Tag Archives: abortion

RIP Christina and Gun Control

The tragic murder of 22-year-old Christina Grimme by a deranged gunman shocked the music industry.

RIPChristina

Christina was my personal favorite during season six of The Voice. She was a gifted, talented, energetic, enthusiastic, and very likeable performer and artist. Christina will surely be missed.

Some people grieving her loss – and some gun control opportunistsimmediately pushed for an expansion of various gun control measures – as if those measures would have prevented this murder or as if the control of the insane is irrelevant. Banning guns will not stop violence.

One grieving fan championed increased gun control while bemoaning even modest restrictions on abortion. He claimed gun control laws should be more stringent than laws limiting abortion (e.g., parental notification, waiting periods, ultrasound – all deemed too onerous by him).

Actually, gun control laws, regulations, processing, etc. are already significantly greater than current guidelines and restrictions on abortion. In most liberal-dominated institutions, the media, the entertainment industry, and the educational system (from kindergarten classes to universities), abortion is promoted while constitutional rights to own weapons are challenged.

In some states and localities, it can take years for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights (even when in fear for their lives) while abortion-on-demand for young teenage girls remains far too prevalent.

Moreover, every abortion kills an innocent life while guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens preserve lives and protect the innocent.

Gun control laws – often enacted based on emotion and not reason or facts – do not work. Controlling criminals and the insane does work.

As we mourn the passing of Christina Grimme, let us not exploit her tragic death at the expense of personal liberty for the sake of a statist agenda.

Let us, instead, remember Christina’s positive spirit of love. In Colorblind, Christina wrote:

Kiss the future ’cause it’s so bright

There’s no mountain that we can’t climb

But it won’t happen over night

You know, it’s not impossible

Love is patient, love will wait

Love is something we create

Advertisements

Commonsense Guns Laws

President Obama and the Left have recently called for “commonsense gun control laws.” They are right about the need for “commonsense” but wrong about the laws to be enacted.

The operative words in their mantra – “gun control” – reveal their intent and the heart of the problem: they reject “criminal control” laws (which would curb most gun violence) and they refuse to address the mental illness (which animates mass shootings).

GunLaws

What would Commonsense Gun Laws (not “gun control”) look like? Well, the exact opposite of what Barack Obama wants.

Here are a few areas where legislation and implementation of policies would immediately make America safer:

Eliminate gun-free zones. Virtually every mass shooting has taken place in a gun-free zone precisely because the killers knew they could maximize damage while minimizing risk. Federal buildings, banks, convention centers, and other venues have armed security forces which deter crime and prevent mass shootings. Why are politicians and the wealthy protected by armed security forces, but most Americans (even our children) unprotected and told to run for their lives if a madman targets them?

Expand private ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. Make it easier for citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and to thereby protect themselves, their families, and their local communities. Expanding the pool of law-abiding citizens who own guns makes it harder for criminals to do their own thing. As noted by National Review, “The number of guns in the United States has increased by 62% since 1994 but gun violence has decreased by 49% since 1993.”

Increase concealed-carry permits for law-abiding citizens. An armed populace is a deterrent to crime. When criminals don’t know who might be armed, they exercise far greater restraint in their criminal activities.

Stop coddling criminals. Giving criminals and rioters “space” to commit violence is lunacy. Providing politically correct rationalizations for criminal behavior encourages more criminal behavior. Releasing violent criminals in the interests of “fairness” endangers the American people. Get back to basics: If you do the crime, then you do the time.

Robustly address mental illness in America. Mental illness (not guns) is the root cause of most mass shootings.

Deport violent immigrants and illegal aliens. Violent crime by immigrants and illegal aliens is escalating. If they are unwilling to abide by our laws, then they should not enjoy the benefits of living in America. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens.

Reclaim the culture. This will be the hardest task of all. It requires restoring God and America to their proper places in the public school system and higher education, returning to traditional values and respect for our Judeo-Christian, Western Civilization heritage, and championing adherence to the Constitution. (Much of this is cultural, not legislative.)

The Great Society, victim culture (grievance culture), and growing sense of entitlement in primarily urban communities has engendered a culture of violence. Moreover, a culture which reveres cop-killers and promotes killing cops is dysfunctional to its core.

A culture which claims only black lives (and only those killed by white cops) matter, while all others do not, is a thoroughly bankrupt culture.

A culture which defends Planned Parenthood’s grotesque butchery while equating Southerners with Nazis – and gun owners as evil incarnate – needs rescuing.

A culture which tramples on the American flag and finds fault with everything American is suicidal.

The Left would have us do more of the same – extend the ever-expanding welfare state, subordinate local and state control to an all-powerful federal government, and escalate the demise of our American culture begun by the Countercultural Revolution of the Sixties.

