Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

Best Sentence XCVII

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

Ann Coulter snags the 97th award for BSIHORL (Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately).

Short but sweet:

In the druidical religion of liberalism, not separating your recyclables is a sin, but abortion is just a medical procedure.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and at Washington Rebel.

This Is Good LXIX

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

Selective protectionism, selective morality, selective ethics. Calling it out.

Hat tip to Rick.

Megyn Kelly Schools Gloria Allred

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Two issues are involved here, they’re both important and one of them doesn’t even have to do with abortion. The first one — abortion-related — is all these nihilists, eugenicists and other assorted crackpots walking around claiming to champion a woman’s “right to choose to abort or to carry to term,” either which way so long as the decision is hers. And in reality, that is absolutely, positively not what they want. They like abortions. They want more of them.

The second issue is just as invasive and insidious. For over forty years now, it has been a tactic of the world communist movement to infiltrate our government and our society through this sneaky tactic of “oh I’m for free speech, but I’m also against misleading speech, and I don’t want to restrict your speech but if you’re going to say this thing over here you also have to say that thing over there.”

What Allred is arguing is the essence of the Red Lion vs. FCC decision of 1969 which says exactly this. Americans need to start rejecting this because we really have no excuse not to. We’ve seen a few rounds of this; we know how the game is played. It is exactly as Ms. Kelly has described it. You want to say A, A happens to be completely true but here comes this arbitrary authority to say you can say A only if you include B. Saying B happens to be costly and unworkable, but it’s an unfunded mandate and it’s all your problem. If you choose to pay the costs of saying B, there will be a C, D, E, F and G…because we wouldn’t want to “mislead” anybody.

Finally you throw in the towel, and the arbitrary authority says “Oh well. Just remember, we didn’t restrict your free speech!”

Smile. Wink.

Just disgusting.

You know what our problem is? We’re way too cynical in some ways, and not nearly cynical enough in others.

Gloria All<<RED>>. Somethin’ else. You know, if she was a character in a work of fiction, I’d say the author should have put a little more work into choosing her name. The metaphor is too obvious. And her tactics are, too.

Yeah, it’s just crazy old white guys in the late stages of dementia who babble away about “the commies are taking over!” Maybe I’m turning into one, I dunno. One thing is making me crazy like a fox over this stuff, faster than any other: facts. The more I learn about what really went down, the clearer it is that communism is not a hard, tangible organization from a dead empire, like the KGB. It’s a way of looking at the world, a jaundiced spirit. It is invasive; it did invade; it’s still invading. It’s an ideological prybar, with a great wealth of proven techniques and tactics behind it for sticking its nose where it isn’t welcome. It is recognizable by these tactics.

It is the enemy of human dignity itself. Keep saying no.

Thanks to Danny Glover at Hot Air, who blogs at The Enlightened Redneck.

Pro-Lifers in the Majority for the First Time

Friday, May 15th, 2009

Normally I am skeptical over these “This Line-on-the-Graph Just Went Past the Fifty Percent Mark” stories. I think they are generally much ado about nothing, since when you read them, the swing is something close to the margin of error. I also tend to think on some issues, people have an unrecognized need for conflict with balance. They want to be fighting. In two camps — not in three. And they want that line somewhere around fifty-fifty.

But it is really hard to assert this wouldn’t mean anything. The numbers strongly indicate there is something significant taking place here.

GallupA new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

What could it mean? Can Republicans find some new life by putting the abortion issue at center-stage again?

Not so fast. It would be a welcome change from talking about gay marriage. But I think the issues involved are more philosophical and more primal…even moreso than abortion.

Think about it: What is the abortion issue really all about, anyway? It’s about, when liberals-in-charge form their highly arbitrary talking points and settle on the idea that something “must” be a certain way — and make it look like they’ve just gotten done “listening” to what “The People” has to say, because hey, someone somewhere is always willing to agree with just about anything — an entire class of human loses the right to live.

This is something Main Street USA might find comfortable, but only under the right set of circumstances.

Now look what’s going on. Liberals are running things. They say something “must” be a certain way…so…our grandchildren have to be born into a staggering, debilitating debt.

A terrorist who would vaporize a crowded town square, suddenly has a right to be interrogated only gently. Three hots and a cot with a nice comfy pillow, and if he doesn’t feel like telling you anything, he doesn’t have to.

For the sake of “embryonic stem cell research,” humans can be grown like silicon wafers, or grass seeds, or vaccines. How many lives are saved with the embryonic variety, that can’t be saved with the non-embryonic — is something we simply aren’t allowed to discuss in public.

If a burglar breaks into your home, you have to dial 911 and wait. If that’s ten minutes, then too bad for you. You aren’t allowed to defend yourself.

If we work hard and we are rewarded with a bonus, Congress will work against our right to keep it.

The guy who is tasked with enforcing the tax code against us, judging by his actions — and not judging altogether too recklessly — doesn’t appear to think this is a tab he should be compelled to pay.

We are “free” to do whatever we want — but — pretty soon we’ll have to pay for “cap and trade,” which is a tax on anything we do that emits carbon, or involves a machine that emits carbon, or uses power that was produced through the emission of carbon. Or anything that involves breathing. Because the world is ending and it’s because of “human activity.”

Our sons and daughters willingly sign up to do…isn’t this a kicker?…exactly what liberals say they want to do. Sail off to the farthest corners of the world, where people are facing problems with blight, famine, plague and warfare, and help those folks out. We are called hypocrites for “sending” them there. The charge is a killer of two birds with the proverbial stone. It robs us of our sacred right to support an action in the private domain between our ears, and it robs our children of their free will.

When those children of ours are in school, they must behave in certain ways and not in other ways. They must not pray anywhere, or in any way, that they can actually be seen. They cannot counsel other students to share their beliefs — even as the secularist types can call them “stupid,” publicly and loudly, for believing in “The Sky Fairy.” Atheism has become a sort of softly-official state religion now; government cannot possess an understanding of how the universe was created, save one single explanation lacking in a deity. Life in school carries special restrictions for the boys: They can do whatever they want, so long as they don’t act like boys. If they display the male strength anywhere outside the gym, they will be punished as “threatening.” If they display the male weakness anywhere on campus, they will be medicated for their inattentiveness. In both sexes, whatever is unique and special is now contraband. The only exceptions are those cherished weaknesses that enhance the sense-of-purpose of government and all its special programs, like mythical learning disorders, phobias and allergies.

