Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

Plan B and teens

Posted by Troy on 1st May 2013 in Current Events, Political

A judged has ruled that a 15-year-old should be able to buy Plan B pills without a prescription.  Sooooooo…what should we make of this whole argument?  In essence, this is a pro-abortion ruling.  They wish to protect the ability of someone to choose abortion in case their parents would have them do otherwise.  On what grounds?  To protect their privacy, I suppose.  First of all, kids don’t really have a right to privacy, at least not until they are past the age of emancipation.  Until then, until they are adults, they are in the care of their parents, and they have no right to privacy.  As they prove themselves, parents are to give them the right to privacy.  Second, while the known-side effects of this pill are relatively minor, there could be longer term issues.  What if we discover a 100% rate of cervical cancer after this pill has been used once a woman hits menopause?  That’s just supposing, and there is no proof, but that could happen.  Third, it leads teens to become reliant on this pill.  You will see an increase in use of it, which could lead to real medical problems as I mentioned above.  Fourth, this pill could lead to unsafe-sex practices since they don’t have to worry about a pregnancy as they can just pop the pill.  Fifth, if she had gotten pregnant and had to tell her parents and may or may not have gotten the pill, maybe her parents could have talked her into acting more responsibly.  However, since this didn’t happen and there were no consequences to her actions, she kept having unprotected sex until she wound up with an STD.  Sixth, this is an abortion.  They try to laugh it off, but that is what it is.  If there was a fertilized egg, it is an abortion.  The dirty dark secret they never tell you is that going through it is an emotional knife in the heart of many of the girls.  Now, pro-choicers would say that is because of the stigma and lack of acceptance by the self-righteous Right/Christians.  They are wrong.  The reason it is an emotional knife is because they will never know the answer of “what if?”  This can be a living hell for a girl to come to grips with.  Talk to some girls that have lost their baby through miscarriage or abortion.   And finally, would you have 15-year-olds being able to buy cough syrup with codeine?   These are pharmaceutics.  Honestly, only adults should be able to buy any over the counter drug/medication/or even vitamins.  A kid might read that Vitamin A is good for the eyes.  They go take half a bottle and destroy their liver.  You can kill yourself pretty easily with Tylenol if you don’t follow the directions.  There is no logic to giving Plan B any other schematic other than to protect a young girl’s ability to have an abortion without her parents knowing.  Shrug.  I truly hate inconsistent thought patterns.

Long Live the Constitution!

Guy Code and Pregnancy

Posted by Troy on 23rd December 2012 in Human Nature

Somehow, I ended up watching some of MTV’s Guy Code.  Some of this was actually fairly funny.  However, they did a segment on what to do in the case of a pregnancy scare.  The bottom line was “talk the girl into having an abortion.”  It was amazing.  Not one guy said to stand up and do the right thing by the girl or anything like that.  They spoke of ending a pregnancy with the casualness of someone getting a cavity filled.  Apparently, the “Guy Code” is a far cry from the “Man Code.”

This is going out to all the boys and girls out there.  If you are not prepared to handle having a baby with someone, you shouldn’t be having sex with them.  Also, what would be the point of it?  As C.S. Lewis said, those who go out looking for sex don’t want to have a person…that’s just the wrapper.  They just want the fleeting moment of pleasure.  Why would you want to be someone that thinks so little of you?  To give something so precious to someone like that?

Here’s the Man Code.  Don’t have sex with someone you don’t love.  If you do get her pregnant, setup up and take responsibility, like a man.  Do the right thing, like a man.  Don’t try to talk a girl into aborting a baby.  While we can debate the issue of if it’s life or not, there is one thing that cannot be denied.  Aborting a baby causes the mother immeasurable harm.  They will have to live with that guilt forever.  They will look back and wonder if they did the right thing or not.  It will leave gash in their soul that will never heal.  Even if you couldn’t care less about the fetus, I should hope you would love the girl enough not to wish that upon them.

That’s the Man Code

Why Catholics Supporting Obama are Hypocrites

Posted by Troy on 9th November 2012 in Current Events, Human Nature, Political

Catholics chose to support Obama over Romney in the past election.  This makes them hypocrites, and I shall prove why.

