Pro-Life Activist Destroys Democrat Congressman With a Simple Question
Rep. Jamie Raskin scurried away with his tail between his legs.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) went on a rant about how the right-wing wants to destroy America, tear up the Constitution, threatened our democracy (WE ARE A REPUBLIC), and now want to take away abortion.
Catherine Glenn Foster, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, sat in front of Raskin as he made his complaints.
Raskin tried to embarrass Foster: “The Republicans’ own witness, the witness they called, is candidly and openly calling for a nationwide ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. And if I have got that wrong, I would invite Ms. Foster to correct me. Do I have it wrong, yes or no?”
Foster replied: “If we added rape and incest exceptions would you vote for it?”
Raskin answered: “Okay. I reclaim my time.”
Pro-Life mom ends the career of prominent Democrat Congressman on live TV in just under 10 seconds.
Watch pic.twitter.com/ypBAzXEqLZ
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 20, 2022
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Ty Mary,,, I saw this in the twitterverse…
She owned him…
Whacked him and packed him.
Don’t you just love it when Democrats insist on demonstrating their ignorance?
“What happened? Carole Baskin!”
A verbal parry-and-thrust worthy of “Why don’t you put the whole world in a bottle, Superman?”
The mere fact there is a woman making the pro- life argument should be enough to show Leftists there is nuance to the abortion debate (for me is not nuanced), but they’ll just pretend they’re not women.
You spelled wymxn wrong.
What is the left’s preoccupation with the letter X?
Womxn, Latinx, and of course, putting X chromosomes in men where they clearly don’t belong…
They were inspired by X-mas.
Y not?
A lone ‘X’ as in mutant, anomaly, deviation.
Let’s ask Mxry if she knows?
Silly nonsense. The scientific illiteracy of pro life zealots never provides a sound basis for argument.
I won’t hear any idiot talk about “scientific illiteracy” when you sorry pieces of shit can’t even define what a woman is and think men can become one by cutting off their dicks.
What’s a woman?
For that matter, what the heck is a “womxn?”
What “scientific literacy” says men can have babies, and by extension, abortions?
What “scientific literacy” puts tampon dispensers in boy’s bathrooms?
The list goes on…
Just get ready to take the upcoming L.
I simply MUST hear your scientifically literate arguments. Sweetie.
I carried a child to term. Did you?
hmmm? ok. I will explain it scientifically using very small words and and only a few of them. Life begins when sub atomic particles grow . now explain how a unborn baby in the womb is not growing sub atomic particles..
Disinformation! Subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc) do not grow.
Did you just make an argument for the spiritual component for life? 😉 😉
You’ve previously posted this, but never say what exactly is illiterate about it. When does life begin, Follower of the Science™️? Your constitutional arguments were embarrassing, so let’s hear your biological arguments.
“Silly nonsense. The scientific illiteracy of pro life zealots never provides a sound basis for argument.”
Gosh, I didn’t realize that the point in time when a fetus becomes a human being had been scientifically determined. Can you maybe share that bit of science with us? I hate to be scientifically illiterate.
The left citing illiteracy on the right is laughable, in that it’s the left who is continually redefining words and language, to the point of their own illiteracy.
Leftists say some of the stupidest s***. One of my favorites is how I’m supposed to be afraid of black men with guns.
I was born in a Naval hospital, a regional Naval Medical Center. Later in my life I put guns into black peoples hand and arranged to get them trained to shoot those guns.
I have literally been surrounded by black people with guns my entire life. Thank God. But thank God for the people I could trust of any color. It did help if I knew the because I trained them. Or, if I knew my father trained them. Or someone my dad knew and trained them. Or so on.
https://news.yahoo.com/casey-white-ordered-dna-sample-145634555.html?ref=upstract.com&curator=upstract.com&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGi8sWb9KJMOBKHuXWSZKLJh2K_IIkQ2WZpGZC3W5HBmguNwrmMxgyovrUhQsvxUvlBrYaSO51lo-kcbvvayueztPNEhonh23XZxY527uT-CMhGC0vdfh-N9uXDcibVbdYlWrkzsrxO2Nq3g88DTlNoyvo3Eu6gcEiPZiMsMDcvY
“Casey White ordered to provide DNA sample for probe of prison escape that ended with jailhouse lover’s death”
You don’t need to look very hard to find a piece of s***. There will be one close to home.
It’s actually a problem of ethical literacy, which is where people get their understandings of the value of a human life. Science has shown us that by four months, the unborn child can probably distinguish her own mother’s voice. There is no question that the unborn child is a human being. Otherwise, so many pro-aborts wouldn’t be so upset about ultrasounds.
It’s just that the pro-life people come to the table with a set of ethics, and, recognizing the humanity of the unborn child, make the logical conclusion that destroying it is a murder. Even professed non-believers such as the late Nat Hentoff accepted this line of reasoning and became pro-life. I myself was raised a fairly orthodox liberal, and taught (by Dr. Seuss, no less, and very early) that “a person’s a person, no matter how small.” While the late Mr. Geisel might be appalled at this being taken up as a pro-life argument, the logic of the pro-life position taking it up is unassailable.
Science, in and of itself, cannot answer an ethical question. No less an advocate of the power and spread of science than Joseph Schaechter of the Vienna Circle noted that we do not have a way to get from the empirical “is” to the ethical “ought”–and thus exposing a key weakness of the scientistic (NOT scientific) worldview. Perhaps a serious issue is that a purely scientific worldview will tell us if something can possibly be done or not–including things like mass murder, or thinking that landmass and/or population will make a large-scale nuclear war winnable.
