An Irrefutable Case Against Abortion

Recently I spoke with a liberal woman distressing over the recent VP choice of John McCain. Although his VP pick was a woman, Sarah Palin, this liberal woman lamented that Palin was a horrible choice because she was against abortion. My sarcastic yet concise response was " you are right, we need more abortions". She had no comeback and I said no more, but I thought about it.

I came to the conclusion that choosing an abortion is an extremely selfish act. Three of the many spiritual principles that I frequently mention are "courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice". A woman who chooses to have an abortion is committing one of the most cowardly and selfish acts that I can think of. Abortion trumps child abandonment and child abuse, because the child has no chance. It is tantamount to killing another soul because he/she interferes with your own plans and dreams for your future.

Even in cases where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, the child could be the one good thing to come from this horrific act. I have heard from children born from rape, who have grown up to lead happy productive lives due to their mothers courage, selflessness and self-sacrifice.

The authors of our Constitution and subsequent amendments, had no intention of legitimizing the snuffing out of human lives through abortion. Proponents of abortion rights often claim that a woman's right to choose is spelled out in the fourteenth amendment. I have read that amendment over and over again. I see no such words or intentions in the fourteenth amendment. Often liberals and feminized men and women make judgment based on emotions, rather than reason. The pro-choice lobby, as well as their lawyers, use convoluted reasoning to justify their selfish views. Only in a society where the ends justify the means and spiritual principles are trivialized as unnecessary impediments, can the highest court in the land rule that abortion is justified by the fourteenth amendment which states: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is no question that as a result of the Roe Vs. Wade decision, forty million people have been "deprived of life", through the implementation of legal abortion.

Also, many states have enacted laws that charge assailants with murder, for the assault of pregnant women that results in the death of her unborn fetus. Harriet Ryan from Court TV wrote: There are fetal homicide laws on the books in more than two dozen states, but they vary widely. In some states, such as Missouri and Minnesota, a fetus is considered a living thing at conception. In others, like Georgia and Michigan, a fetus is only protected after "quickening" — when movement is first felt in the womb — occurs.

These laws are clearly inconsistent with federal law that claim an unborn fetus is not yet a human life. However, I have yet to hear any feminists or pro-abortion rights groups protest against these laws, which give unborn fetuses protection under the law. This inconsistency clearly proves that pro-abortion proponents are basing their arguments on emotion, based on selfishness, rather than on the spiritual principles of courage and selflessness.

Rants, Runts and Ramblings

Recently I have been noticing that many people label any opinion that they disagree with, as a "rant". To my understanding, "rant" is an emotionally charged word. I define a rant as: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation, where emotionality supersedes rationality. Are there other common definitions that I am not aware of? The term rant implies that opposing opinions are emotional and unreasoned and should be summarily dismissed without debate. I attribute this, and many of our modern day societal problems, to the "feminizing" of our society.

Generally speaking, women rely more heavily on their right brain (emotional and artistic) and men have a stronger left brain which relies more heavily on reason and intellect. Both are needed to complement and contrast each other and form a complete human society. This is why it is so important for children to be brought up in homes that contain a loving compassionate nurturing mother and a strong, reasonable and pragmatic father. This is the way God and nature created the vast majority and this is what I consider to be normal. There is no denying this obvious truth. In today's modern society, I am seeing the feminizing of men, due to the decline of the intact nuclear family. Also emotional, half-truths and propaganda are spread by activists and amplified by the media, universities and the arts.

This feminizing has risen to the level of our political leaders, public schools, universities, media and the arts. Boys are taught to be more sensitive, that crying is natural, normal and nothing for a boy to be ashamed of. Boys are taught to run away from a fight, rather than confront an enemy who threatens them and "theirs". Boys are taught that competition is unfriendly and that good sportsmanship should rise to the level of a world where there are no winners and losers. Many schools have discontinued playground games such as dodge-ball and tag, because they are too aggressive. Some schools have stopped keeping score at sporting events, so that there are no losers. Some school plays alternate the lead part so that everyone gets a chance to play the lead, no matter how inept they are. These are all "feminine" views.

