Three Things Nobody is Mentioning

There is much fuss made over the pro-life/pro-abortion argument, now that we have some unabashedly anti-abortion candidates for President flapping their gums. That is fine as far as it goes, but everyone seems to be forgetting (or forgetting to mention) a few important points:

***

First, it is NOT your body. The thing growing inside a woman has an entire, 100% unique human genome all its own. The thing is effectively a parasite until removed or expelled, but it is unquestionably, inarguably, a human thing in its own right. When an ovum and a spermatozoon get together and form a cell, that cell has its own DNA. It has its own life, separate from its mother or its father. It just so happens that the mother supports the zygote/foetus/baby inside her body. Any biologist worth his salt will say with certainty that this thing inside a woman is a separate homo sapiens. It is in her body, but her body is not the one destroyed during a miscarriage or abortion. The body of that tiny, separate, immature human is destroyed, and hers is only injured somewhat. She will suffer emotionally, but it is fashionable to let her figure that out on her own, after the fact. Let us be quite clear: when a foetus us removed from a uterus, it is the ending of the life of a homo sapiens. This is beyond debate, unless you are so mentally broken that the debate would do you no good anyway.



***

Second, when do its rights begin? If we call for rights for the helpless, regardless of status of having been born or not, the question is the same. Aside from drawing their own air, post-partum babies can't do anything. They will die without care from another human. Those not yet born will also die, and for the same reasons, if separated from their caregivers if born a few weeks before their due date. The maintenance of life gets slightly more complicated the farther back you go, but get this:

Babies can (we know, because it has happened) survive with extreme medical assistance after gestating for only 5 months. It is possible for such a very prematurely-born PERSON to live separate from their mother. Toddlers can (we know, again, because it has happened) continue to sustain themselves for days after the death of their custodians, if they know where food and water are to be found. There have been cases of children feeding themselves the food they could reach (like cereal) and getting at the liquids they knew how to get, and living for DAYS when their parents were decomposing in the next room. These children are obviously able to live with some limitations, entirely autonomously.

Before the child is able to be born and rushed to the NICU ward so that it can live, it is without question totally helpless. There is basically zero chance (at least, not yet) of saving a baby born, e.g., in the first trimester of gestation. They are 100% dependent on the wombs of their mothers. Before a child is able to get up and go to the pantry when Mommy just won't wake up, it is also 100% dependent on other people. They can't DO anything for themselves, and life is totally unsustainable without someone to supply their needs. To those with twisted minds, this is only a matter of degree.

At what point does a human become entitled to human rights? At the point they are self-sustaining? At the point they are medically able to be saved from death outside the hospitable uterus?

This is a debate from which our country has shied. We need to decide, as a people, what is the answer. And by the way, except as pertains to hypothetical future actions, this is entirely a State question. A person who is not born is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of the United States.

***

Third, and this is one that practically NObody wants to discuss, anywhere in any forum, is the fact that just because you are inconvenient does not mean you deserve to die. And before you read on, just remember that yes, I did go there and I mean it.

The jews, homosexuals, christians, mental defectives, etc. were considered to be inconvenient to the Race and generally a burden on the world, so the NAZIS murdered them by their millions in what became known as The Holocaust. The free people of the Ukraine were inconvenient to the Soviets, so they starved them to death by their millions in what became (less-well known) as The Holodomor. And children not yet born were inconvenient or politically incorrect at the time of their gestation, or would have raised questions and eyebrows the mothers and grandmothers didn't want raised, or god-forbid you should be sad because you didn't want to have sex in the first place (yes this even goes for rape and incest) . . . so we Americans have killed, in numbers greater than the Holocaust and Holodomor COMBINED, children whose only crime was being fertilized inside your holier-than-thou-and-hell-no-I-don't-want-this-baby uterus.