Life is even more restrictive, in certain ways, for our daughters. Just look at the treatment of Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean. The message is clear: Women are allowed to believe in traditional, conservative values; to be powerful; or to be pretty. They are exposed to a mild, patronizing sense of irritation of they do one of those three things. If they do two of them, then they will be acquainted with a white hot omnipresent dangerous rage, to which homely straight white guys like Yours Truly will remain an everlasting stranger. And if any one of them does all three — meltdown!

See what all these things have in common? They trivialize humans. They reduce humans to an entity of non-sentience. Like cattle that are to be herded around. Or the oh-so-sensitive stuff that lines your sinus passages, and must not be disturbed even a little tiny bit.

People get tired of this treatment quickly. That’s the point.

This fifteen-point swing from last year’s poll, minus-six to positive-nine, proves out that people have a pressing need to mean something. To be significant. It is a vacillating instinct, and in recent years has been a fleeting, occasional thing, visible as often as a moonshadow. But it is something intrinsic to our being, and when the conditions are right the protest flares up, predictably, unwaveringly. In fact it seems there is no hunger that settles in with greater speed. Now that it is here, the questions are: How much passion? How enduring?

So here’s another winning slogan, not quite so much for Republicans, but for anyone who would rally against the democrats in ’10 and ’12. It speaks directly to what people have in mind, to the hunger that was left unfilled by last year’s hope-n-change:

Humans Matter

Get that issue out there, front-and-center, before you start making noises about abortion. Do that, and people will understand how important it really is. If you don’t do that, you hand the task of definition to the opposition. And then they make it all about “controlling a woman’s body.” But that isn’t what it’s really all about. That’s never been what it’s really all about.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Irony, Over the Head, Under the Radar

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

I continue to be impressed by how many conservatives have rejected all thinking and live only to offend liberals.

Tweet from noted potty-mouth hardcore lefty blogger Amanda Marcotte, about 1300PDT today. If abortion is worse than torture or war, then is jerking off worse than negligent homocide?

Tweet from exactly the same twit, four hours later.

Also lost on Clueless Mandy: That babies come to be by means of sperm meeting egg, that some people are innocent and others are guilty, that unborn babies are obviously absolutely innocent by definition, that there just might be two viewpoints of “moral compasses” on the torture debate, that…aw hell, what’s the use.

Also on the torture debate: Mike McConnell was replaying a call he took from one of those “Losing Our Moral Compass” types, and it was great the way he backed the guy into this corner. Suppose a guy kidnapped your entire family and put them somewhere. Can’t remember how he phrased it…I remember comparing it to an old CSI episode where the bad guy abducted an innocent-guy and buried him underground with a limited supply of air and it was up to the good guys to find the innocent-guy before he ran out of air.

Anyway, McConnell pointed out the obvious. My way, the bad guy experiences some discomfort for awhile, your family is found, the bad guy is put under arrest, everyone else lives, all’s happy. Your way, your entire family is dead so the bad guy can enjoy complete comfort. What kind of moral compass is that, exactly?

You’ll never swing that horse’s head so far over the water that he’s forced to gulp it down, ya know. But that was pretty good. That one came pretty close. Close enough to reduce the pansy to a hyperactive spewing-out of meaningless thoughtless bromides.

Ideas About How to Fix Everything

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

An abortion pride movement

So it was with great interest that I read and reflected upon Jacob Appel’s “It’s Time for an Abortion Pride Movement.” This author and bioethicist emphasizes: “The political and social reality today is that pride is a necessary prerequisite for acceptance and equality. That is why the movement is ripe – more than ripe – for an Abortion Pride Movement.”

I passionately agree. I also believe that the framework for such a movement already exists and is quite powerful. Talking about abortion pride as a social change movement, destigmatizing abortion – and by extension, destigmatizing women – are concepts I have believed in and fought for all of my adult life.

A Republican Party that promotes gay marriage:

Memo to the GOP: Go Gay
by Meghan McCain

I am a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes. Recently, I seemed to have rocked a few individuals within my party by saying that I am a pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican. So if anyone is still confused, let me spell it out for you. I believe life begins at conception and I believe that people who fall in love should have the option to get married. Lest we forget, our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, grants the same rights to everyone in this country—“All men are created equal.” If you think certain rights should not apply to certain people, then you are saying those people are not equal. People may always have a difference of opinion on certain lifestyles, but championing a position that wants to treat people unequally isn’t just un-Republican. At its fundamental core, it’s un-American.

At the end of the day, speaking at the Log Cabin Republicans’ convention isn’t just about reaching out to the gay community—although I believe doing so is vital to the future success of the party. It’s also about reaching a wider base and redefining what it means to be Republican, and leaving labels, stereotypes, and negativity by the wayside. That more and more people are discussing gay rights speaks positively for the millions of young and progressive Republicans waiting for our party to return to its roots. Personal freedoms are what makes this country the greatest country in the world. And just like the civil-rights and feminist movements before this, the movement toward gay equality and gay marriage is one I have absolute faith will triumph over prejudices. Moreover, I believe the Republican Party has, at this moment, the opportunity to come forward and play an instrumental role in securing gay rights. That’s why I’m speaking at the Log Cabin convention and couldn’t be prouder to be doing so. And yes, I’m still a Republican. Get used to it.

That’s exactly it. The whole problem last year was that the Republican and democrat parties didn’t engage in a mad dash to see who could legalize gay marriage first. If only they had gotten into a meaningless squabble like that, it would’ve been a GOP blow-out.

And we’ll never truly respect women until we have celebrations for baby-butchering. Maybe parades, with some floats shaped like parts of fetuses?

Meghan McCain is quite the piece of work. Of course you can be a Republican and still be in favor of re-defining marriage. But your merely saying so, is not going to get her to go away. She has a more hostile agenda in mind. She isn’t thinking of providing rights to a certain class of person, she’s got another class of person she wants to define, target and banish to irrelevance.

I’ve heard it asked, quite often, “How does your marriage suffer if gays are allowed to marry?” It’s a valid question, but so is that troubling other one: “Without gay marriage legalized, or even with gay marriage outright-banned — what, exactly, are homosexuals left unable to do that everyone else is able to do?” And with that question left unanswered, it becomes crystal clear: Meghan McCain has no burning passion to provide equal status to anyone. She can’t; the equality is already there. Her passion is to poke someone else square in the eye. This matters to her more than anything. And you can see how trivial the idea of Republican victory is, to her, in reality. Look how many paragraphs she managed to grind out without discussing prospects for the next election cycle. Yup, she talks about making the party more inclusive — but that’s as far as she goes. Not a syllable about actually altering the outcome. Just like her old man.

