abortion

If you build your house on sand….President Obama is getting some of his karma back. His unmitigated arrogance and self-aggrandizement is going to come at a terrible price to the country…to him and those around him. But they can’t see that yet. Now we even see the First Lady politicizing breast cancer, to advance what is very probably going to be a health care bill which is going to arrive DOA. From my lips to God’s ears. The House bill, should it pass, would cost this country ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and counting. Nothing the government EVER does comes in at anywhere close to the wild imaginings of the authors of these nutzoid  creations. As we speak, there appears to be an insurrection in the House which will stop “Nancy with the Smiling Eyes” bill dead in its tracks. A group of 40 pro-life Democrats has joined with Republicans to pledge to VOTE NO on any bill which has provision for funding for abortions… which it does. This would ensure that the bill in its present form would never leave the House floor. Nothing this President, or the Marxists he’s imported to his government have done, has been with the interest of the American people, the economy, or our military services who are engaged around the world fighting an implacable enemy who would see this country destroyed. It has been done to further an only slightly less onerous ideology, whose goal is control over every aspect of American life and values. The assault by the administration on the first amendment, as exemplified by the attack on Fox News, has been (at long last) met by a unified group of major network editorial chiefs who must have finally woken up and smelled the skunk cabbage that is the Obama White House. They saw, belatedly, but they saw that they would invariably be next. They have drawn a line in the sand. Now we get to see if they have the strength of their convictions. This fight has only just been joined. The White House’s FCC lapdogs are after the freedom of the internet also…resistance is mounting to that assault as we speak. A FREE PRESS IS A FREE SOCIETY… the internet is part of that press, free and unrestrained it is a priceless resource for instantaneous delivery of information. True it is incumbent upon the user to filter through the mists of sometimes wildly inaccurate and fanciful stories that are available out there, but this is freedom of expression and the press also. Keep your hands off our Net. Keep your hands off our radios, keep your hands of of our televisions. The communist leftists cannot compete in the arena of ideas, so they have to co-opt it through stacked courts and regulatory agencies which are not subject to the crucible of public scrutiny, whose examination they cannot withstand. Darkness and secrecy were ever their way. The Free Press and the Free Internet cast a light upon them which shows them for what they are. Enemies of America…and Enemies of the American people.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

Why is it that when one lone moron goes off the rails and does something henious you get a chorus of voices crying out how this proves that socially conservative views don't belong in the Republican party?  If you want to remain a minority party then go ahead and throw out oppostion to abortion and a preference for male female relationships over homosexual ones.  The social conservatives have been told for year after year to suck it up and vote republican because, after all it's better than the democrats and what choice do you have anyway?  Now they are proposing to jettison everything that makes the R's distinct from the D's on the social side and they think that wil lead to victory?  In fact what it will lead to (and indeed what it has been leading to for some time now) is religious voters staying home and voting for none of the above or even the creation of a spoiler party catering to the religious vote that insures that the Republicans stay out of power for a long, long time.

But go ahead folks.  Show me and millions of others that you don't have a clue as to how to build coalitions and how the party must be purified from all those nasty conservatives and let's see how toothless and useless you will be until you wake up one day and realize that you've destroyed yourselves and much of the country in the process.

Oh and I see denunciations of "legislating morality".  That phrase has got to be one of the most asinine phrases in the whole of human history.  How are any laws not a legislation of morality?  Spend 5 minutes reflecting on the fact that a law is only passed to stop people from doing what they otherwise would do and you will realize that is a pretty straightforward definition of "legislating morality".

I was very interested to see the reaction of many Republicans to the over-the-top behavior of the extreme right in the wake of the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller earlier this week. On The Next Right they quickly removed an offensive article and comments had loudly condemned the author. On Little Green Footballs they posted a substantial article condemning commenters and posters on several other right-leaning blogs for their comments about Tiller. These reactions give a clear impression that more and more mainstream Republicans are fed up with the fanaticism of the religious right, sickened over their behavior over the Tiller issue and just about ready to give them the boot.