If being the cause of mental anguish is an acceptable reason to kill someone, then why does a stepchild go to jail for killing the step-parent? If causing emotional distress is enough, how is there a single mother in-law in the world? If being inconvenient will do as a reason to kill someone, why is your kid brother still alive? If a person deserves to die because they raise inconvenient questions by merely existing, then why is Vince Foster . . . oh, wait.

It does not matter why a woman is pregnant. If she is, she is the host to a separate human being who depends on her for its life. The question rather is, on what grounds to you end that life?

********

For those who honestly have to make the choice between the life of a mother and the life of her baby for medical reasons, I give both a very large amount discretion and my heartfelt condolences. This is the only case in which a mother is entitled to end the life of her child without blood guiltiness. In this case only does the "It's my body/It's my choice" argument apply.

********

Tell me how we are not deserving of the worst that God could do to us, when our society allows this to happen for the convenience of the DNA donors?

I'm not sure why they have it, but greenvilleeagles.com hosts this picture.  Photobucket called a similar photo a violation of their terms of use and yanked it.  I wish Uncle Sam would say the same about what happened to make the picture possible!

Austin City Council Hates Children?

Austin's City Council has just (unanimously) passed a law that says says pro-life pregnancy crisis centers MUST -on their own property- post a sign that says they do not offer abortions or birth control.

No word on why abortuaries don't have to post pictures of murdered children on their property.

Note the typical leftist spin the Statesman puts on it: oh' it's no big deal [why bother then] it only infringes on the will of a few organizations [tyranny of the majority]. Besides nobody will get arrested [for now] for violations it's only [!] a $450 fine. Besides it's complaint-driven [as if NARAL wouldn't protest every non-compliant facility on Day 1]

Conservative Austinite: are you ready to run for City Council yet?

Abortofascists Stand In The Gap

Neal Boorts refuses to allow discussion of abortion on the air on his show. He refers to the (mostly men) people whose main political issue is 'abortion rights' as "abortofascists" and the term is used derisively.

Right now, the only thing standing between the United States and the Fascisti who would like to cram 'healthcare' through Congress are the people who are derided as abortofascists.

I wonder if Neal still wishes they would go away and shut up about abortion.

"Healthcare Bill Huge Blow to Reproductive Rights"

So saith the Huffpo. That wasn't the actual headline, but it was the teaser to get you to click on this link.

The Stupak amendment. It prevents the "healthcare" bill just passed (barely passed) by the Congress of the United States from paying for abortions, except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother (wink). This somehow is supposed to be an infringement on the "reproductive rights" of women. If you are stupid or intellectually lazy, or went to government schools (but I repeat myself) then you might agree that it IS an infringement on womens' rights.

Rights are something enforceable against someone else; enforceable by the government, against someone else on the behalf of a person with a right. For example, I have a RIGHT to have you not steal my car, and the Police will enforce that right for me, if you want to violate it.

For you to have a RIGHT to an abortion paid for by the government means that all of the following are true:

You have the right to the procedure.
You have the right to have the government pay for the procedure.
The government has no money, so they must take it from the citizenry.
The government has the legal ability to put people in JAIL for not paying taxes.
The government has in the past KILLED people for failure to comply with tax laws.
You therefore have the RIGHT to have an agent of the government go KILL SOMEBODY for not paying for the procedure.
Furthermore:
You have the right to the procedure.
Someone must provide the procedure, if you are to have it.
If that someone does not want to provide the procedure, the government may compel them to do it for you.
The abortion 'doctor' has NO right to decline you the procedure.
The 'doctor' must agree to take whatever the government is willing to pay for the procedure.
The abortion doctor must comply and give you the procedure, or be fined, imprisoned, or KILLED by the government.
For not providing you with the procedure which it is your RIGHT to have.

therefore, because all of the foregoing is NOT true, you have NO RIGHT to abortion paid for by the government. Reproductive Rights is a code phrase for forcing ME the taxpayer, to fund YOUR abortion.