She is a rotten, acrid vat of fetid vinegar with a sickly sweet sheet of frosting on top. The poor girl isn’t nearly as positive of a person as she believes herself to be.

One cannot help but wonder what kind of influences she has at home. Perhaps the Republican champion, who refused to get his hands dirty with his opponent’s Jeremiah Wright controversy, isn’t quite that much into kinder-gentler-stuff behind closed doors.

But at least she has a good excuse; she’s a young, likable dimwit whose father is well-known for putting cocktail-party-invitations above principle. Marcy Bloom, on the other hand, is 57 years old…knows what she’s doing…and, it’s easy to see, has a heart full of hate.

STREETBUZZ: How about your family and childhood?

MARCY BLOOM: I had an older brother and younger sister. As was common, my brother was clearly favored as the male and first born. I feel that our parents loved us all very much, but my brother clearly got favoritism simply by virtue of being a male. Thus feminism was born somewhere in my heart and soul (laughter) even though I was obviously too young to have true awareness of what that was. I simply felt there was something intrinsically unfair about any kind of favoritism based on gender.


MARCY BLOOM: Brooklyn N.Y., woo-hoo! Sociology and healthcare administration, Long Island University, Brooklyn campus. Yes, serious as one could be during the sixties and seventies. I knew I needed training to be able to function in the world. even though all I wanted to do was march against the war, march for women’s rights, and march against the oppressive U.S. adminstration (LBJ and Richard Nixon!) Nothing’s changed, huh? Goes around…

There’s a lesson here. When you’re motivated by the negative, you become inclined to come up with wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy ideas…ideas not the slightest bit likely to produce the positive outcomes you say, and you just might possibly believe, they are supposed to fulfill. You become just a tiny bit insane. All you really understand with clarity, is which class of asses you want kicked, and how hard you want to kick them. You become a sort of zombified person who can’t really be trusted with anything else.

I wonder if these ladies ever look at what they put down in print the next day and, in a moment or two of quiet and clarity, think to themselves “What in the hell was I thinking?” I wonder if that’ll happen to them someday?

“Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.” — Michael Corleone, Godfather III

Both links via Hot Air.

The Women Are Botching It

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Someone at Memeorandum really has an agenda for the fairer sex to get back in the kitchen and go back to baking pies. Two headlines leap off the page there:

Hillary Clinton leaves flowers for Our Lady of Guadalupe, asks ‘Who painted it?’
Staff infection: Allies rip Palin team

It’s interesting to me that, having just read the headlines, we’re aware down to the most excruciating detail exactly what Hillary did that falls short of our expectations for someone invested in that most austere among cabinet positions, Secretary of State — and we haven’t got the slightest clue how this applies to the Governor of Alaska.

If you click on the Palin article, that situation continues. The definition of Palin’s failin’, is vague, substandard, and the sourcing…the sourcing is really something else. It’s pure tabloid shit. “…said one former aide and loyalist.” “…added a national Republican operative who has worked with Palin.” “…said a CPAC source.” “…said a Republican operative…” The only people named, so far as I can see, are spokesmen for Palin who are disputing the accounts from these unnamed, anonymous, nattering nabobs — who might very well exist, who knows? It comes from Politico, which should be above this kind of ritual astrology-tabloid-celeb-sourcing, but I guess sometimes you can’t let journalistic standards get in the way of an agenda.

The upshot is: Palin has friends, and there are also some people somewhere chattering away with some ugly things about her. Um…I notice, those are the two characteristics that apply to all effective people.

Hillary, on the other hand, committed a gaffe in the mold of “Isn’t it an amazing coincidence the natural elements could put four of our Presidents on Mount Rushmore?” Except it was the other way around…

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

Well, I’m no more Catholic than Hillary is. I could’ve made this mistake easily. I’m not a chick. So there’s no incrimination here, either.

What I find to be substandard performance on Clinton’s part, has nothing to do with the “who painted it” thing and nothing at all to do with being female:

Leaving the basilica half an hour later, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “you have a marvelous virgin!”

This evening Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, a noted eugenicist. The award will be presented at a gala event in Houston, Texas.


Look: Gals can do things gentlemen cannot do. As a dude, I am the successor to the first caveman to dig a hole in the ground to catch a tiger; the first Egyptian guy to invent beer (yay!); the Knights of the Round Table; the first guy to lay his fine cape across a mud puddle so a lady of stature and position could walk across it. We labor under a different set of rules. I get that.

But the line is drawn — I should think — here. Progress this far, and no further.

You can’t kowtow to the Catholics, and then in the space of a few hours, hobnob with the baby-harvesting crowd. Palin never did anything like this. Women, and men even more often, in the democrat party do this routinely. They get away with it routinely. Many of them are Catholic…or call themselves Catholic…and mention it, often, right before declaring the when-does-life-begin question to be “complicated” and mumbling some nonsensical stuff about supporting a woman’s right to choose even though it is, in their “personal” opinion, wrong.

So they’re good Catholics because they don’t abort, as individuals. Nobody in their family aborts. They cherish the belief that their Creator looks down upon this with disdain, as a Creator naturally would. But they’ll provide taxpayer funds so other women can abort. Whoopsee, all of a sudden there’s nothing wrong with it…if it’s a “choice.”

This is tolerated.

Once a Republican talks about “family values” he can’t even so much as look at another woman, if she happens to be pretty — the desperate, bellicose cries of “HYPOCRISY!” rise up like flames around gasoline.

As I said at Cassy’s place when she highlighted this story

In my opinion, this is just scratching the surface, and by itself it is plenty enough to completely turn things around. YES I said all by itself: This juxtaposition on the left side of the aisle, between Catholic and Catholic-wannabe stuff, and…well, let’s call it what it is. Baby-body-parts-harvesting.

Republicans talk about familee-valyooz and then get caught cheating on their wives — they have to take it on the chin for that stuff. And they do. And they should. But this is oh so much more disturbing, this wooing of the Catholic vote followed by playing to the Doctor Frankensteins. It is utterly irreconcilable.

I’d think the successor to Thomas Jefferson would be savvy enough to not place these highly public displays right next to each other. Shouldn’t she be? Maybe I’m asking way too much. Either way, this beats the “who painted that?” thing by a mile-and-a-half. Easily.