Is it possible that this incident is the straw which finally broke the camel's back and has created an unhealable rift between rational conservatives and the extremists of the religious right? Even Republicans who are socially conservative seem to have had enough of the extremist rhetoric and support for violence coming from people like Fred Phelps and Randall Terry. They seem to have worken up to the fact that the fanaticism and terrorism they oppose in the Islamic world is not much different from the beliefs held by some they considered allies.

As Barry Goldwater pointed out many years ago, the one thing which Republicans ought to be extreme about is liberty and on all other issues they ought to be rational and pragmatic. Maybe that lesson which he spent decades trying to teach with his own actions, is finally sinking in.

The obsession with legislating morality and with opposition to abortion and gay rights is really not part of the core Republican agenda. These ideas and the fanaticism they inspire were brought into the party through its alliance in the post-Reagan era with religious conservatives. Historically, Republicans have had a laissez faire attitude, not just to the economy, but also on moral issues. Republicans used to be dispassionate, leaving moral decisions in the hands of individuals and keeping government out of the picture. It seems like the pendulum might be swinging back in that direction.

As Abraham Lincoln said many years ago, our nation and by extension the Republican Party, was "conceived in liberty" and that idea of individual liberty ought to be the basis of every policy and every decision which Republicans make. There is very little question that abortion is a sin, but shouldn't that sin be a matter of personal responsibility to be resolved between the individual and his or her soul and church and god? Once you get government involved, a change in policy or administration could as easily mean forced abortion and sterilization as you have in China as it could mean protecting unborn fetuses. Putting such personal decisions in the hands of government can only work out badly when there is the potential to go to either extreme.

This change in attitude in the GOP seems real and very significant. It has been building for years, starting with uneasiness with many Bush administration policies and perhaps culminating with the Tiller incident. That doesn't mean that I expect a wholesale casting out of the religious right, but it does seem as if the more reasonable elements of the religious wing of the party are finally realizing that they have to distance themselves from the exrtremists, and perhaps put broader priorities first if they want to continue to play a role in the party and if they want that party to be successful. Extremism has been like an anchor dragging the GOP down and if the party cannot cast itself free of that extremism and chart a better course for itself it will never be successful.

Fanaticism and extremism breed violence and terror and are the enemies of liberty. If we are determined to fight them in the War on Terror how can we be less vigilant in opposing them at home? If we are to have a Republican party which makes liberty its first priority, then it must reject extremism and intolerance in every form. We can still embrace conservative and moral values, but we must accept that these are personal values and that only evil and oppression can come from giving government the power to dictate morality and institutionalize the prejudices of religious fanatics.

Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade.

Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school.

For many, it was one of those days embedded in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.

When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized.

Interestingly, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available.

Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than someone's assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet.

It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35.

Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.

Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly.

My understanding is that was what the Committees in the state legislatures were for, writing and reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent.

Hey, it's for the good of the planet, and expands the "free market" for the abortion clinics in the process.

For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, and in the 21st Century now?

At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples has never been higher.

Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy?

Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?

I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but legal ones.

This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think.

And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Those rights referred to as unalienable are acknowledged as "endowed by the Creator."  A Creator they clearly acknowledged.

Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants.

 "Loving thy neighbor," and the story of the Good Samaritan are examples of the scriptural basis upon which the "freedom of religion" provisions were meant to flesh out in our "new" government which had been denied them in England under the Church of England's dominance during the 18th Century.

Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel.

It does seem the founder's knew what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.

The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it.

Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning.

If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, then God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteresses were pregnant.

It is also biblically clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation by directing them to "go forth and multiply."

And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households optimally, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.

What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness.

It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own, before dehydration of her vital organs caused her body to literally feed upon itself until her execution. 