Why do Catholics support Democrats?   Most of them will tell you that it is because the Democrats help the poor, and this is what the church is most interest in doing.  This is, of course, stupidity.  No, that is not what the church is interested in doing.  Technically speaking, the church is interested in “saving” people.  I should imagine that Jesus would say that it is better to be saved and starve than to be fat and burn in the pits of hell for all eternity.  Besides that, I don’t believe that Jesus would think that the government should steal (take our money at the tip of the sword) to perform “good works.”  No, that’s supposed to come from the heart.

The government is not the place to do works of charity anyway.  When a church feeds someone or when a Christian feeds someone, it is likely that that person will see that it is a good religion and will convert and be saved.  What happens when the government feeds someone?  They become dependent on the government.  Without proper supervision and force, that person is much more likely to become a leech.  You don’t feel guilty about stealing from the government or from a big company the way you do when you steal from a church or from an individual person.  Just common knowledge.  The bigger the entity, the more justified you feel in leeching.  So the church is promoting dependence and enslavement to the government which at every turn seeks to destroy all public displays of religion.

Speaking of which, then you have the contraception mandate.  Now, I freely admit that most Catholics are hypocrites on this and use birth control, and I have no problem with that.  However, the church itself thinks it’s a sin.  By refusing to stand up to the government on this, Catholics have basically told the Pope, “Fuck off and buy us birth control, old man!”  Way to go guys!  And for what?  So that someone wouldn’t have to pay out $10 a month for their own birth control?  Skip 2 cups of coffee.  You’re there!  Downgrade your cable or cell phone.  Boom!  You want birth control?  Allocate your funds accordingly.  It’s no one’s obligation to buy it for you if they don’t want to.  You’ve traded religious freedom for $10 a month.  What kind of Judas are you?  At least he got 30 pieces of silver.  With the way Obama’s destroyed the dollar, that’s gotta be worth a LOT more than $10.  Learn to negotiate better.

Then there’s gay marriage.  Look forward to being forced to accept gay marriage.  They could even force you to do it in your church.  They’ve already proven with the birth control they don’t care about your religious beliefs.  Gays have a right to be married, and they have a right to be Catholic, ergo, they have a right to be married in a Catholic church.  Personally, this issue is not important to me in the least, but supposedly Catholics are against it, but as I said, it doesn’t appear that they are against anything too bad.

Finally, there’s abortion.  So you want to help feed the poor?  Over a million abortions a year.  Do you think the government feeding the poor saves over a million lives a year?  You are net killing people by your political affiliations.  The touted number of abortions due to rape and incest?  10,000.  Yep, there ya go.  Facts and figures.

I have nothing more to say to you.  Reconcile your political and religious beliefs.  At least Muslims are consistent.

Long Live the Constitution!

Todd Akin, what an idiot

Posted by Troy on 21st August 2012 in Current Events, Political

Todd Akin should have dropped out of the race.  Staying in was the single worse decision to make.  I can tell him what he is going to face.  Ad after ad after ad with the words “legitimate rape.”  Whew!  He’s doomed.  Nothing else to say.  First of all, he may have some point.  I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that “legitimate rape” equals “violent rape” as opposed to rape through deception, drugs, or other means.  Any fertility doctor will tell you that stress can prohibit pregnancy or cause a miscarriage–and I am sure that rape cause a LOT of stress.  However, he was a complete idiot to say that out loud.  If he wanted to go against rape due to rape and incest, he should have played the “sins of the father doesn’t damn the baby” angle.  That’s really the only way out if he wants to take a hard line pro-life stance.  He could have done redirection and called them out and say, “What percent of abortions are due to rape and incest?”  To hear the Democrats talk, it’s somewhere around 98%.  However, I have a different answer.

I am a Libertarian.  I am not for making laws if they do not harm another citizen.  Now, the question then becomes, “When does life begin and when do Constitutional rights convey to them?”  That’s an argument for another time.  Instead, we should strive for a society in which we are moral.  In fact, only in a moral society can we afford our freedoms.  When we deny morality, the government will step in to regulate our behavior as we fail to regulate ourselves.  As such, no one should have sex unless they are willing and able to deal with the consequences of their actions, regardless of contraception.  If we did this, abortion would not be an issue.

Deal with it.

He’s still an idiot though.

Long Live the Constitution!

Sex Selected Abortions

Posted by Troy on 30th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

For a longer discussion on the topic of abortion, see the following link to an earlier rant.