So creepy.

So anyway, that’s where we’re at. Back to the subject at hand: It’s play-gotcha-with-women day, it seems…and no, I don’t think Memeorandum started it, I think it’s a prevailing theme. Perhaps the time was right and Hillary’s incompetence ignited something. The whole Palin thing, clearly, is a solution-in-search-of-a-problem. Like most other Palin dirt, when you check it out there’s nothing there.

Nothing but somebody’s agenda. In over her head? Good heavens, you wanna find people in over their head, look no further than the White House. You want to fly to Alaska to get that kind of a story? I thought we were supposed to be worried about carbon emissions.

It’s an interesting study in contrasts:

With the Clinton story, I know immediately why she disappointed someone. With the Palin story all I know is what some nameless faceless strangers want me to think, and I have to grind through paragraph after paragraph after paragraph to figure out why I should think so.

What would’ve happen if Sarah Palin, noted for her staunch pro-life stance, asked “who painted that?”…I wonder? Could it be we’d end up talking about that for awhile longer than we’ll be stewing over this?

Memo For File LXXIV

Thursday, September 18th, 2008

Quoting myself over at Cassy’s place, as usual, nurturing my bad software-developer’s habit of leaving absolutely nothing unsaid. The subject is this weird article written up by some asshole by the name of Nicholas Provenzo, who is “troubled by…[Gov. Palin]’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome.”

I do not know how Mr. Provenzo feels about other issues we are debating hotly, nor do I very much care. For he is in some very impressive company on the “should’ve aborted Trig” platform, and that platform splices into some other platforms in a way that can no longer be denied by anyone honestly studying the polling and demographics. Elaborating further, I radiate my wisdom thusly…

It’s really damned peculiar when you start looking at other issues: The people who support these kinds of eugenics — that’s exactly what this guy is talking about — are the same ones who are constantly working at making people as expensive as possible, once they are here.

The minimum wage has to be automatically boosted. Everything’s gotta be a union shop. The “workers” deserve more vacation time, more medical benefits. Welfare benefits aren’t extended enough. You have the RIGHT…to family and medical leave, to sue your employer for looking at you funny, to sue him for not firing someone else who looked at you funny, to sue that guy who owns the house you were breaking into when you hurt yourself, to inspect the coins jingling around in your pocket and not see those horrible letters G, O, D.

Wouldn’t it be more logical if we were divided according to — make this enormous smorgasbord of rights available to every baby from the moment of conception…versus…people cost too much, so let’s cut these rights to the bone *and* institute a draconian code of eugenics. That kind of a divide would make a lot more sense. But instead, it’s flip-flopped. And these lefties are all twisty like a Mobeus strip; they say you have this enormous buffet of “rights” legislated in, a handful at a time, in response to random populist rage. But only if you make it across that vaginal finish line. Until then, you don’t get your vacation time, you don’t get annual bonuses, you don’t get the Bill of Rights, you don’t get to live and you aren’t even entitled to a humane demise…because you don’t exist.

It’s like they know. Their enormous accumulations of artificial “rights” are so expensive, that after awhile they can only be afforded if strict controls are put in place regarding who’s entitled to live in the precious utopia they’re trying to construct. Abortion is like the turnstyle to their precious little domed city.

It fascinates me endlessly that the same people who want the tree we call “humanity” to suck away at water and nutrients at an excessive rate through this exploding nanny-state, are the same people who want said vegetation…properly trimmed. Quality over quantity. There has to be something tying these oppositional motivations together. And they themselves cannot explain what it is, so it has to be something psychological.

Update: Provenzo himself replies, again, over at Cassy’s place. He says we’ve misstated his position — but then, every time he refers to the situation at hand, he’s careful to couch it in terms of a woman who would choose to abort the baby, and is perhaps about to be forced to carry it to term by some thuggish masculine martinet.

As a mother, Gov. Sarah Palin chose to carry Trig to term. This is not only the point Cassy was trying to make — although it is that — it renders Mr. Provenzo’s various summaries of the situation utterly invalid.

Provenzo clarifies himself in this follow-up:

In affirming a woman’s absolute right to abort an unwanted fetus, it seems I have triggered the wrath of the anti-abortion lynch mob if the recent death threats in my inbox are any indication. Such is life when confronting the morally ignorant with their irrationality, yet all their “pro-life” death threats aside, the fact remains: a woman has the unqualified moral right to abort a fetus she carries inside her in accordance with her own judgment.

What is the basis for this claim? What facts of reality demand that a woman enjoy the freedom to exercise her discretion in such a manner? At root, it is the simple fact that until the fetus is born and exists as a separate, physically independent human entity, the fetus is potential life and the actual life of the woman grants her interests and wishes primacy. As an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree, a fetus is not the same thing as an independent human being. In the case of the fetus, its location matters: inside the woman and attached to her via the umbilical cord, its position in relation to the woman subordinates its status to her wishes; outside the woman, welcome to life in the human race.

But why is biological independence the defining factor of personhood in both morality and under the law? Why isn’t it the moment of conception, or the first instance of fetal heartbeat, or the first instance of fetal brain wave activity (just to name a few of the benchmarks often put forward by anti-abortion activists)? Again, it is the nature of the direct physical connection between the fetus and the mother. Physically attached to a woman in the manner a fetus is, the woman’s right to regulate the processes of her own body is controlling. Unattached and physically independent, the fetus is thus transformed; it is a person no different from anyone else and enjoys all the individual rights of personhood.

Needless, to say, this truth offends the sensibilities of some. They cannot fathom that something like the physical presence of the fetus inside a woman grants a woman power to control it as she controls the affairs of her own body. In a more just world, such people would simply choose not to have abortions, which is their every right. And leave it at that. Yet justice is not the aim of the anti-abortion mob. They simply seek to sacrifice unwilling women upon their altar of the unborn, reducing a woman to a mere birthing vessel the second a fetus exists in her body.

Here’s the flaw with Provenzo’s argument: It depends on the breezy conflation with moral sensibilities and facts. Now granted, perhaps he is so conflating so that he can stand atop the dais of intellectual superiority over his antagonists, as well as ethical superiority. It seems his ego gets a great charge when he does this. But it’s quite a simple truth that the two concepts he is so conflating, are quite different, so the conflation is a rather egregious abuse of logic and common sense.

