Congressman Repeatedly Asks Pro-Choice Advocates ‘Does Abortion Kill?’ He Says Defiant Reaction Reveals ‘Devastating’ Truth
By: Billy Hallowell
The congressman was correct to ask these questions in that congressional hearing. I’m glad that he did. The discomfort of the pro aborts was plain for all to see. The clear and obvious answer to all of his questions is yes.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Congressman Repeatedly Asks Pro-Choice Advocates ‘Does Abortion Kill?’ He Says Defiant Reaction Reveals ‘Devastating’ Truth
Abortion advocates again and again declined to respond to a congressman’s seemingly simple questions about the unborn last Thursday during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) inquiries were straightforward, yet the reactions they sparked made for some truly awkward moments in the hearing room.
His questions to Stephanie Loraine Piñeiro, co-executive director of Florida Access Network, and Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, an OB-GYN, didn’t go over too well.
Here’s an example: After Johnson asked, “Does abortion kill something that’s alive – take the life of something that’s alive?” Moayedi responded by citing issues she believes his questions could cause, Fox News reported .
“Sir, the way that you’re asking these questions actually intentionally invite violence and harassment to both of us – to all of us,” she said.
But Johnson wasn’t backing away from his quest for definitive responses. At one point he asked , “When you dismember something in the womb, is that a human being or not? It’s a living being, yes or no?”
According to Fox, no one seemed to directly answer these questions – or other similar curiosities Johnson posed.
At another point, the congressman asked, “Is it OK to murder a 10-year-old child?” to which he was still unable to get a “yes” or “no” response.
The exchange left Johnson tweeting afterward that he believes the dialogue and failure to answer actually helps pro-lifers in the midst of the ongoing ideological battle over the unborn.
The silence, he said, exposes an overarching refusal to honestly address the reality of what happens during an abortion.
“When confronted with simple, direct questions about whether abortion takes a human life, Democrats never give a straight answer, because the truth is devastating to their cause,” he wrote. “We will continue to expose them. This is how we will win the abortion debate.”
In another tweet, he added to his claim that “abortion advocates” decline to answer because they know the reality at hand.
“They can’t admit the simple truth: that abortion takes a baby’s life,” he said.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
Another yawner. Need more welfare/unwanted/disabled babies, right?
There are far more couples wanting to adopt an infant than there are infants available.
Good! Then let's get those infants adopted first before more are added. Besides, why should anyone be forced to be a broodmare for another?
False.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Let me explain this to you. The majority of people are PRO CHOICE, meaning they let the individuals decide on this issue. They are NOT pro-abortion.
What's next? Ask Texas Republican State Representative Matt Krause.
And a big majority is in favor of placing a variety limits on abortions while keeping it generally legal. Also the number of pro life people keeps growing every year. The effort to end abortion as defined under the terms of roe vs Wade is a battle we are prepared to wage for the rest of our natural lives until it’s changed to whatever extent that we can achieve. It’s literally a struggle we will never ever end. Although there are compromises that could be reached to would satisfy enough people to make it no longer as hot an issue as it is now.
There already are limits on abortion.
Irrelevant. Rights are not based on popularity.
Then you're wasting your life, as Roe has withstood multiple challenges and has been affirmed and expanded on over the decades.
And one you'll likely never win.
What compromises and why? As I said, there are already limits to abortion, which are compromises.
No, pretty sure abortion ends a pregnancy. There is no baby during a pregnancy. An embryo or fetus, sure. But no baby.
Science says, if it can survive outside the womb...it's a baby
No, science says if it can survive outside the womb, it's reached the point of viability. Science also says it's a baby at birth.
If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Pretty simple.
The party of, "more personal freedoms" apparently doesn't want those freedoms to apply to women. They are pro-birth, not pro-life because they could not care less about babies.
Abortion should be free and without Question, You should have to pay for your rifle
You really believe that the Hyde amendment should be withdrawn and that pro life people should have to pay for evil with our tax dollars over our objection? That doesn’t seem fair at all.