She was also a practicing Catholic, and nowhere in the court documents does it appear her civil rights, and individual religious beliefs were even given any consideration during that entire multi-year fight over the removal of her feeding and hydration tubes.

The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it.

Her "right to life" without clearly artificial life support in its termination by fiat was nothing more than judicially sanctioned murder.

Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and "freedom" sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.

With the recent defection of Arlen Specter and the entry of Charlie Crist into the Florida Senate race, much has been recently made of an alleged split between moderate and conservative Republicans.  While I think there's some truth to this argument, I also think it misses the point.  The problem is that "Republican Moderate" is such a broad category that it doesn't mean anything.

With that in mind, I want to differentiate between two types of Republican Moderates.  For the sake of clarity, I'm going to define them as the "Rudy Giuliani Moderates" and the "Arlen Specter Moderates."

Who are they?!?

Rudy Giuliani -- These are the Republicans who are Conservative on most issues and have a few issues where they legtimately disagree with the Republican base.  In Rudy's case, he's GREAT on National Security, the Economy, Health Care, Education, Crime, and a whole host of other issues.  At the same time, there are a few issues where Rudy differs from the GOP mainstream: Life, Gun Control, and Cross Dressing.

Moderates like Rudy are our friends.  When people talk about a big tent, that's fine.  We need to be inclusive of people who are with us on most of the issues even when they differ on a few.  Reagan said it best when he said: "My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy."

Recruiting candidates who fall into the Rudy Giuliani mold who are well suited to a particular district or state is a essential.  We can't be excessively doctriaire in who we recruit.

(Author's Note: John McCain, Lindsay Grahmnesty, Mark Kirk, and Sheriff Dave Reichart all fit into this category.)

That said, there's another type of "moderate" candidate we need to avoid like the plague.

Arlen Specter -- These are "Republicans" who find it politically expedient to run for office with an R after their name and are nothing more than gloified prostitutes seeking power and personal aggandizement.  While Specter was a respectable Judiciary commitee chairman and backed most of Reagan's defense buildup in the 1980's that's the only useful thing he's ever done in the United States Senate.  Otherwise, he's been a thorn in the side of Conservative reform for the past three decades.  Beyond his vote for Porkulus, Specter led the Smear Campaign against Judge Robert Bork, and he sold his soul to the trial lawyer lobby over the asbestos bailout.  Unlike the Giuliani style moderates, who actually care about Public Affairs, people like Arlen Specter are in Politics to increase their personal power and will do or say whatever it takes to make that happen.

Arlen Specter style prostitutes shred our credibility and dilute our message.

(Author's Note: George Pataki, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Colin Powell all fit into this category.)

As I said several months ago: Apostates are O.K.; Grandstanding RINO's are not.

Thoughts/Suggestions?!?

Cahnman out.

According to Gallup, Pro-Lifers are now the Majority.

To paraphrase Rick Santelli: "David Frum, are you listening?!?"

UPDATE: Apparently, TD Williams beat me to the punch on this site.  Oh well, this is important enough to Warrant a Double Post.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

New polling data released yesterday shows the majority of the American public supports a Bush Administration regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers, including doctors and nurses, who object to participating in controversial procedures such as abortion and sterilization.

The poll found overwhelming support for a patient’s right to seek care from a doctor who agrees with them on sensitive moral issues surrounding their health. But the apparent divide between Washington and the American people on this important issue couldn’t be greater. The Obama Administration wants to rescind federal regulations known as "conscience protections." Today is the final day to register a comment (click here to leave yours).

The poll, which surveyed 800 American adults of both political parties and independents (39% Democrats, 33% Republican, and 22% Independent), found 87% of Americans believe it is important to “make sure that health care professionals are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.” The results held true across the ideological and partisan lines, as 78% of Americans describing themselves as “pro-choice” supported health care provider conscience protections.