Indeed. Science tells us what things are possible to do. Ethics informs us as whether we should or shouldn’t do those things which are possible.
I think she is over the target. This is politics in this setting. Not science.
As commenter Whitehall states, “This is politics…not science.” You might want to check the libs on CO2 as a pollutant and the “settled science” of climate alarmism.
The daughter of a family friend of ours has given birth in recent years to two HEALTHY babies at 26 and 28 months. You may feel free to look in a mirror re “scientific illiteracy!”
Crazy, lefty support for infanticide at and after term seems to be the antithesis of what you claim to be, “a sound basis for argument.”
Maybe, if congressman raskin had actually answered Ms Foster’s reasonable question. Sheesh, he is such a coward. Join him if you dare.
Sorry, meant as a reply to juris doctor.
How do you have a baby 2 months apart?
More to the point, how did she manage to carry either one for over two years???
I was kinda wondering about that…
Whoops! After I clearly typed WEEKS and a couple of years apart, my cat betrayed me (again) and sent a comment meant to make me look like an idiot.
The children of whom I wrote are still thriving, regardless of my evil cat. Please accept my apologies on my cat’s behalf.
26 and 28 months? I take it they were c-section births?
I’ve never seen a “destroys” clip where any destroying took place. The destroyer always comes off as a jerk.
For a reason.
Here she very neatly evades the trap being set. If she says ok let’s have rape and incest exemption then she is inconsistent about the issue of a life being destroyed while if she doesn’t agree she is portrayed as heartless.
In this case she cleverly reverses the argument like a well executed judo counter and Raskin ran away because he was getting his butt kicked. He knew it was the same rhetorical trap he had attempted.
Given that rape and incest make up far less than one percent of abortions (the rest being abortions of convenience or economics), demanding that was a bit of a Pyrrhic victory for the lefties.
Not at all. A life conceived via rape or incest is just as innocent and valuable as any other. Once exceptions are carved out the argument against abortion as morally wrong lose their way. At that point the argument isn’t from a moral position that ‘life is precious, has value and should be protected, especially the most vulnerable’. By creating or accepting exceptions to the moral argument then the pro life position undercuts it’s claim to the moral high ground.
That’s why the pro abortion side continues to raise up arguments about rape and incest. It’s smart tactic on their part. Once the pro life side concedes exceptions they are no longer ‘pro life’ but have become anti-abortion which is a big distinction.
Now the debate has shifted to one of choice and anti choice. Having conceded that some choices to destroy life are reasonable why not others?
Corrected/correct post context.
How then to reconcile the life of the mother and child when the former’s life is at clear and progressive risk? Self-defense happens as choice and through reconciliation. Is a preference given to the mother or child… childrens’ lives? The point is that these are minority edge cases. Rape is a criminal act of involuntary exploitation targeting the individual and society. Incest is presumed to be an act of superior exploitation. The goal is not to prevent, but to discourage homicides for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. The goal is to preserve the dignity and agency of women and men, and to mitigate the progress of human commoditization.
There is no moral conflict in separating circumstances of involuntary exploitation (e.g. slavery), perhaps superior exploitation (e.g. child by adult), and the choice(s): abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and self-defense through reconciliation, of women and men who possess dignity and agency. The debate returns to life and a wicked solution for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
Yeah but those 60+ million abortions since Roe v Wade would have been back alley abortions performed with coat hangers.
Does anyone even know how many of those abortions took place each year? Ten? Fifty? Yet they always bring up that argument. We really ought to be throwing that back in their faces too. Why haven’t we?
Right, right. Sitting there patiently while a political dickweed portrays someone as a monster gets no mention from you. But responding to that BS with a valid question is now in jerk territory?
Can I let you in on a little secret? You don’t have to comment on these stories.
Poor Raskin was mistreated by a mere plebe.
Okay, your position is that anyone who slaughters one of your sacred cows and tosses it on the BBQ is a jerk. Maybe you shouldn’t take it so personally.
Uh huh. Then you can answer the question for the cowardly Congressman: Would you support an abortion ban if carve outs were made in the event of rape or incest?
How then to reconcile the life of the mother and child when the former’s life is at clear and progressive risk? Self-defense happens as choice and through reconciliation. Is a preference given to the mother or child… childrens’ lives? The point is that these are minority edge cases. Rape is a criminal act of involuntary exploitation targeting the individual and society. Incest is presumed to be an act of superior exploitation. The goal is not to prevent, but to discourage homicides for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. The goal is to preserve the dignity and agency of women and men, and to mitigate the progress of human commoditization.
The house is ablaze, smoke and fire spreading. You have time to either:
1. Save only yourself
OR
2. Save only your child
We all know which choice is truly honored and respected and which is not. Difficult choices, especially in extreme circumstances, provide the truest test of our morality.
We would be sympathetic to either choice because we don’t want to find ourselves in similar straights lest we fail our own testing.
If we didn’t have continuous wedge issues the politicians wouldn’t have anything to fundraise about or election issues to exploit.
Seems calculated doesn’t it?
Am I the only one who thinks that the loathsome Raskin closely resembles, Zeppo Marx, the lone Marx brother who wasn’t funny?
Or the heretofor unknown brother Crappo Marx?