Whatever you might make of the matter at hand — whether the mother’s right to choose supersedes the right of the “fetus” to live, or the right of the baby to live supersedes momma’s right to choose — this is a conclusion you have drawn, and it’s not a conclusion solely of logic. In using words like “truth” and “fact” Provenzo is essentially confessing to not sticking to the plane of reality and common sense, but rather departing from it. He’s arrived at his own moral code, and as icing on the cake has insisted, with no rational justification whatsoever, that whoever doesn’t agree with him is in possession of an inferior command of the facts.

Additionally, Provenzo has outlined his argument as the very definition of an invalid logical shortcut. It boils down to “babies are not babies until they have matured to the point they can exist outside of the mother; it is so, for I have decide that it is.” It’s fine fodder for those who already agree with Provenzo, who sympathize with him in the desire to feel superior to those who disagree! But it fails the most rudimentary test of a logical argument, for it isn’t even a compelling one. It has absolutely zero potential for winning reasoned converts.

There are a lot of people running around with this idea in their heads. I think what’s going on, is they’re just starting to understand why the Declaration of Independence was written the way it was; they’re just barely grasping the concept that rights can come from something, and of necessity, must come from something. They understand people can have “rights” that may offend those around them.

But they don’t know where to take that thought, because they won’t permit themselve to think of a Higher Power to whom the human race is accountable. That would interfere, you see, with this sacrosanct Right To Choose. I’ve hit on a favorite way to trip them up, and so far, not a single one of them has found a way out of the netting, in spite of their much self-professed intellectual horsepower.

It’s a simple question.

If a woman has an absolute right to abort a pregnancy at any instant in the term, and it’s non-negotiable, but some “mistaken” referendum pops up on my ballot in November that would criminalize abortions, do I have the “right” to vote yes on such a bill?

They don’t know how to answer that. About the most coherent answer I’ve ever gotten to that one is “yes, provided it doesn’t actually pass” or some such…yeah, you got it. At some point I have to stop challenging them, because I’m not sure their brains can think on this too long without melting down.

But the lesson here is, rights have to come from someplace. That’s how God does, after all, get involved in politics. If rights just come from people because there’s no God…then our rights are simply products of self-important snots like Nicholas Provenzo, jotting down words that say “this person has a right to do this, that person has a right to do that.” And this is the opinion of — whom, exactly? Provenzo? A majority? A minority that should be a majority? How long do we have these rights? Forever? Until next week? Until someone gets really, really grumpy and upset that these people have these rights? Until it costs someone some money?

It’s a fair question to ask. Because rights aren’t really rights, if you can only hang onto them so long as it makes someone happy that you’ve got ’em.

Perhaps, in the sitaution where a “fetus” continues living only in contravention to the wishes of the mother, what we are seeing is the very most emotionally jarring test possible of these things we call “rights,” and that attribute they have of enduring against the desires of others. And some of us have what it takes to continue a rational discussion past the point of realizing this, while some others do not.

Update: Cassy Fiano responds to Nick.

Nick’s argument seems to be that all he was saying is that it’s a legitimate choice to abort a child with severe retardation. But poor Nick seems to forget that we can still access what he wrote. And that wasn’t his argument. His argument was never simply about whether or not a woman had the right to choose. Nick’s original argument was that it was morally wrong and selfish for a woman to carry a disabled child to term, not to mention sheer disgust and condescension towards people with disabilities. You can see him saying that here:

Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

And there’s more. You should go read it all, really. I can’t do it justice.

Cassy lives in a somewhat different world from me. This “what the liberal meant to say” stuff requires empathy, something I don’t have. So when I say “nurturing my bad software-developer’s habit of leaving absolutely nothing unsaid,” I mean leaving nothing unsaid regarding the subject at hand, according to the text of what the offender (Nicholas) actually wrote. Being empathy-challenged I’m unable to engage in a discourse about what he meant to say, should he so challenge…and, obviously, that is his game. “I never meant that.” Having talent in this area that I lack, Cassy is ready, willing and able to nail his ass to the wall.

I live in a universe that is much more about cause and effect. Nicholas’ argument boils down to one of — as I’ve said — “this right exists because I have decided that it exists.” It is the ultimate weak argument, because it is the ultimate non-argument; it purports to prove exactly what it presumes.

Without being able to empathize with Mr. Provenzo, however, I do believe I can define exactly where he has confused himself. When he says “inside the woman and attached to her via the umbilical cord, its position in relation to the woman subordinates its status to her wishes,” he is not so much stating a fact or a conclusion of sound logic, as announcing a personal value system for the purpose of accumulating a fellowship. If you agree, he’s ready to be your friend, if not, then move on.

That’s not truth. That’s not fact. It’s a belief, nothing more and nothing less.

No, in my world when we debate “rights,” we discuss the ramifications from all sides. Once a right is proposed for a specific class, obviously there is an interest held by the membership of that class in having the right. If there is a debate about the right at all, there’s probably another class that has an interest in the right not being granted. Here’s a great example — freedom of speech. I can think of all kinds of speech I’d like to have suppressed. What speech Mr. Provenzo would like suppressed, should be obvious. But if society is to work that way, it has to be a society with regulated speech. We sit down and vote on who gets to decide what, and whoever is in the minority has to just lump it and shut up.

You have the right not to be beaten up, and not to be killed. This is uncontested (or mostly so). Does that mean it’s impossible to find someone who would have an interest in you not having this right? Ah, no. Normal people, every week if not every day, feel that irrational impulse to clock somebody now and then. But we respect the rights of people not to be abused, not because that is the law, but because intelligent people know that’s what is needed to have even the beginnings of a civilized society.

Here we come to the central handicap of Provenzo’s argument(s). Most rights are accorded after some deliberation regarding whose desires are going to be thwarted. Provenzo sidesteps this deliberation and debate with the prized tactic of the forensically weak: You identify whoever would have an interest in not-granting the right Provenzo wants granted, and you define them out of existence.

In the 1700’s, the “negro” didn’t count.

In the 1800’s, the “injuns” didn’t count.

Post-Roe-v.-Wade, the “fetus” doesn’t count. It’s not a person. It’s tissue. Just like the people with black and red skin in centuries past…they didn’t count.

Provenzo’s argument(s): It sounds good, to a significant number of people, to say this stuff. Therefore, it must be so.

We do not want rights decided this way. In my cause-and-effect universe, if that’s the way they are parceled out then none of us really have ’em.