Yes, the Hyde amendment adds cost burden to all taxpayers. Why should all taxpayers have to pay for costs of kids their parents can't afford? That does not seem fair.
This keeps generational poverty going on, more unwanted kids having more unwanted kids and dragging down society
Yes!
Yes! Besides, we generally have no say over where out tax dollars are spent.
It's not fair if tax dollars are spent to support an unwanted child for 18 years. But then, life isn't fair, is it?
Indeed. Eliminating the Hyde Amendment is more economically practical and will be less of a tax burden to people in the long run.
[deleted]
Not according to the bible, he's not. He's a sadistic, genocidal maniac. That cannot be argued. unless one disagrees with their own bible.
Atheists always blame God for the effects and natural consequences of sin and the rebellion against Him.
God supposedly created the circumstances, knowing full well of the result and therefore, shares the blame. The buck stops with god, right?
Every created being has its own free will. So for each and everyone of us, the buck stops with us. God doesn’t compel obedience and He didn’t snuff out the rebellion out of hand as then those that remained would worship only out of fear as you’d have it in your construct here.
Impossible if there's an omniscient god. Also irrelevant. God already knows well in advance what's going to happen. No amount of free will can change that. So once again, god is the direct cause of the outcome.
Threatening someone with eternal damnation or promise of reward is a means of compelling obedience. That alone influences "free will."
[Deleted]
Yes he is. Nothing will change the fact that He is, or my expression of that as the only reality.
We aren’t having that debate again. God is in fact all knowing all present all powerful. He chose to create us with free will. The fact that God knows the future says nothing to His actually compelling anyone along the way to assure said result. His will is that all believe and be with him for all eternity.
There are some who think the believers get too much, or want what they get without any belief at all themselves . Others think that eternal separation from God and from life is too great a price to pay for no. Belief. Some try to “surface believe” and do as little as they think that they can get away with as a form of “fire insurance”.
Either you stubbornly, knowingly repeat this truly stupid strawman or you simply do not understand what has been explained to you probably dozens of times.
A lack of free will has nothing whatsoever to do with God being omniscient. It is all about a knowable future. It does not matter if God knows the future or not, but that the future is knowable. If the future is knowable then free will is impossible. The reason is that a knowable future means it is possible to calculate what you will do in the future. Thus, if the future is knowable, free will is impossible.
God has nothing to do with this. The reason God gets mixed up in this is because people like you merely claim God is omniscient. Well, if that is true that would mean the future is knowable.
See? This is not "God knows the future and thus compels people to act". Not even close. You are confused.
Not debating this again with you either. Already answered. You nor any mortal can place any limit Whatsoever upon God, what he said, what He did, or what He can do. He is both omniscient and the giver of free will. This is non negotiable.
Appears to me that you stubbornly do not understand what has been explained to you.
God has everything to do with this. He told us we have a free will and he told us that He is all powerful, all present, and all knowing. Given the choice between believing a secularist here or Him, I’ll take Him every time, and there’s no belittling insult or personal put down you can throw my way that can or will change my or any believers mind. There is no room for negotiation or compromise on this matter.
Your continued stubborn insistence that this is about God illustrates the correctness of my comment @5.1.10
And yet your god is powerless to stop the violence man imposes upon men and women
century after century after century.
YOUR version of GOD is apparently powerless to stop crime or abortion,
yet allows us to raise millions of mammals, fish and other living things for consumption
turning a blind eye to the husbandry and euthanasia of billions of his special sentient creations.
Hell (/S) he can't even stop the creatures "created in 'His' image" from worshipping
other gods and other men...
YOUR GOD sounds like a total failure leaning on the crutch of "free will"
while knowing the past, present and future.
Sounds like a prick, or a fallacy, a control caricature made up by all the women hating pricks at the Vatican.
Just my opinion.
No one talks to god, no one knows what he/she wants or thinks
If they claim otherwise they are either lying, brainwashed or mental
and incredibly loyal to a conundrum.
Just my opinion
Which attracted you like chum in the water to make your usual defenses.