This is the exact same argument applied to socialized "nationalized" health care, single-payer health care, etc. You have no RIGHT to health care. You do have the right to have a legitimate medical procedure performed, provided you are willing to pay an agreeable amount of money to a doctor who willingly does it for that amount. You do not have the right to put a government-run machine gun to Mr. Rich Man's head and force him to pay your medical bills.

. . . leaving aside entirely, the argument that health care is - if it is a government concern at all - a city, county, or at most a State concern, and the Federal government has no legitimate part to play in an individual citizen's health care, except to try to prevent a national enemy from blowing you up.

. . . also leaving aside the fact that you are wanting to force your fellow citizens to pay a doctor to murder your child for you.

People Who Should Be Were Shot: One More.

George Tiller presumably took an oath that says (translated to English) "First, do no harm." Then he went on to kill an untold number of people whose crimes were largely "Capital Inconvenience to People With Vaginas."

"Dr." George Tiller is now dead. Shot when he had his guard down. Let that be a lesson to all of us with unpopular opinions. He was murdered in church.



His clinic is was one of less than a handful in the country that would kill your baby for you after they were already old enough to be born and subsequently survive. It is fortified, and he usually rolled with bodyguards, but apparently he was unguarded in church. No comment on the type of church that admits a practicing murderer as an usher.

"The slaying of the 67-year-old doctor is "an unspeakable tragedy," his widow, four children and 10 grandchildren said in statement."

The slaying of persons who had done nothing besides gestate is an unspeakable tragedy. This guy's removal from The Land Of The Living is only going to improve a baby's chance of being born. It's inconvenient for you all, but you'll have to excuse my lack of sympathy.

""We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down," Troy Newman, Operation Rescue's president, said in a statement. "Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning."

"President Barack Obama said he was "shocked and outraged" by the murder. "However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," he said."

I agree with Mr. Newman and President Obama wholeheartedly. I do not condone shooting people who deserve it but have not got a fair trial (yet). I also do not regret the death of a murderer.

Note to President Obama: Regarding your comments in a recent speech: it is pretty tough to find "common ground" between people who think we should kill children for our own convenience, and people who do not.

Note to citizens of Texas: It is legal for authorized persons and Concealed Handgun Licence holders to carry concealed handguns in a church. I encourage the legal carry of defensive weapons at all times, including guns, including in church. Wear your guns people!

First Principles: The Rights To Life and Property

Prologue:

First, let us get one thing straight: rights belong to people only, and are against other people, organizations, and governmental entities. The only natural and just limit on your rights are the rights of other people. If you begin to violate my rights, you have overstepped the just exercise of your rights. Governments and corporations have no rights of their own. They may be granted privileges, and they may receive special legal standing, but these are not rights.

Rights belong only to people, and they are both inherent and immutable. A man may give up the exercise of his rights, but he cannot give up his rights. The alternatives may be grim indeed, but no one can force a person not convicted of any crime to abandon his rights.

********

Your life is not your own, but it belongs to God. Genesis teaches us that man only came to life when God put his breath into man. The state and a corporation did not give you life. Unless you waive it, you have to the right to be the sole caretaker of your own life. You may live under a tyrant whose regime takes your life but has no right to it. You may commit a crime so severe that the law states you must be killed for it, but that crime you committed was voluntary.

You are the only one with a right to say whether you live or die.

If you have not been born yet, that does not give your mother the right to kill you. If you are inconvenient to her, she should have kept her legs crossed. If your existence causes her mental anguish because of the conditions of your conception or the identity of your sperm donor, she does not have the right to kill you, any more than a neo-nazi has a right to kill a jew whose mere existence offends the neo-nazi. In extremely rare instances, a child being borne to term would pose a hazard to the continued life of the mother. In such a case, with prayer and much consideration, that woman and she alone has the right to choose whose life will persist.