Update 9/20/08: This radio interview is a good one, by no means a softball session. Provenzo is confused, he says, about why he is being criticized. If he’s sincere in this, then he possesses a stunning apathy and ignorance about the concept of “choice,” such that I find it surprising he’d choose to write an article that’s supposed to be all about this.

The point of the opening line in the first essay, was to criticize a choice someone made. The opening line. Contextless. I really don’t see what else has to be deliberated about it, or why Provenzo finds it appealing to spin it the way he’s trying to.

Good interview. I recommend a listen or two…although it didn’t change my mind much.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Memo For File LXIX

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008


Former work colleague Deanna Troi (not her real name) writes in with a triple-threat of an idea:

Three world problems solved……your thoughts and hey maybe info for your blog

Ok here goes ~~

1. The plastic floating in the ocean

2. The melting Polar Ice Cap

3. The increasing unemployment

MY PLAN….WELL………..of course you know its a combination of all three…….

Take all the plastic garbage and recycle it into a large plastic blanket…….in sections………..put it over the ice, melting ice, former ice at the Artic Pole…….this would create a large pool cover, blocking the sun from melting by insulating it .

This would generate jobs to gather it, create/manufacture it, and maintain it.

Ok….I know it sound silly and simple but……it “could” work……don’t you think…..?

Later Gator

Well, my initial thought had to do with something I’d been noticing for a long time: People in positions of authority, at some time or another, tell just about everyone you care to name to (to be polite about it) FECK OFF. John McCain’s said it to conservatives plenty of times, and Barack Obama just did it to our buddy Glenn Greenwald, to Greenwald’s great annoyance. But never environmentalists. Nope, environmentalists, who exist for the purpose of stopping things and making nothing go (except environmental movements), pretty much get every little thing they want, all the time. Big things, little things, in between things. Nobody in a position of authority ever tells a tree hugger to FECK OFF. With gas up toward five bones a gallon, there is more pressure now to show ’em the heave-ho than there ever has been…it might happen…but it hasn’t just yet.

And so it occurred to me that ignoring environmentalists would, directly or indirectly, address all three of these. Like Samuel L. Jackson said in The Incredibles, why don’t we do what we told our wives we were gonna do, just to shake things up a bit? — Why don’t we tell environmentalists to stick it where the sun don’t shine, just for a change of pace?

Another Item!

Gerard saw the clip we linked of that extraordinarily impressive montage of “I’m Not Here To Make Friends”…and he had an idea very much like Counselor Troi’s…

Could somebody please raise the money and gather the will to put all of these pathetic assholes in one single location and call in an overwhelming napalm strike on it? Please?

We’ll keep that one in mind.

Yet another Item!

Jessica over at Feministing, long an advocate of the hyper-populist “Can I Get An Amen Here” brand of feminism, which is nothing but a long procession of bitter hostile trial balloons sent up by feminist individuals for the endorsement of feminist groups along the lines of “I think this should be screeched at, can I get some help???”

Well. Jessica would like to let loose the dogs of “Can I Get An Amen Here?” feminism, upon some of those who practice it. Especially the ones who have been drinking before appearing on live and televised interviews.

For those of you who haven’t already been following it, here’s what went down.

Moe and Tracie appeared on Lizz’s show drunk. Very drunk, it seems. You can watch the whole video here, and the more controversial clips here and here. I was pretty much appalled by the whole interview. But it was the commentary about rape, abortion and birth control that have garnered the most criticism…The gist of it is Moe and Tracie said some extremely offensive and uninformed things – especially about rape – that they’re now being taken to task for. (They were later said to be jokes, but no one in the audience laughed.)
Here’s the short version for those who don’t feel like reading this monster of a post: 1) Whether or not you say you represent feminism, when you write about the subject to a ridiculously large audience, openly identify as a feminist, and make appearances to talk about feminism – you are taking on responsibility for the way feminism is portrayed. 2) It’s awesome to use irony and humor as a tool – but if you’re not using it in a way that hurts women, is it really worth it?

This ties in, because I think Counselor Troi’s concerns about the floating plastic are an apt metaphor for the feminist movement. In the same way you can’t viably entertain any sort of plan that involves sticking a sort of giant pool-cleaner tool into the Pacific Ocean and bundle up all those tiny bits of plastic, you can’t nail down what the feminist movement is all about either. You find a feminist who gets caught unabashedly, unapologetically and unashamedly hating men…you raise the concerns this gives you about the feminist movement to another feminist…and you get back this doe-eyed innocent look, Oh no, I’m not all about that, I just want equal pay for equal worth!

And it is this kind of nail-jello-to-tree-ism that has given the feminist movement enormous benefit throughout the decades. They have been able to advocate the most hardcore, borderline-insane nonsense — like, for example, we need to believe Anita Hill over Clarence Thomas because “women don’t lie about this stuff” (That’s one of the worst examples, but there are others). Patently absurd positions like that one, are owned when it is convenient, and then jettisoned when convenient. The feminist movement ends up being a rather hodge-podge, disjointed, undefined pastiche of floating debris, just like the Great Plastic Soup out in the ocean. It can’t be criticized because it can’t be defined.

And now poor young Jessica has realized it is this lack of a endo- or exo-skeleton that has landed the feminist movement in trouble, so she seeks to lay down some rules about “taking on responsibility for the way feminism is portrayed.” Sorry, sweetie. You’re trying to close the barn door long after the horse has left. Feminism, in 2008, is about intellectual lawlessness. It is about extending the indestructible umbrella of political cover of “Equal Pay For Equal Worth” over the rigid, hardcore extremist types who don’t deserve such cover…the “All Men Are Potential Rapists” brand of feminists. They are, by design, all part of the Great Plastic Amoeba of feminism that has no shape, has no structure, has no rules, and therefore cannot be faulted. What dear Jessica is trying to do, is roughly akin to making a pet out of the world’s largest jellyfish, and trying to saddle it up.

Another Bear on a PipelineSo Counselor Troi…here are my thoughts.

1. Scoop up the Great Plastic Soup for those bits, as best you’re able;
2. Make a giant plastic bulls-eye out of it;
3. Take it to the Arctic where all the ice is supposed to be melting down;
4. Put our drunk feminists on the bulls-eye along with the environmentalists who won’t let us build any power plants or drill for oil;
5. Add to those, all the reality show contestants who “aren’t here to make friends”;
6. Like Gerard said. Napalm the sucker. That takes care of the plastic, the drunk feminists, the enviro-Nazis, and the vapid silly contestants.
7. And the ice.
8. Jessica will be much less stressed-out, too.
9. Plus, the contestants won’t make any friends, which they didn’t want to do anyway.
10. Check back in a year, I’ll betcha there’s plenty of ice, and plenty of polar bears to go with.
11. I got a feeling our population of brain-dead cliche-spouting reality show contestants will also have replenished (although I’m not sure about that).
12. And jobs galore. Especially if we make an annual habit out of it.