LMAO
Prove anyone is listening. You cannot. Nor is it my experience that anyone can.
Indoctrinated in it against my will since birth.
Prayed over too many relatives and accident victims that still died quietly in spite
of our best efforts.
Eventually I came to accept that micromanaging the lives of 7 billion people
on this planet, ("god knows" how many other planets there are like it throughout the universe)
simply isn't possible.
The Force, the Circle of Life and reincarnation are more likely than
the God of the Bible or the Koran.
Have a good weekend Pilgrim
I'm not sure why you're replying to me when it's your own statement you're replying to. Regardless, the bible explicitly demonstrates otherwise.
More like disconnect from reality.
What's to debate? It's simply logically impossible to have an omniscience deity who knows everything that's going to happen with having free will. This has been explained to you before many times. Your refusal or inability to understand that simple concept doesn't change the fact.
See previous statement! If god knows the future, then nothing we do will change anything. The future, and our "choices" are already set. In effect, there is no free will.
His will is that all believe and be with him for all eternity.
Saying god gives us free will, and then say god will either reward or punish us depending on our "choice," inhibits free will, as god is trying to manipulate us. God is hoping to sway us into making a "choice" he wants. That is not true free will.
No, more like dodged. Or made excuses.
That's nice. Prove it!
This is also illogical.
That has nothing to do with the points made It's just more making excuses for god.
What's the old saying? "If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good. If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?"
To be fair, people might talk to god. But there's probably nothing there to reply back. After all, even children talk to their imaginary friends.
How many times have you "debated" this topic with people? It has to be in the hundreds.
Evil exists because it has to. If there were only good in the world, literally no one would know what good was. It would be meaningless.
This existence is based on duality , even our precious computers are based on "On/Off".
If there was no concept of "down" , what would "up" mean? Nothing.
Instead of trying to use evil as evidence God doesnt exist why dont you try to figure what God's existence might mean for evil?
How convenient.
Because knowing pain, suffering, misery, and everything else evil can bring is so worth it. >sarc<
When did I ever make that claim?
Apparently nothing. Evil as we define it exists. God is simply to blame for it. Everyone wants to sing god's praises when he says he'll destroy evil, but fail to remember that god was responsible for it in the first place. If god eliminates evil, then he's just owning up to his responsibility and his part in its existence in the first place.
This existence is obviously based on comparisons and relativity.
If someone says, "I am standing on the left side" it always has to be considered "as compared to what?"
There is always an opposite condition. How could there only be good?
Is it better to have a world with good and evil , or is it better to have a world with neither?
Which seems to have little to do with a god.
Is god only good? Did god create everything as pure good from the beginning? If all was good, then we'd know only good.
[Deleted] The debate over it and all other forms of evil will never end until the end.
It didn’t exist for billions of years in the universe. It never had to. Ever. It exists because created beings have free will and chose to do it. Every created being knew what good was. No one needed to do evil to know what was good.
There is no place for evil in the universe. Only good. Evil will be forever eradicated and never return due to the bitterness, anger, hate, that came out of it the last 6,000 years or so.
a rebellion and sin was inevitable and has happened and we are living with it.
Now that’s a great idea!
It seems you and John disagree on that point.
Your god supposedly created beings, knowing full well what would happen. Your god is responsible for allowing evil to exist in the first place.
What a nice feel good story. Actual reality might differ however.
Once again, your god created the conditions for it, knew about it, and allowed it to happen in the first place.
Better to remain quiet....
Is the circle of life proof of evil?
Is it evil of the big fish to eat the little fish?
Is spermicide a murder weapon?
SMH
God didn’t create evil nor is he responsible for it. He has defeated it and will end it forever.
Yes
Yes
It all was good. It was the free will choice of perfectly created beings to do evil.
Jefferson, to your understanding, who (else) has creation abilities outside of God?
Then how can he create evil or allow it?
See previous statement.
Apparently not.
If beings were perfect, then how can they perform evil?
If god created everything, then that must include evil by default. He allowed evil to exist and persist. Therefore, god is responsible.