If you are deathly ill and your life is only extended by the intervention of doctors with machines and medications without which you would surely die, and you demand the removal of the intervention, that is not suicide. That is allowing nature to take its course. The State, your family, and your doctor, have no right to prevent your allowing yourself to die. Cutting your own life short is another matter. If you would live even a day longer, you should not take your own life. Your doctor says you have 2 months to live, and those months will be painful? Get a prescription from a pain management doctor and live out the life that was given to you (and is, remember, not your own).

If you have made it through that, you may find the rest of my arguments easier to agree with, so keep reading.

The right to life is fundamental to your other rights. Because you have a right to life, you also have a derivative right to sustain your life by whatever means you can find, so long as your means do not infringe on the rights of others. That means you have a right to work at a job for which you are qualified as long as your employer is willing to give you the job. When you go to work, you have the right to enforce your employment agreement against your employer and demand the wages which are your due. Another way to say it is, you have a right to wages you have legitimately earned for yourself.

Compensation at a job these days mostly means some form of currency (dollars) are given to you in consideration of your having given an employer your time and/or services. To rephrase the foregoing, you have a right to trade hours out of your lifespan for money. Those hours were yours to trade because your life is yours to care for. It is not illogical or improper to say then that your money is a converted form of time you took away from doing something else in your life while you worked for your employer.

Your money is your life, converted into a medium of exchange so that you may more easily acquire things necessary to the maintenance of your life.

It is entirely beside the point to ask how much money you make. You and your employer both consider that your wages and your time are traded at a fair rate. Everyone else in the world can feel free to take a long walk off a short pier if they think you are being given too much - or too little - media of exchange (money) for your life.

I will take you one step further and then we will be through for now.

You have a right to your money. Unless you consent to it, nobody else has a right to your money, any more than they have a right to your life. Because you have an absolute right to your money, you have the right to buy with it what you wish. We have seen that your money is a different form of your life, and here we go one step further. What you buy with your money is a converted form of your money. Therefore:

The things you purchase are a converted form of your life, and all the ways you may defend your own life may be legitimately used to defend your

Property.

Hold on there.

Did I just say I am in favor of killing people for petty theft? No.

If someone offers you a minor threat to your life, such as a simple assault, it may be that you decide the threat to your life is not worth answering with lethal force. Perhaps all that is required to preserve yourself is a gentle word to sooth someone's anger. It should be obvious that you should not reach for the shotgun in every circumstance where some other person's desire bumps into your rights! It should also be apparent that in almost every case, the only person with a right to decide what level of force is an appropriate response is the individual who has been threatened.

Let us suppose that you knew that you would die exactly one year from today. If someone tried to kill you today, would you quietly allow them to cut your life short by one year? Let us suppose that you are driving a car that cost you a full year's wages to purchase. That car, in a very real sense, IS one year of your productive life. Would you allow some car thief to take it? The answers to both of those questions, if you are honest with yourself and following my logic, should be the same. Perhaps you would allow someone to steal a year of your life. I think I would not, if I could prevent them, and that goes all the way to the extreme of being willing to end their life for their attempt to take mine.

Is it "worth it" to kill someone over a car? A computer? A pair of shoes? You are the only person with the right to decide for yourself how much of your life is worth the rest of a theif's life. I submit for your consideration that the life of someone who makes his living by stealing little pieces of others' lives, is worth as close to nothing as can be, if you insist that they must have some value. It could also be said that such a one is a net drain on society, and the value of his life is negative. I won't go so fare as to say we should kill all career criminals outright for the general good of society - though some people might - but if we would keep them safely locked away from the good people of the world, we would all be much better off.

March For Life 2009

In 1974, 20,000 people marched in D.C. to protest the Roe vs. Wade decision. Last counts were 10 times that many people.

Protesting MURDER SANCTIONED BY THE STATE.

These protesters share the motivation of President Wilson: "I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately succeed than succeed in a cause that will ultimately fail."