While the United States has a long tradition of protecting individual conscience rights stretching from the First Amendment to laws protecting conscientious objectors in time of war, Americans’ views on health care provider conscience rights are as much rooted in self-interest as they are in altruism towards doctors: 88% of Americans surveyed said it is important to them that they hold a similar set of morals as their doctors, nurses, and other health care providers.

Without strong protection of conscience rights for health care providers, Americans know their health care—both in access to and quality of care—will suffer, as faith-based doctors and other professionals leave the profession rather than be forced to violate their conscience.

Thorny issues of morality and ethics abound in health care, ranging from the beginning of life (abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc) to the end of life (physician-assisted suicide, advance directives, etc). Patients have a right to see a doctor of their choosing, without fear of government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Patients and their families have the right to have tough conversations about, for example, life support for themselves or their loved one, with a medical professional that shares their beliefs surrounding end-of-life care. The farther government intrudes in these deeply personal issues by compelling doctors to violate their conscience, the more budgets and balance sheets will replace compassion and caring.

Failure to protect conscience rights for health care providers will have a direct, negative effect on patients’ ability to get the care they need. For example, Catholic hospitals alone make up about 20% of all hospitals in the country and serve over 5.5 million patients a year. If these institutions’ conscience rights are not protected, they could be forced to shut their doors or reduce services. Undoubtedly, poor and rural patients served by these institutions will suffer the most in such a scenario.

In spite of this, the Obama Administration and Congress seem intent on rolling back conscience protections in health care. After less than two months in office, the Obama Administration proposed to eliminate the conscience protection regulation. Last Friday, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have included conscience protections in President Obama’s $634 billion “down payment” for health care reform. The amendment, offered by Senator Tom Coburn, himself a doctor, would have prohibited government coercion of patients to enroll in specific health insurance plans or to see pre-selected health care providers. Given the chance, the Senate said “no” to giving patients freedom to choose a doctor that shares their beliefs on important moral and ethical issues.

While the American people strongly support conscience rights and freedom of choice in health care, Congress and the Obama Administration are moving rapidly in the opposite direction: toward increased government intrusion into Americans’ most private and personal health care decisions.

The public has until midnight tonight to let the Department of Health and Human Services know its support of conscience rights in the health care work place. Visit ADoctorsRight.com to register your comment with HHS today.

Out of power in both houses of Congress and the White House, one would think that like the Republican Party, the Pro-Life Movement is in the wilderness and without leaders. However, this couldn't be further from the case... In fact, the Pro-Life Movement is more united then ever. Case in point: the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner held earlier this month in Washington, D.C.

After the Republican defeats in 2006 and 2008, many people both inside and outside the party are attempting to sideline and remove the social conservative principles and even the members who hold them the most important in the party. Although I am not a social conservative myself, I do not agree that social conservatives should be caged up and belittled. Social conservative principles are just as important to the survival of the Republican party and this nation as fiscal conservative and “national defense conservative” principles. The party and its philosophy is big enough for all of us.

This attempts to make a solid, comprehensive case for the future of the “pro-life” movement that can appeal to both older Americans who have been involved with the pro-life movement and young Americans who are looking for new over-arching principles that are free of what has so far turned them off from the pro-life movement. It does deviate from traditional pro-life principles in some major ways, but it does so to try to create a broad “umbrella platform” that can be applied to a range of issues and excite a new generation of pro-life advocates.

The single line motto used to promote this “Full Life” or “New Pro-Life” or “Always Life” movement is: “Always for Life, from conception to natural death, and every day in between”.