If god defeated evil, then why does it still exist and even persist? All of your statements are contradictory and illogical.
SSDD
SMMFH
Depends on what is deemed creation. Only God can create life. Only God can create stars and the planets and other bodies that orbit them, moons, asteroids, comets, etc.
If one defines God as 'that which caused the existence of the universe' then God indeed created the universe. A reasonable foundation for a belief.
But that definition does not include any attributes such as sentience. As you add attributes to your definition of God you make the definition less likely (because nobody knows the attributes of God) and make the belief in same less rational.
Now that is a distraction. Are you taught in your faith God is Above (All)? Yes or No? BTW, I do not wish to dishonor God with a long, distracting (diminishing), discussion about simple word meanings. If you do not care to be straightforward in this, then we can stop before we begin. If it's all the same to you.
God has revealed Himself and His nature to all. Not all will decide to believe Him.
Obviously God is above all. Where could you have possibly thought I’d say or think He is not? As to the rest, what you decide is on you.
Where? How?
Of course not, since there's no evidence.
And some of the leaders who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead got the Romans to hang Him on a cross within two weeks. Those people saw evidence first hand and still found reason not to believe. Why would it be any different now?
Eyewitness testimony is subjective and the lowest form of "evidence." It's little more than saying "this happened because I said so." Based on that, there's no reason to accept such claims or believe. It just plays on emotion and some buy into it for emotional or psychological comfort.
That is a, "Yes." We can conclude, evil exist because according to your/my faith, God permits (created it) to be on a spectrum across from "Good."
As God is Good<<<<<>>>>>>Devil is Evil.
Say what scripture says about God and leave the "twisting of scripture" for unsavory people and villains.
There is an order of magnitude difference between biblical scholarship and the comic-book version of beliefs per Sunday school held by many adults.
Sadly yes. And there is little anybody (alone) can do about it. Discernment (good judgement) is needed:
Matthew 7:7
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:”
King James Version (KJV)
Thus, I can't really fault the people for 'dressing up' the biblical narratives and even for their 'fanci-fications' of old stories that keep right on giving of themselves. However, when folks leave themselves and their 'first love' open for mockery, ridicule, and misinformation—time to take stock of what one or an 'organ of the 'body (of Christ)' is doing to itself.
I think certain people think they understand their religion far less than they actually do. And when they stubbornly and repeatedly state their beliefs and, in so doing, illustrate a profound ignorance of the Bible, etc. —even when a legit challenge has been offered (and by fellow believers no less)— they categorically discredit all people of their religion (or religious category).
Many people do not wish to 'operate' as stewards of their faith. That is, they should think long and hard about what it is that faith (in God) is intended to aid in accomplishing in them - in this world. That is, God does not require 'help.' God is Able. We, believers, say this: Do they believe it?! Thus, we do not have to 'wrestle' with God or Man kind to accept anything about God, for God can make a new 'believer' in a snap (or as the Bible puts it - 'from the rocks of the ground praise will be rendered') if need be.
The problem I see if 'man' attempts to help God be God and fails miserably and in failing drags God 'down' in the eyes of 'others.' We are to offer our best to people (and that largely in peace) and after that "be still." Let God be God. That is where faith kicks in! (Smile.)
That is why you may observe that I no longer 'rassle' or tussle with my faith. It is there existing in me, of me, through me. I do not have to 'perform' for an audience or try to make people SEE my faith as something big or important. It is what it is. I am what I am and will be (to the best of my abilities.)
What makes you think "God" is a male?
[deleted]
Give me a ticket - c'mon - give me one -
JFC XXX - give it a friggin' break - you wanna start your own church/religion - go some place else.
There’s nothing about a church in the post you responded to. Pro life is as much science based as it is religious.
Science refers to it as animal husbandry.
What "science" would that be? The only "science" I see pro-lifers use is usually erroneous or more of an appeal to emotion.