I just love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Why Here?

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

It cannot be denied, by anyone who’s paid the slightest bit of attention, that all these crazy left-wing agendas are part of something much, much larger. I demonstrate this through the eight-or-nine-in-ten rule. Show me ten war protesters, I can show you eight-or-nine abortion advocates. Eight-or-nine people who don’t believe in God. Eight-or-nine people who think “global warming deniers” are on par with holocaust deniers, eight-or-nine people who think we should interrogate our terror suspects by simply feeding them, letting them sleep, and waiting endlessly for them to decide to tell us something good — no interrogations.

This nonsense is all connected.

And nearly all of it is much more popular in other countries, than it is here in the USA. The planet, minus America, does things more-or-less the way they want it done. But that isn’t good enough.

Rick was observing the way they run away from an argument, out in cyberspace where nearly every fight is make-believe. The subject of the argument? The whole “turn away the Marines, people are frightened of military stuff” thing. Okay so these people are afraid of defense, but not offense. It could be summed up as: People don’t kill people, armies and guns kill people. Are military units made up of people? Sometimes, but other times not. The answer to that one switches back and forth based on political convenience.

Ann Coulter notices the incredible success these lunatics have had in taking over the one place where their policies prevail only partially, which is our country, now running three liberal media constructs as the only three viable candidates for President. Mmmm…for idealogues who like to talk about “diversity,” they don’t seem to be very much into it. I’m not sure what taking over an entire planet has to do with diversity. Maybe they want to make sure everybody can just see how they do things, and decide for themselves how incredibly smart the liberal-secular-anti-gun way of living is? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Just run one of ’em up against some opposition, like Rick did, and see how they react to it.

No, they’re control freaks. They just want everything done their way — period. They aren’t all about presenting us with alternatives, they’re about taking them away.

In the last year, the USD has lost value against the Canadian dollar. Canadians who are pre-disposed toward the anti-carbon anti-God anti-death-penalty anti-self-defense anti-common-sense way of life — but I (mostly) repeat myself — recognize this as an extremely powerful argument: To build a society enshrining the ideals you favor, right alongside another society enshrining ideals you do not. And then show how incredibly prosperous you are. They know how persuasive this is. Believe me, I can vouch for this personally, you’ve never seen anybody quite so full of themselves.

So with nine tenths of the globe doing things the way they want, how come they don’t practice that a little bit more? Maybe build some artificial islands. One off the coast of Oregon, one off of North Carolina, one off of Maine…make countries out of each and every one of them. No guns, no death penalty, no religion allowed. And then they can all surround the United States and watch us go down the tubes, with our foolhardy practices of faith, inalienable rights, respect for the individual, private charities over public social programs, and law, and justice. Just grab a bag of cheese curls, watch us flouder around with our prehistoric ways. And point. And laugh.

(Just don’t forget to pay that tax on your television set.)

What’s this drive to stamp out every last tincture of any idea contrary to your own, in the name of “diversity”?

Maybe After She’s Out, And Safe

Friday, September 14th, 2007

Hope you’re sitting down for this.

Gotta love that comment from Zulma. Lol.

Update 9/15/07: I’m wondering if the item you see to the left would be an appropriate gift for such a “mom.” The only drawback is, it would probably involve a little bit more waiting than it would seem she’s interested in doing.

You know, this carries profound implications that the “mom” has to write the message across her tummy, as opposed to waiting just a few weeks and then putting the baby in a onesie that says the same thing. The same thing with entirely different ramifications. That is profound. It’s a microcosm of everything the Hard Left seems to believe about human beings.

After you wait awhile...I mean, what kind of mindset do you bestow on the unborn when you do that. Okay, I’m a baby in my momma’s belly…which according to the pro-choice crowd means I’m not a baby at all. Oh, but I am capable of being pro-choice. Unless that’s some kind of a joke I don’t get? Either way…I’m a pro-choice non-person…in favor of choice…about me.

I’m to be sucked out of here a piece at a time? Hey, that’s all good. Whatever you say, mom!

Are things really so different just because the baby isn’t born yet? I ask because, on other issues, it seems our hardcore leftists demand exactly the same fanatical self-sacrificial attitude out of people who have, in fact, been born already.

Not really suicide. More like apathy about decisions made by someone else, of which your termination is either a product or a byproduct.

Like, you aren’t allowed to have a gun in your home even though you live in a rural area where emergency services are unavailable, or provided with a response time of 45 minutes or more. Like that…not suicide, but apathy. Eh. Maybe my family and I will be okay, maybe not. At least the right people are in charge, and the right rules are being observed.

Terrorism treated as a law enforcement issue.

Detainees not being interrogated. Detainment facilities being shut down. Al Qaeda operatives trekking in through our porous border, and once here, being allowed to communicate electronically with the bosses back home with their “constitutional privacy protections” intact, so long as they do it from within our borders so that grandstanding politicians can call them “ordinary Americans.”

Eh. Whatever. How’s it affect me? Oh yeah…the terrorists would like me dead, and if it happens, oh, whatever. Maybe I’ll be poisoned. Maybe I’ll be blown up or burned up. The important thing is that up until the time I’m killed in some way or another, I have medical insurance and a right to strike against my employer. And, in a sense, to personal safety — in the legal sense, not in the practical sense. Rules are in place to keep people from beating me up and taking my wallet, maybe killing me for eighteen dollars…but society enshrines nothing to give me a solid reason to think it won’t happen.

Maybe that’s how the vicious attitude against religious people, all ties in with it. Being faithful to the left wing, seems to have a lot to do with submitting to the will of someone pushing a button, deliberately or otherwise, and snuffing out your very existence. Being cool with that…saying that’s okay with you…not even demanding any special qualifications from the button-pusher, just having that person be in the right place and carrying the right title. I see it all makes sense now. This comes so much easier when you figure you’re just the natural product of a living ecosystem with warmth, contaminants and moisture. That nobody more important than you, put you here. That you’re a fungus; a fungus that happens to resemble a chimpanzee more than a sponge, but a fungus nonetheless. And that there’s no consciousness, nothing positive or negative to be experienced, after your demise.