There will be no abortions when God's kingdom comes. Then, if not before then, these people will be on record as doing what they could in a just cause against overwhelming opposition from their government.

The last year with published numbers (2000 IIRC) black people in america accounted for 17% of all live births. They also made up nearly double that (36%?) percentage of abortions. Twice as many black babies were killed as were allowed to live. Those who have been paying attention will know that this is just fine with the founder (Margaret Sanger, spit) as well as the current operators of the murder-for-profit organization Planned Parenthood. They started out with the aim of reducing the number of people in the lower races, and they have succeeded. I heard today that there would be twice as many black people alive today if they were not killed by their parents before being carried to term.

Those people would, some of them, have been old enough to vote for Barry.

That same Barry who is planning to reverse the Mexico City policy preventing your taxpayer dollars being used in other countries to murder unborn children for their parents' convenience.

Happy Thursday.

I Support The Use Of Stem Cells in Medical Science.

The kind you don't have to murder a baby to get, that is.

Number of therapies in use from dead-baby stem cells: 0

Number of therapies in use from "my own" adult stem cells: +1 more

This story is not notable because the airline refused to fly medical samples without advance notice. Nor is it because easyJet stepped up and did the right thing, compensating a full $14,000 to reimburse the cost of hiring a charter aircraft incurred when their security people got silly. This story is notable because they were hassled when transporting a new trachea from the lab to a patient.

That is, a trachea grown from the patient's own stem cells. This is just one more case of scientists in those cool white lab coats using someone's own cells to grow replacement parts. Why do we need to kill babies for their cells, again?

I wasn't going to mention this article, until I remembered what happened at the post office the other day. A woman was wearing a T-shirt that proclaimed her to be a NOT INFANT STEM CELLS survivor. She was SIX YEARS in remission from cancer, cured by the use of adult stem cells. A woman behind her in line asked about the shirt and the survivor launched into a pitch against fetal cell use and for adult cell use, and gave her a business card for their activist network, and also mentioned that you can donate the blood from your newborn's umbilical cord free of charge, and save as many as 5 lives with it.

And nobody gets murdered for their body parts. WIN!

Jefferson: Out!

In what used to be a reliably Blue district, Congressman William "Cold Cash" Jefferson has been kicked out of office. His opponent was a Vietnamese import, with basically no policy convictions aside from a firm stance against abortion. This is a double-win for the People of the United States of America. Let us hope the new guy decides to come down with the vocal gun-owners on 2A/RKBA issues, and against the Keynesian foolishness in the economy.

Congratulations to freshman Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao. The People are watching you; please try not to screw up the country.

You Don't Have To Kill Babies To Get Stem Cells

...you just have to pull your hair out. One hair.

... and in a couple of weeks, you can have stem cells which will not be rejected by a patient. Cells that can be programmed into whatever type of organ you need.

so tell me why again, exactly, we need to kill more babies to get new lines of stem cells?

Why, when, out of 70+ stem cell-based therapies in use today, NONE are from dead baby stem cells?

I guess some people like killing babies so much they need an excuse that sounds like it helps somebody else to live.

No thanks.

Above His Intellectual Grade, He Means.

So Obama says it's "Above [his] paygrade" to decide when a person is a person, and it's not something he's thought about enough to decide. This was the best answer he could come up with -off the prompter after all- after his "tell" (i.e., he's about to tell a lie) fumbling and bumbling trying to come up with words to use that will pacify the soft-headed moderates, while not alienating his baby-hating leftist kook fringe base constituency.

You know why? Because he's a lightweight/empty suit, and he suspects he's on the wrong side of this issue.

If it weren't for the apparently large number of individual US Americans giving him money against their own interests, and the vast majority of black racists who support him because he chooses to identify with the black (muslim, ran away when I was a baby) side of his family, rather than the white (rich, raised me) side, I would say that this joker HAS to be somebody's sock puppet.

Alas for America! I think he is as sincere as a lightweight/empty suit can be!