There’s al sorts of science to show that all mammal life begins at conception and ultrasound and other technology to make more and more abortions at earlier times impossible to rationalize or justify or feel anything positive about their being done besides saving the life of the mother. The goal is to make the defenders of the practice resort to more extremes to justify it or prevent the expression of opposing points of view. Science is a better tool than religion to make abortion proponents as uncomfortable in their position as humanly possible, even if they rage in anger at seeing the advances of pro life ideas and technology.
Strawman argument. When "life begins" is not the issue regarding abortion.
Irrelevant. One need not rationalize or justify anything. It's still a choice. Because someone chooses to have one is enough of a "rationalization."
So pro-lifers have no valid argument to make against abortion. Instead, they have to resort to shady tactics like emotional manipulation. Got it. Btw, science has only allowed abortion rights to be affirmed and expanded on. So science clearly does not favor your position.
Not according to the bible.
Well, you know how some like to disingenuously cherry pick the bible to suit their own biases and narratives.
Adding a little historical background to this discussion can go a long way. Abortion has been argued since time immemorial. Considered homicide, murder, misdemeanor activity, and/or legal under law.
A badly decided illegitimate decision in need of total and complete reversal with the Mississippi case as petitioned.
And how is the (original) judgement "illegitimate"? On what basis?
What makes you more of an expert on constitutional law than the SCOTUS?
See the opinion of the recently deceased female associate Justice on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Would you say that if I was criticizing the Dred Scott decision which was almost as bad as Roe vs Wade?
Yes, I would. But the fact that you think the two decisions are almost as bad as each other speaks volumes. You seem to cherry pick which rights you think people should have. Dredd Scott limited individual rights. Roe granted them. They are polar opposites. Your thoughts on Roe makes you the same as those who supported Dredd Scott.
I didn’t say that they were almost as bad as each other as bad Supreme Court precedent. I said Roe vs Wade was even worse, as in the worst and most vile and evil Supreme Court decision of all time bar none.
That only shows reinforces what I said and your contempt for women's rights.
See 4.1 which is Fox News direct coverage of specific details of the congressional hearing where Rep. Johnson asked his Artie, wise, and awesomely brilliant questions of the pro abort witnesses.
Is it okay to murder a 10 year old child? No! For that matter murder is illegal in our country.
Therefore, there is no court-sanctioned murder in the United States or its territories. — Not hard to answer at all. "Souped up" questions are simply rhetorical questions which can't 'own' anybody paying attention!
Damn, I wish this nation would take stock of itself and many more of its over-protected and self-invested citizens would grow up! I will even go so far as to say I pray for the United States to grow up and not be vested in "childish wonder" any longer.
[deleted]
Do we have to sanction the ending of the lives of the most vulnerable and defenseless of the innocents among us in order to “grow up” as a nation? Let’s defend the wonder of our youngest children instead.
Rhetoric. Some conservatives don't defend the life of living people who surround them every day! Stop with this deceptive, sick and twisted, delusional bull patty! Life is all around small-town rural cities and you all mock it and demonize it! It's perverted, it is, to insist some conservatives care about they know not what! When you are abusive and hateful of your fellow citizens you can see!
You are accusing me of being hateful and abusing of our citizens? How exactly do I abuse anyone around me? Do you think I abuse the severely emotional disturbed at risk youth or the developmental disadvantaged youth I’ve spent 35 years working with in residential or academic settings? Or is it the foster kids I’ve taken in short term or adopted? Is it the charities that I contribute to? Who exactly is it that you are accusing me of abusing?
I accuse some conservatives of ruining the live experiences of citizens who are non-conservative! Some conservatives are biased to the ng degree against liberals, and so you demonize and compel them to be 'other' in your agenda. That is, some conservatives are driven by narrow-minded thinking with a strong emphasis on dreams of demoralizing and destroying the lives of people who would not give such people (and there politics) a second thought if they would simply 'fit in' and leave 'others' alone.