I’ve finally found something that makes all these leftist micro-agendas consistent with each other. It’s nihilism, and an uncompromising dedication to it. Nothing else makes all this stuff work. The baby killing, the soldier-slandering, the new taxes and increases of old taxes for their own sake, the social programs on top of other social programs, the crappy education being given to our kids…the seventy languages in one high school and you’d better be cool with that or else you’re a Bad PersonTM…the glowbubble-wormening…the hostility to religion.

Start with the premise that we’re all just candles that can be snuffed out on a whim, by anyone from the homicidal, to the wildly narcissistic, to the incompetent, and there’s nothing wrong with that — and it all makes sense. Leftist solutions, all have it in common with each other that we’re supposed to apologize to someone for our very existence, and be ready to be deprived of that existence. On a chimerical itch between the ears — of someone who isn’t even that special. Some authoritarian stranger who is selected to have this power over our lives and our deaths, by random chance, or something practically equivalent to it.

The passive nihilism arrives bundled with a curious and twisted package of ethical values. With the snuffing itself, there is no violation occurring, no “wrong” being done. What’s wrong, according to these values, is a lack of acceptance when it happens to a third party — or, to you. People do “right” when they line up for slaughter. Left-wing issue by left-wing issue by left-wing issue, all the way down the line; they all have it in common, that people are supposed to subordinate their instincts of self-preservation, to following the rules some left-wing stranger, somewhere, deems to be correct.

What gets all this nonsense going? It can be nothing but fear. Living your life with a sense of purpose, as if some higher code is transgressed if your existence is revoked before achieving some Glorious Purpose that has been invested in you, involves a sense of responsibility. And nobody ever said we’d all reach maturity ready to take that on.

All His Issues

Tuesday, July 17th, 2007

You know what I find seriously frightening about this?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a group of abortion rights activists Tuesday that he would accomplish universal health care for all Americans by the end of his first term.

It’s this messy panoply of seemingly unrelated issues, this mushbucket o’liberal goodness. Let’s try that paragraph again, shall we?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told a group of abortion rights activists Tuesday that he would accomplish universal health care for all Americans by the end of his first term. [emphasis mine]

Now, what does lowering the American health care system into a Canadian-style quasi-socialist crater of swamp sludge, have to do with killing babies? When did these two issues become fused together? I can be in favor of my girlfriend killing one unborn baby after another unborn baby after another, and at the same time, place more of my trust in the free market to handle my health care needs, can I not? In fact, one would think it would be easier to form an alliance that way. I’m told people who believe in the free market are “greedy” and “selfish”; if that’s true, wouldn’t my hypothetical make sense? As in, now that I’m safe, now that my own Mom didn’t abort me, I want to horde all this American capitalist goodness for myself. Right?

Or we could go the other way. I want a socialized medicine system so that everybody is covered. I don’t care if we all have to wait in line nine months for a kidney replacement, as long as we get the same treatment rich-or-poor…and I want all those babies to be born. That would make even more sense. Communism has something to do with commune, and I want as many people as possible in that commune so we can keep that communist health care system working.

Why has Obama seen fit to fuse these two issues together in this direction? If I want socialized health care, why do I want the unborn to be slaughtered?

I can think of only one answer: As part of an attack on the individual. Socialized health care is an attack on the individual. Abortion-on-demand is an attack on the individual.

There is more:

Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Public Affairs Action Fund’s annual conference, Obama also touted his understanding of women’s issues and his support of abortion rights and sex education.
Obama…also took aim at the current Supreme Court.

“It’s time for a different attitude,” Obama said. “We know that five men don’t know better than one woman.” [emphasis mine]

Only on that last point do I see any kind of logical cohesion to the way Obama is soldering these unrelated issues together, since I know Democrats have worked hard to spread the lie that any opposition to unrestricted abortion rights, flows from some unmerited masculine influence on public policy. They deal a great insult to womanhood, by denying that anyone statistically significant, possessing ovaries, could value unborn human life.

The rest of it is a hopelessly jumbled mess, or…provides unusual insight into the sinister workings of our liberals. Or both.

Sex education, for example. Back and forth the yelling has been going, about whether sex education reduces unwanted pregnancies, or increases them. Well. People who are in favor of reckless sex education, skipping over the reading-writing-rithmetic so the teacher can put condoms on a zucchini…are in favor of abortion rights. Huh. Gosh, y’know, if the sex education program was really effective in preventing pregnancies, shouldn’t that go the other way? As in, alright we’re teaching our kids how not to have an unwanted pregnancy, so we don’t need abortion on demand?

How come it seems nobody has that vision? If anybody does, someone in Obama’s advisory panel doesn’t think they’re worth very many votes and aren’t worth going after.

And what’s up with this apparent insult to all thinking men? Five men don’t know better than one woman. Yeah, yeah, I understand the political motivations at work, he’s trying to stop his supporters from deserting for Hillary. Odd that he would word it that way, then — it sounds like he’s saying a woman knows better than five men, and if that’s the case one wonders why he’s gumming up the works instead of dropping out and throwing his support to Sen. Clinton. And what case, in particular, could he have been referring to? Didn’t he say?

It ordinarily simply doesn’t do for a candidate to a high-profile office, to attach himself to so many issues in one speech, each of which are only weakly attached to each other. This makes very little sense…until one reviews the history of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Then it makes perfect sense. One woman knows better than many men, free health care for all, more abortions, teachers drill your kids on sex education whether you want it or not. But it sends chills up your spine. It’s called “eugenics,” and a century ago it was a highly-fashionable dream for the future of humankind, dreamed by egghead elites in America and in Europe.

I think Obama has done us a favor here. It’s past high time we had a national discussion on just what is the real agenda behind socialized health care in the United States, and explored just how much abortion rights have to do with it. Maybe, just maybe…horror stories about incompetent quacks amputating the wrong testicle, or greedy HMO’s waiting all year to approve brain surgery, haven’t got anything to do with anything. Maybe the real issue is just having more abortions. Maybe it’s just a scheme to hook up the hungry mouth of the abortion industry, as much a greedy and money-grubbing medical industry as any other, to the public teat. Maybe it’s all about that.

It’s worth thinking about. To anybody who thinks it isn’t, I say this: Obama thinks he will gain more votes than he will lose, saying the weird incomprehensible things he said. Someone, who knows what they’re doing and what they’re talking about, told him so.