Commonsense Gun Laws are indeed commonsense, but they are in opposition to the Left’s agenda of fundamentally transforming America. Most Americans want to restore American greatness and preserve (and expand) liberty, including adherence to the letter and the spirit of the Second Amendment.

Will the Constitution survive? Not if the Left succeeds in stripping it of its power.

Update: Like Socialism, gun control never works (unless, by “works,” one means limiting liberty and growing government). The following four charts demonstrate the fallacy of gun control logic.

imageedit_1447_2367824908

newgunchart.jpg

12079155_10156233379385093_7673665897653919283_n

fbicrime

“I’m having a … fetus”

Funny, but you never hear expectant mothers say, “I’m having a fetus.” Or, “My fetus is kicking.” Nor do pregnant women talk about hoping that the “glob of cells” they’re carrying will be a boy or a girl.

Rather, they understand that they are having a child. Not a pig or a frog or a bird, but a child.

This truth escapes the pro-abortion crowd. Abortion activists will often claim that the object of the pregnancy is a fetus, not a baby. Fetus is a medical term. People simply regard it as an unborn baby.

Fetus

The expression “with child” arose for a reason. The expectant mother is “with” something, and that something is a “child.” (Notice the word “with” – the child is with the mother, not part of the mother.)

People know the truth, yet the abortion industry – abortionists, feminists, many academics, public education, and a compliant media, among others – continues with its propaganda to indoctrinate Americans. But it just does not work because the truth is too obvious.

The Big Lie: the unborn baby is not human and has no human rights. (Unless, that is, the mother wants the unborn baby, then it is human.)

The cognitive dissonance: abortionists can kill the unborn as if it is not human, but someone causing the death of the unborn can be charged with murder.

Other Euphemisms

Having “a bun in the oven” is a euphemism for being pregnant.

Bakers place buns in the oven to bake them. They are called buns when they go in and they are called buns when they come out. They will never be turnips or pumpkin pie or pot roast. They will always be buns. Period.

Likewise, an unborn child will always be human – from conception to birth to death in old age. Human.

An acorn is not an oak tree, but it is a nascent oak tree. You might say that an acorn contains an oak tree within itself. Acorns come from oak trees and become oak trees. Acorns and oak trees share the same genetic material, the same essential DNA.

An acorn will never be a deer or a dolphin or a dog.

No one rationally disputes this. Science and biology prove this. Just as science and biology prove that pregnant women are pregnant with human beings.

Thus, the unborn child will always be born a human and not a rodent or a cow or a pig.

A human being is an organism of the species homo sapiens. Using this definition, a ‘fertilized egg’ (a.k.a. zygote) is indeed a human being. This is basic biology.”

“The zygote/embryo is a whole distinct human organism – that is, a human being, a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens – at a very early stage of life.”

As noted in National Review: “Science has very good answers as to what is in the womb at conception. The cells in question are living cells, not dead ones. They are human cells, not rutabaga cells or bullfrog cells or Lactobacillus bulgaricus cells. They are genetically distinct from the cells of the mother’s body, as the DNA will confirm. They form an organism of the species Homo sapiens, not a tumor, an organ, an amputated limb, or a fingernail clipping. Science is reasonably clear about what this is: a genetically distinct living human organism at his or her earliest stage of development.”

Pregnant Pause

The English language is replete with words, phrases, colloquialisms, and idiomatic expressions which all point to the realities people regularly experience. For instance,

A pregnant pause “is a technique of comic timing used to accentuate a comedy element, where the comic pauses at the end of a phrase to build up suspense. It’s often used at the end of a comically awkward statement or in the silence after a seemingly non-comic phrase to build up a comeback.”

It is a “pause that gives the impression that it will be followed by something significant.” In the case of humor, that something significant is a punchline. In the case of people, it is a human birth. Pregnancy normally leads to birth. The birth of a human being.

Comedians understand it. Most people get it. The concept itself is far from revolutionary. Yet, abortion proponents either cannot grasp it or they are in denial over a reality which refutes their worldview and ideology.

By the way, the organization, Pregnant Pause, provides a wealth of pro-life information.

March for Life

Today marks the 42nd 1st anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Today is also the 41st annual March for Life, the largest pro-life gathering in the world! For those interested in supporting the pro-life movement, you might consider contacting that organization (or any number of other groups).

Pro-lifers come in all shapes and sizes. They defend the unborn, support those who are pregnant, provide counseling for those who have aborted their children, help with adoption of the newly born, assist those who have babies who have survived an abortion, address the political and legal aspects surrounding pro-life issues, and look to the spiritual well-being of all concerned.

<> on January 22, 2015 in Washington, DC.

