit Gosnell

While most media outlets, politicians, pro-abortion groups and false teachers are still silent on the Kermit Gosnell infanticide case, some have realized that there is no way around it and are trying to feign outrage and hypocritically and falsely blame pro-lifers. It is your basic damage control, but they shouldn’t get away with it in the way Planned Parenthood gets a media pass when busted for hiding statutory rape and sex-trafficking.

Cases in point are the Planned Parenthood Tweet in the image below and a typical “Gosnell was so bad but it is the fault of pro-lifers” nonsense from wolves in sheep’s clothing.

So how do you “out” these people? Simple. Just point to the facts by saying:

1. Kermit Gosnell was pro-late term and “partial-birth” abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree with them, why are you and they so outraged at his actions?

2. The main horror of Gosnell was killing babies 30 seconds after it was legal. Planned Parenthood and Obama are both on record as opposing protections for infants who survive abortions. Please explain the moral significance of those 30 seconds and why one is capital murder and one is merely the morally benign or even morally good choice of the mother. Also explain whether you agree with Obama and Planned Parenthood, and why it isn’t hypocritical for PP to complain about Gosnell.

3. Kermit Gosnell was pro-taxpayer-funded abortion. So are President Obama, the rest of the Democrats* and Planned Parenthood. Do you agree or disagree with them? If you agree, then would you concede that forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions would be more of a pro-abortion position than a pro-choice position?

4. Democrats and Planned Parenthood have aggressively fought the application of health standards and inspections of abortion clinics. This political pressure resulted in even existing laws being ignored by multiple agencies. Isn’t it hypocritical to now blame the Republicans for Gosnell’s safety issues?

5. Given the complete breakdown in oversight over Gosnell’s activities by multiple agencies and that he was only caught by accident by another agency, what makes you think that all the other abortionists run clean clinics and have adequate oversight when killing innocent but unwanted human beings?

6. Given that the Left plays the race card over all sorts of made-up things, why are they ignoring the real racism of Gosnell, and, presumably other abortion clinics — not to mention the fact that abortions kill blacks at a rate three times that of whites and that taxpayer-funded abortions will increase that ratio?

7. As bad as Gosnell was, there weren’t any documented cases of him hiding statutory rape or sex-trafficking as there have been for Planned Parenthood. They broke many laws. Should they be punished to the “full extent” for running a “criminal enterprise” as they have called for in Gosnell’s case? Should they still receive hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding?

Please ask those things as nicely as you can to let people have a “dignified surrender” and acknowledge how wrong they are on the greatest moral issue of our time.

Reminder: Keep Tweeting #gosnell as much as you can — such as with this post!

* If you vote for Democrats, you are now pro-abortion, not pro-choice. And not just pro-abortion, but pro-“partial birth” abortion (aka infanticide). From their platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

If you want to require taxpayer-funded to increase abortions then you aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions = pro-abortion. Wanting to increase the number of abortions = pro-abortion. If you are pro-“partial birth” abortion then you are really pro-legalized infanticide.

The error of broad-brushing economic statistics

Putting all the blame or credit on one leader is incorrect. You have to look at what specific policies they drove and actually implemented and what the effects were.

Should Clinton get all the credit for the 90’s? Absolutely not. Clinton should send thank-you’s to the 90’s Republicans who prevented him from implementing many of his policies. He should also thank the PC business / Internet boom which drove the phenomenal growth of the decade. He benefited from the Internet bubble and the massive productivity gains and business growth, while Bush was impacted negatively by the bursting of the Internet bubble. Clinton didn’t create the technology boom and Bush didn’t burst the bubble, but the stats of both are impacted by them.

And the problems at the end of Bush’s term were largely from the race-baiting housing bubble driven by Democrats — the very thing they are doing again!.  Sadly, they were able to exploit people’s ignorance on the matter, with the help of the Democrats and their media allies who ignored or lied about the root causes.  That not only led to us getting Obama, but they pretended that a President couldn’t make real changes in one term.  Ugh.