I will digress to remind you personally, that for a good work I will not condemn a man, woman, boy, or girl, but I will speak out against anybody who chooses to do harm and call it good! Especially you. You say you are a 'child' of God and yet unlike God you do not let your 'sun shine on everyone' while it is light out! You do not let your 'rain fall on anyone liberal' while it is in season. You do not wish to 'care for those who are imprisoned' while they seek to be free of their binding chains. . . . and, now you follow the whims of a madman as your worldly leader, and negligently call it, "God's grace."
Remember this, God is not mocked. And, moreover, God is patient. God will repay!
You want to deny women their rights and autonomy! You seem to have a need to meddle in the personal business of people who may not have asked or wanted you to do so. That's hateful! Then you apparently want to pat yourself on the back because you convinced yourself you're doing something good.
Maybe it's better if you focused on that rather than worrying about whether someone has an abortion or not!
Yes! Instead of dedicating energies to making life better for single and independent women, some conservatives' intentions are to compel girls and women to relinquish the one "domain" of life that is theirs alone to a committee of conservatives! That is, they have the gad to foist on especially liberal girls and women their political whims to birth a child/ren and through the process limit accesses to freedoms, prosperity, and straining the 'storehouse' of love they are prepared to provide a spiritually and emotionally abandoned child/ren.
Well within the scope of this subject matter, catholic bishops are seeking to meddle in the affair of President Biden's receipt of communion. Hmph! President Joe Biden has never contemplated an abortion for his own offspring (that we know) and supports abortion as a political platform matter because it is protected and settled law. Now, the irony is this:
Where are meddlesome Catholics and their bishops,' under control and in the Holy See, on positioning against pedophile priests? Do these bishops reject pedophile priests attitudes, behaviors, and actions, writ large, which institutionally damage the Church of Rome?
One would think these bishops would confront and deal with the problem of pedophilia within their ranks first, before they 'struggle' to deny a faithful lifelong 'servant' of the Church his just desserts!
Clearly, it is easier to go after 'low-hanging fruit' in the form of a President obeying law (and not corrupting the thing) and persecute 'it.'
What some fail to realize is that prohibiting or severely limiting abortion may make life worse for the woman in question and the unwanted child too. There are real world examples of such a scenario too and it's not pretty. I've said before some are too short sighted and wrapped up in their own sanctimony to see the bigger picture.
They also seem to have little or no regard for what happens to unwanted children after the fact. Especially if there is poverty and the cycle only continues or gets worse, along with other potential and related domestic issues. But they congratulate themselves because they they think they helped save a "life," when the actual reality might be much different. Some only seem concerned with quantity over quality.
That is correct.
Really? What was he then. From the moment his fathers sperm entered his mother’s egg and it is in the uterus of his mother, he is nothing but human during the entire process of his human development.
An embryo/fetus.
A car isn't a car until it rolls off the assembly line.
What the courts of the country are telling 'you" is, the owner of the womb for which "you" inhabit does not choose to bring "you" into the world alive at this point in her existence. It is a right that she qualifies to have and reserve in order to cherish "you" once she is does so.
Let’s see what the courts do with the science and technology that has developed since 1972 and 1991 when key current law was being debated. There is no assurance that the pro aborts will be happy about what the Supreme Court revises. I don’t think they will throw out roe vs Wade but will place restrictions upon it based on new info from science and technology since the dates I mentioned.
Again, a clear example of the need to meddle in the life of those who would not see you if you minded your own business (in small town 'America)! Apparently, 'peace and quiet' is to insular a thing for some conservatives!
It is evidenced that some conservatives want 'others' (liberals, secularists, women, homosexuals, non-whites, non-Christians, etceteras) to conform and be bigoted, narrow-minded citizens lacking in diversity and independence.
It is some conservatives who 'can't be happy," because you (all) need something that 'hoots and hallows' no longer can provide.
It's been pointed out to you many times that there already are restrictions on abortion. You haven't even mentioned what "science" is available which will alter current restrictions or why it's would be a factor. Even with current medical science, the point of viability is still the same.
Science and tech has allowed abortion restrictions to be relaxed. So what do you think will happen if abortion is revisited again?
Exactly! That is what it boils down to, is it not? You nailed it!