I believe my views to be mainstream, reasonable and obvious to anyone who is able to remain objective. Activists on the left, particularly feminist and homosexual activists, often alter public opinion by bullying their detractors with unfounded charges of prejudice, hatred and homophobia. I believe that these unfounded attacks are just as harmful, if not more harmful, than true prejudices, because their aim is to suppress opposing views with emotion, and manipulate public opinion with half truths and outright lies ".

One example that comes to mind occurred in San Francisco, in the early 80's. Before famous author and conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage achieved fame and notoriety, he volunteered in a San Francisco "free clinic" which was run by two homosexual doctors. Savage has earned a doctorate degree at Berkley and studied epidemiology among many other subjects pertaining to nutrition, botany, and natural healing. Savage was personal friends with these two "gay" doctors, who he often socialized with. During the early 80's, Savage noticed that many young, otherwise healthy gay men, were becoming afflicted with an unknown horrible disease that often lead to death. Savage was aware of the unsanitary conditions of the popular "gay bath houses" in San Francisco and reasoned that the activities going on in them was ripe for spreading an epidemic. Although savage had no proof that these bath houses might be spreading disease among San Francisco homosexuals, he called for closing all San Francisco bath houses in an effort to be prudent and avert a widespread epidemic among homosexuals and save many lives.

When Savage made his views public about shutting down all San Francisco bath houses he was vilified as a homophobe and a "gay basher". The gay doctors fired him from the clinic and disowned him as a friend. Gay activist's condemned Savage's ideas as hateful and anti-gay. He was only trying to avert a deadly epidemic that he reasoned was imminent based on his education, reason and common sense. Savage was dumbfounded because he had friends in the homosexual community who had now turned against him.

As it turned out, several years later it was discovered that a new virus called AIDS was responsible for the numerous illnesses and deaths in San Francisco's gay community. Later it was discovered that this disease was spread by unprotected anonymous gay sex, which was common in the bath-houses. If the gay activists would have used reason and listened to Savage, rather than using emotion to condemn him, many lives could have been saved. Eventually all of San Francisco's bath-houses were shut down because they were considered a breading ground for the deadly virus AIDS. However this truth never stopped the gay activists from labeling Savage as an homophobe and gay basher. To this day, Savage is vilified and demonized in the gay community.

Do you find any truth in my post or am I merely ranting about rants?

Women In The Workplace

Today I heard an audio clip of Barack Obama who said this before a cheering crowd: “When women still make just 77 cents for every dollar men make - black and Latina women even less - that doesn't just hurt women, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work even harder just to get by.” That statement made me very angry because it is deceptive, disingenuous, and just plain wrong on many levels.

First off, I would like to know, why do liberals confuse level of income, with the level of meaning in their lives? Next, I would like to know, why do liberal crowds always cheer when they are told that America is an unfair, mean place? Also, why are liberals always trying to achieve equality of outcomes, regardless of peoples choices and behaviors? But most importantly, I would like to discuss why Obama's statement is deceptive and disingenuous.

Obama's statement is deceptive for several reasons. That particular statistic does not compare women who work at the same type of jobs as the men that they are compared with. When you compare equal jobs, the disparity shrinks. When you include equal experience, it shrinks even more. That statistic also does not compare women who work the same number of hours as men. When you compensate for hours worked, the disparity shrinks even more. On average, women work 200 hours less per year when compared with men.

Many would say, women are discriminated against and forced to take lower paid jobs, such as receptionist or waitress. They claim that discrimination keeps women from holding high paying jobs because of a glass ceiling. Fortunately, in the US we are still given a free choice of what occupations we choose to peruse and we are also free to choose among a variety hours and times required to work at various jobs. It just so happens that women on average, choose to work at jobs that do not require as many hours to be worked annually. It is very deceptive and disingenuous to leave this fact out when quoting that statistic, yet I hear liberals constantly using that statistic unchallenged.