How pro-life apologetics–and a little common sense–could have swayed the elections

A few gaffes – most notably by candidates Akin and Mourdock – cost the Republicans two Senate seats and possibly the White House.  But with just a little common sense and some simple pro-life arguments they could have easily turned this to our advantage.  Romney and others could have done the same thing whether the specific rape/abortion questions came up or not.

The errors resulted when the candidates tried to articulate theological concepts that can’t be distilled into sound bites and that are virtually certain to be misinterpreted by the media and voters.  If you are running for office you should be skilled at knowing what hot topic questions you’ll get and how to steer the answers to your advantage.

So when the topic of abortions in the case of rape and incest came up, they didn’t need to get theological.  They could have noted any or all of the following.  Consider how simple yet accurate these arguments are and how they would resonate with the average voter – even pro-choice voters, the majority of whom side with pro-lifers on topics like parental notification, late-term abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

  • Rape is an incredibly serious crime and I support punishing it to the full extent of the law.
  • Incest, in this case, isn’t about 30-something siblings who are attracted to each other, it is about innocent young girls being abused by relatives.  That means it is rape.  Here’s a perfect example.
  • Statutory rape is rape, and the most rampant kind in our society.  Planned Parenthood has been caught countless times on audio and video systematically hiding statutory rape.  If elected, I will not only fight to stop their Federal funding but I would work tirelessly to hold them accountable for their crimes of hiding these rapes. If a 28 yr. old guy is statutorily raping your 13 yr. old daughter or granddaughter then Planned Parenthood will be glad to destroy the evidence and hide the crime – funded by your tax dollars!  They have also been caught hiding sex traffickers, and the opposition to sex trafficking is one of the few issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground.   Surely we can all agree that we don’t want our tax dollars to fund organizations that hide that crime!
  • If you want to entertain capital punishment for the rapist then we could debate that, but why would the innocent child have to suffer for the father’s crimes?  It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique human beings from fertilization.  Go check out any embryology textbook.  Let’s put the focus on punishing the guilty rapists and those who hide their crimes.
  • If you want to understand the theology about God’s sovereignty I’d be glad to share it with you, but that is beyond the scope of this debate and would take some time to explain.  But you don’t have to be a theologian to know that rape is evil and hiding the crimes of rapists is evil.
  • Roe v Wade won’t be overturned and even if it was it wouldn’t make abortion illegal — it would just turn it over to the states.
  • Remember that the official platform of the Democrats is now pro-abortion, not pro-choice.  They want abortions without restriction — which would include partial-birth abortions (aka infanticide) — and they want pro-lifers to fund them with their taxes.  That means Democrats want more abortions, not less, and they want others to pay for them.  Obamacare is already forcing people to pay for some abortions, and it is deliberately violating religious freedoms and conscience clauses.

They could also respond by asking some of the questions the media never asks pro-abortion candidates:

1. You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you wouldapprove of?

2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover storyon “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?

3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?

4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?

5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?

6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?

7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?

8. You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?

9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?

10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?

How hard would that be?  Instead, Akin, Mourdock et al answered foolishly and cost us Senate seats and possibly the presidency, and they missed an easy opportunity to educate people on the most important moral issue of our time.

Please equip yourself with basic pro-life reasoning and be prepared to share it.

Government & bedrooms

A common pro-choice sound bite is that “Government should stay out of our bedrooms.”  It is an emotional play on the theme of privacy, but the logic is poor for several reasons.

I don’t know of any abortions that occur in bedrooms.  I’m pretty sure that most take place at abortion clinics.  Rape, incest, pedophilia, murders, thefts and a host of other crimes can occur in bedrooms, but I don’t hear anyone suggesting that the government ignore those.