Facebook Chat re: “Reproductive Rights”

I recently had a Facebook chat with an abortion advocate. His reasoning and rationale are noteworthy. You will see him reframe the issue (from babies, to women), conflate issues (humans, animals), dehumanize the unborn (developing zygote), rationalized partial-birth abortion, and accused me of having contempt for women and being pro-rapist (for supporting the children of rape).

I initiated the dialogue by questioning the very term “reproductive rights.” [Emphasis added throughout.]

BW: “Reproductive rights?” Don’t you mean “non-reproductive rights?” Abortion kills what is being reproduced.

DS: I think “reproductive rights” refers to women’s rights to control their own reproduction, as opposed to the government or a church or another outside group.

BW: Does the baby have a say in whether or not he or she can be reproduced? Aren’t “reproductive rights” actually a death sentence on the baby?

DS: Babies are not aborted; fetuses are, as though it were an induced miscarriage. If life began at conception, we would all celebrate our conception days, not our birthdays.

BW: Is a fetus human? Or something non-human? If the former, it has a right to life.

DS: Your error, and the error of the right-to-lifers generally, is to think the abortion debate is about babies. It is not, it is about women and how to control their behavior and reduce their autonomy. And by the way, as an animal owner, I question your assumption that they don’t have a right to life as well.

BW: If animals have a right to life, why not fetuses?

DS: Animals have been born; they are not developing zygotes.

BW: Is a fetus less human because it is smaller in size? Does a fetus deserve fewer rights because it can’t speak? A fetus has all the body parts of a baby and is clearly human. Why is it not entitled to human rights?

Do you consider partial-birth abortion a legitimate “reproductive right?”

DS: In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court used “viability” as the standard of when a fetus attains human rights, and therefore set six months as a reasonable standard. There is no such medical term as “partial birth abortion”; this was made up by anti-abortion propagandists.

BW: “Partial-birth abortion” is a DESCRIPTIVE term which accurately describes a “medical” procedure in which the fetus is partially born but then aborted. It is alive as it is being delivered and then killed before delivery is complete.

DS: This is extremely rare in the literature, has accompanying medical issues which you are not mentioning, and serves mainly as a scare tactic by anti-abortion activists.

BW: Medical science has tremendously advanced since 1973. The time frame for viability now would be significantly different. Still, many fetuses are aborted even after the Supreme Court’s arbitrary six-month cut-off.

There are absolutely NO – repeat NO – medical reasons for performing a partial-birth abortion. None whatsoever. In fact, performing one extends the birthing process.

DS: No, not many. One problem is that all pregnancies are different and time-dating them, especially by the woman involved, is an imprecise science. Some women don’t even realize they are pregnant until they are pretty far along.

Partial birth abortions, whatever they may be, are a red herring. Anti-abortionists oppose ALL abortions, at whatever stage, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, demonstrating that they are anti-women more than pro-life.

BW: Abortionists literally PREVENT the birth from being completed to kill the baby (which is almost completely out at that point). No medical reasons for a partial-birth abortion. None.

DS: Most abortion clinics do not perform the procedure beyond the point of viability. You’re obsessing over a red herring.

BW: So, if the mother doesn’t know until the eighth month, it’s OK. Tough luck, little one, but you gotta die?

Do you approve of partial-birth abortion? Do you consider it a legitimate procedure?

DS: I won’t be drawn into a nonsensical argument over a procedure so rare it is statistically non-existent, if you will not respond to the anti-woman aspect of the anti-abortion movement. Do you make an exception for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, or don’t you?

BW: Only exception – save the life of the mother. Not “health” of the mother, but “life” of the mother.

PBA is not a nonsensical argument because it does happen. Do you or do you not approve?

DS: So a woman has to carry the baby fathered by her rapist or abuser to term. A pro-rapist and pro-molester argument. You should be proud.

BW: You would kill an innocent life? And further victimize the mother?

How is it pro-rapist and pro-molester? What the #### are you talking about? It is pro-LIFE!

DS: And why is health of the mother insufficient to justify a medical procedure; why aren’t women to be allowed to care for their own health as all the rest of us do? Deal with your contempt for women.

BW: Because having a headache would constitute a “health” issue.

What contempt [for women]? Half of the babies aborted are female!

A disproportionate number of babies aborted are black. Are you anti-black? Are you a racist?

I would ask you to stop the ad hominem attacks, but, of course, abortion itself is ad hominem.

DS: Convicted rapists have actually sued women for aborting the babies resultant from their assaults; they think they should have been consulted. Do you? Your contempt results from your unwillingness to concede to women the moral autonomy to make their own decisions about reproduction and plan their own families. I won’t be distracted from the issues of misogyny by more of your canards about race.

If the fetuses are black, then their mothers by implication are black too. Are you racist for denying them the right to make this decision?

BW: Are you racist for defending eugenics?

DS declined to respond to my question.