Another thing that Obama conveniently left out of his comment was that women, have similar, if not better education than men. Nobody is denying the fact that women have equal or better opportunities and higher education than men on average. Currently women make up 55% of all college enrollments. However, often women have more education but less experience than the males at the same jobs.

On jobs that I have held, I have always noticed that when there is a job opening, the manager always has a hard time finding a good person to fill the slot. As an auto mechanic, I worked on commission. The manager is always looking for someone who can work fast and with a minimum of mistakes or accidents. He is looking for someone who can get the most work done. Most managers would be looking for these qualities. But in commission work, they want to find the person that will make the most money for himself, because that person will be earning the most money for the company and keeping its customers happy. Since the customer never sees the mechanic it doesn't matter what he/she looks like, what race they are, what sex they are or how good their communication skills are. The manager is desperately looking for someone who can fix cars right the first time, and get it done quickly and safely.

I have worked in many repair shops and auto dealerships, but I have never worked alongside a female mechanic. However, women did work as service-writers, cashiers, in the parts department, in office jobs, and even as service managers. Out of all those job categories, the mechanics usually earned the most money (save some service managers). Do you think that auto dealerships discriminated against women by not allowing them to work as mechanics? I do not. I think that very few women choose to do the dirty, sweaty work required as an auto mechanic. Also, I think as a whole, women's innate talents, and desires do not lie in this area. Of course there are exceptions. And I have heard stories about very competent and happy women mechanics, but on the whole, women are not auto-mechanics because they choose not to work as auto mechanics, not because they are being discriminated against or relegated to lower positions at the auto dealerships. The free market determines how much each job category will pay depending upon how much money qualified and trained people are willing to do the work for, and the amount of supply viruses demand in the employment market.

Is it possible that many women choose not to work as many hours as men because they would rather have more time to spend raising their children, or doing other things? I believe that most women have an innate tendency toward child rearing, while most men have an innate tendency to be more competitive in their career. Most divorcées, and family courts also believe in this these innate tendencies. In most divorce settlements, the woman is usually awarded custody of the children, because she fights for it, and the judge usually agrees with the woman when awarding child custody. I do not hear Obama and liberals complaining about this disparity, because women are making these choices. So why do I hear them complaining when women choose to work less hours or choose less competitive careers?

Personally I believe that families would be better off, if women did not work while there are young children in their homes. Families would surly be better off if there was a full time mother and wife in the home. But we live in a free country, where women and men are free to individually choose how they will live their lives. We are free to choose how we divide our time between work, family and leisure. In today's day and age, many women choose a full time career. But some women also choose to be full time “stay-at-home-moms”, and others choose flexible jobs that will allow them more time at home. On the other hand, a vast majority of men choose to be full time breadwinners. As a result of “women's right to choose”, women, on average choose to earn 77 cents for each dollar that a man earns on average. Women have different priorities than men. As a result, many are not tied to a restrictive career path, they are free to leave the work force for years at a time.

Often, many women have a desire to “have it all”, a family and a meaningful, rewarding career. Unfortunately, in real life, compromises often have to be made, sometimes at the expense of the family, and sometimes at the expense of the career. In any case, it is today's women who are making these choices, not a sexist society who is trying to keep women down. I do not believe that in today's day and age, women are being held down in the work place.

I do not understand why liberals politicians are constantly trying to deceive the public about this. Why are liberal constituents so eager to celebrate anything that advances the premise that America is a mean and unfair country? Why do so few conservatives have the courage to hold Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other liberals, accountable for this disingenuous deception? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do know that today's liberal culture prefers to believe in causes that makes them feel good, rather than perusing the truth. The biggest danger that America faces today, is putting emotion above reason and losing interest in the truth.