I realize those items were taking the claim literally, but the pro-choice reasoning also fails in a figurative sense.  Groups that claim to want the government out of bedrooms sure have cashed a lot of government checks for “educating” our youth on sexually related matters.  Planned Parenthood and the like appear to have a great deal of interest in your bedroom activities and those of your children, and they crave and receive massive government funding and do their best to destroy anyone who gets in their way — even breast cancer charities like the Komen Foundation.

If by “government out of our bedrooms” they mean “government out of our sex lives,” then Planned Parenthood supporters should ask that they refund all the money they have received (Over $4 billion since 1987) and get out of our schools.

As with most pro-choice arguments, this claim ignores the primary issue of abortion: Whether or not an innocent human being is killed.  If abortion doesn’t kill an innocent human being, then of course the government shouldn’t be involved in determining whether the procedure is legal.  However, if it does kill an innocent human being, then it really doesn’t matter where the life of the unborn started.   And of course, the scientific fact is that the unborn are unique, living human beings from fertilization.

The government does not get involved in “bedrooms” in the sense that they dictate with whom consent adults can have sex.  But is should get involved when people want to destroy the unwanted human being created in those bedroom activities.

The Democrats want to intrude in the bedroom.  From their 2012 Platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The greater irony and hypocrisy of the Left is that they now want government to be explicitly involved in the bedroom by forcing taxpayers to pay for birth control and abortions.  They don’t mind if that tramples religious freedom.  Pro-lifers are being consistent here: Keep the government out of the bedroom but protect innocent human beings, and respect the First Amendment.

In addition, as Glenn noted in the comments, they also want the government to get involved in the bedrooms of gays and lesbians.  By nature and design those relationships don’t produce children and can never provide a mother and a father to child, so why would they need government involvement?

If you vote for the Democrats, you are voting for taxpayer-funded abortions, less religious freedom and government intrusion into the bedroom.

“Entitled to every single solitary operation”

If you vote for Obama/Biden you are voting pro-abortion and anti-religious freedom.  Not pro-choice, but pro-abortion — more abortions, funded by all taxpayers. From the Democrats’ 2012 platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

That means they favor:

  • 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester and “partial-birth” (aka infanticide) abortions
  • Taxpayer-funded abortions.  That means that pro-lifers will be forced to pay to have innocent but unwanted human beings killed.  That’s not pro-choice, that’s pro-abortion.
  • Increased abortions — They think that there aren’t enough abortions today, so society as a whole will improve if we make them “free” to the mothers.  Giving abortions away seems like a peculiar way to make them rare.
  • More dead black babies relative to whites — Abortions in the black community are already three times that of whites, and they know that figure will increase with taxpayer-funded abortions.  It is the ultimate racism.
  • Restrictions on religious freedoms — It is inevitable, and already evident with Obamacare, that they want to force religious groups to fund abortifacient drugs and abortions.

Now Joe Biden expands on this, saying:

Maybe where Romney is most sketchy is on women’s rights. I got a daughter and lost a daughter. I’ve got four granddaughters and Barack has two daughters. And this is to our core. Our daughters and our granddaughters are entitled to every single solitary operation, every single solitary opportunity!

Click the audio to see how pro-abortion he and his supporters are.  You see, abortion is an opportunity and an entitlement to them.  And if they are entitled to abortions then that means you are obligated to provide abortions.  (Side note: Joe misses the morbid irony that those daughters and granddaughters wouldn’t exist if the mothers had opted for the abortions they were “entitled” to.)

Note that these “pro-women” pro-aborts oppose a ban on gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason that they are unwanted females.

Note what extremists these people are.  Even the majority of self-identified pro-choicers oppose what the Democrats’ platform pushes.  Never let them get away with labeling pro-lifers as extremists.

It is un-Christian and un-American to not only permit the killing of innocent but unwanted human beings in the womb but to force others to participate.  Destroying religious freedom is also un-Christian and un-American.  No Christian should vote for the Democrats.