Now Congress is trying to pass a law which will make it illegal to choose to have an abortion based only on the sex of the baby.  First of all, let’s just go ahead and admit that this law is going to be found unconstitutional.  The act is protected by the Constitution per Roe vs. Wade.  Love it or Hate it, that’s the way it is, people.

The interesting thing is that this makes everyone involved hypocrites.  It’s rather spectacular.

For Democrats, who have been claiming that there is a war on women by Republicans, they have to take a pro-China stance and say that being a girl is a crime punishable by death.   They have to simultaneously condemn that this is happening and say that it’s the right of the woman to have the abortion anyway.  The unspoken side of this argument is that they find sex selected abortions abhorrent, but all other abortions are cool.  Query, what if it was a sex selected abortion because it was a boy?  Would that be okay?  Is it abhorrent to choose to have an abortion over sex in either direction, but it’s cool for any other reason?  This is like coming across two puppies in the pound, one cute, one ugly.  According to the Democrats, you should have both put down instead of killing one and adopting the other on mere physical attractiveness.

For the Republicans, passing this law makes the odd argument that abortions for any reason other than sex selection is okay.  Of course, their position is a little more consistent than that of Democrats.  At least Republicans are against any abortions (with few exceptions such as perhaps incest, rape, or endangerment to the life of the mother).  Their position to try to stop a certain kind of abortion is at least trying to stop some abortions.  However, there is an unintended consequence that they probably do not realize.  Suppose a woman wants a son but having a child would be a great hardship.  She is pregnant, and she wants to have an abortion unless it is a son.  The doctor tells her that he cannot tell her if it is a boy or a girl and do the abortion.  Not willing to take the risk, she has the abortion without finding out the sex.  It turns out the fetus was actually a boy that would have lived had she had been told it was a boy.  Oooooops.  So, the Republican take is that you have to either take both puppies or kill both puppies, but not one or the other.

This law is ridiculous because it assumes that people are stupid.  Let’s take the woman in the Republican example.  She goes to a clinic, and the doctor says he cannot tell her the sex.  Don’t you think that she will figure out that she can go to a different doctor, have a sonogram, find out the sex, and then go to the abortion clinic and have an abortion anyway?

Long Live the Constitution!

Fake Libertarian Ron Paul and Abortion

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2012 in Political

Lawrence O’Donnell has called Ron Paul, the most famous Libertarian in America (with the possible exclusion of Clint Eastwood), a false Libertarian because Ron Paul does not believe in abortion.  Last time I checked, Ron Paul’s stance is that abortion laws should be left up to the states to determine.  However, let me dissect O’Donnell’s arguement.

The first thing I would like to discuss is that it would appear as though, to be a Libertarian, one must live an chaotic (or anarchist if you prefer) existence devoid of any right or wrong.  A Libertarian doesn’t think the government should be making decisions on morality.  This is the sphere of the populace and churches, not of government.  Instead, Libertarians believe that governments should be concerned with protecting the rights and liberties of citizens against internal and external threats.  This is the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Most of the Federal powers were intended to cover dealings with foreign nations and matters which concerned more than one state.  The states themselves were meant to go about making their own laws.  In fact, this almost makes a market place for states in which they must compete.  If people want gay marriage, they will move to Massachusetts.  If they want no income taxes, they will move to Texas.  It also would prevent the nation from being dragged under by debt.  A poorly managed state can go bankrupt without destroying the country…but the same cannot be said if the country itself goes broke.

A common misconception is that Libertarians are against any government and any laws.  As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, this is not true.  Libertarians believe that the government is set into place to safeguard individuals rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  How then does the Libertarian, Ron Paul, reconcile his beliefs about abortion with his political ideology?  This is so easy it shouldn’t even have to be discussed.  This is done by defining when life begins.  To Ron Paul, life begins at conception.  If this is the view he has, he has to be concerned about the rights of the baby to its life.  I believe that the abortion debate depends largely on this definition.  If one believes life starts at conception, then abortion is murder.  It can have no other definition.  Therefore, most pro-choice people depend on the definition that life begins at birth.

People behave as though abortion is an abomination of the modern era.  It is not.  The Hippocratic Oath stated that a physician will not give a woman an abortion.  Of course, doctors have chosen to cherry pick which of the oaths they want to follow, but that is beside the point.  This means that the practice of abortion has been around since before Christ.  In nomadic hunter/gatherer societies, infanticide was a common practice.  A mother could only carry one child.  If she had two children and both could not walk, she would kill one if they had to move.  Sparta also killed infants which were deformed.  My question then becomes: “Is the definition of when life begins cultural?”  If a pro-choice person was dropped into such a culture and saw a mother smother a three month old to death, would they view it as a matter of choice or a matter of murder?  A three month old is just as dependent on its mother (or another adult) to live as a fetus in the womb.  Is it moral for someone to kill the three month old but not a third trimester baby?  What about premature births? I assume that the difference must be argued that a baby in the womb only has one means of support, that of the mother.  A three month old could, technically, be passed on to someone else.  Of course, this means that it is only murder if a suitable caregiver could be located for the child.

Some believe that Ron Paul is a sexist because he doesn’t support abortion.  Why on Earth are these viewed as mutually exclusive?  I am sure that Ron Paul believes that women should have equal opportunities and equal protection under the law and equal pay for equal work.  However, as I mentioned before, if he believes that a baby is alive pre-birth, he must also be against abortion.  Only Democrats and members of NOW believe that being pro-woman necessitates being pro-choice.  Isn’t it interesting that no one is calling for greater personal responsibility?  Oh, they will always throw the “What if they were raped?” scenario out there, but how often is that the case?  I find it hard to believe that most abortions are rape related.  Equating the right of contraception (and I don’t know of anybody that thinks that only men should have access to contraception) and abortion to equality is silly.  This format means that men want to prevent women from having an abortion as a means of control, i.e. that they can knock a girl up and force her to marry him and stay at home and raise the kids.  This is the single most moronic thing I’ve ever heard of.  No one believes this, or is it anybody’s reason for being pro-life.  Pro-lifers are pro-lifers for one reason only: They believe that the fetus in the womb is a live human being and is granted all the rights of any other living being.  It has nothing to do with women’s rights.  Also, the sexual revolution (the pill, etc) has led to a culture in which casual sex is the norm.  I should image that most sexual encounters in the past were between people who knew and cared for one another.  An unplanned pregnancy could result in a successful marriage.  This is not the case of unplanned pregnancies which result from purely casual sex or recreational sex.  So we have traded the right to have meaningless sex, a mere moment’s pleasure here and there, for a lifetime of hardship.  This seems like a bad bargain.  It would be far better if both men and women refrained from having sex unless it is with someone with whom they would not mind having a baby, if a pregnancy were to occur despite precautions.

Let us next consider the whole concept of “choice.”  If a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy, it is a matter of choice.  If the father slips something into her drink to cause a miscarriage, it is treated as a murder (in most states), and I believe that Democrats and members of NOW would demand that these cases be treated as murder and not as a civil case for loss of property.  So, that means that it is only a matter of choice when the woman decides (“My body, my choice”).  Fair enough, would Democrats and NOW be for allowing men to sue for an abortion then?  That is to say, if a man does not want to be inconvenienced with raising a child or making child support payments, can he sue to force a woman to have an abortion?  I bet the vast majority of Democrats and NOW members would find the concept abhorrent.  Why then cannot the man make the argument that “It is her body and her choice.  I told her that she should have an abortion.  As such, if she has the baby, it is her choice to do so, and I should not have to pay a cost for her choosing to have a baby when she could have just as easily chosen not to have a baby?”  I don’t think that Democrats and NOW would be up for that either.

I am not arguing the morality or immorality of abortion.  I am merely pointing out that Ron Paul’s stance is much more consistent than that of a pro-choice person.  The Libertarian does not withhold moral judgement of a person’s action.  They merely seek laws that protect one person’s rights against that of another.  A Libertarian can believe that prostitution should not be illegal for a variety of reasons but still say that going to prostitutes is wrong.  In America, you can burn Bibles, and it is free speech.  Virtually no one will hurt you, even though most people (including non-Christians) would say that doing so is distasteful and would frown upon such activities.  Try doing that in a Muslim country with the Koran, and see what happens.  In both countries, it is believed that you shouldn’t burn these books.  However, in one you are punished for doing this and the other you are not.  In no way does Ron Paul’s stance of abortion makes him a false Libertarian.

Long Live the Constitution!