The principles of this “Full Life” movement:

• “Every life must be protected because there is incredible potential in everyone, no matter how poor or troubled a beginning” This is the argument against abortion. Provide here real-life examples of great people who came from backgrounds that are typically prone to high abortion rates, and ask the reader to imagine if these people had never been born. Children are never a burden on our economy or society in the long run as Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama may believe.
• “Every life deserves to grow up in a home where they are wanted and loved, even if it is not the home they were born into” This is the argument for adoption as an alternative to abortion. We must make it a priority to invest in this nation’s adoption programs to not only streamline the laws and regulations, but also find creative ways to finance their expanded size and scope. The long term goal would be to establish a full ecosystem of private charities and even businesses that can carry out the full range of needed services under sufficient regulation and oversight. There may be some problems because out of all of the principles, this one may require the most taxpayer money and government regulation in order to create and sustain this system. Also, there is the problem that in order for adoption to be considered by pregnant women instead of abortions (even if illegal), they will need a large amount of care and incentive during their pregnancy. If incentive for having the child is not provided, then they may resort to dangerous means to abort. However, if too much or the wrong kind of incentive is given, then some women may end up abusing the system for selfish means (repeatedly having children for free health care, for example). This is a problem currently unresolved, and open for discussion.
• “There is no One-Size-Fits-All health care, while the best care is able to target differences between genders, ethnicities, cultures, and religions” This is the argument for privatized health care. The only way to ensure quality care to each citizen of this vast and diverse nation is to have a privatized system, where both businesses and charities are able to target all types of people and adapt in real-time as demographics change. When big government advocates point to countries in Europe as examples of centralized health care, they ignore the fact that America is tremendously larger and more diverse than any of these countries, and that prevents centralized systems from ever working here.
• “Even when a life is taken in foreign conflicts, we must make sure that no others are taken along with it” This is the argument for greater investment in our military to improve the accuracy of our weapons and our intelligence gathering. The Full Life movement is not an anti-war movement because it recognizes that oftentimes conflict is unavoidable, especially when dealing with fanatical non-state terrorists. What we are determined to do is work with our military to greatly improve our ability to hurt only the people who deserve it, and minimize or even eliminate collateral injuries or death to innocents, especially those innocents being used as human shields. Some may at first think this principle seeks to blame the military for deaths and therefore reduce funding for it, but that is very much the opposite because it instead turns the pro-life movement into an investment in our military power for the sake of the noble goal of greater accuracy and precision.
• “When we send our men and women into danger, we must make sure they are protected as much as possible” This is another argument for greater investment in our military to fully equip our warriors with defensive gear. We will not tolerate inadequate funding of our entire military of the bullet-proof vests, armored vehicles, and reinforced barracks. Yes, this is a stab at those politicians who resisted funding our troops during the recent wars and who may do so again in the future. But we can now reinforce our past position with this new over-arching Full Life movement.
• “Our law enforcement is a powerful force for life, not death, when properly trained and equipped” This is the argument for greater investment in our many law enforcement agencies. Although police sometimes have a bad reputation when it comes to protecting life, the solution is to increase training, the amount of personnel, and the equipment they have, instead of cutting their funding in any way. This seeks to eventually equip law enforcement with non-lethal means to subdue suspected criminals, but only when that non-lethal means is proven to be effective in the field. We cannot rush to force technologies on our police if those technologies are not as effective as the current lethal tools, all in the name of reducing unnecessary deaths. This is because when we improperly equip our police with non-lethal tools before they are proven effective, we likely will be trading the death of a suspected criminal for the death of the police officer. But when a viable non-lethal option is developed, we should make it a top priority. The question of what kind of a role the federal government may have in helping local law enforcement agencies is currently unresolved, and open for discussion.
• “There is rarely a life that is truly lost to society, even if they committed horrible crimes” This is the argument against the death penalty across the entire nation. Argue that even convicted criminals have a chance at spiritual redemption and contributing back to society. This does not mean they can ever be free citizens again, and in fact just replaces capital punishment with life in high security prison without any chance of parole. Whether the life-in-prison inmates spend their days sitting around their cell or are put to work doing menial labor in some way is left open for debate on the state level. This may be controversial to many conservatives who have favored capital punishment as a method of deterrent, but they should hopefully see this as a sufficient compromise to advance the pro-life movement. This can appeal to many wavering young Americans who are turned off by what they see as a hypocrisy within the pro-life movement of allegedly fighting for life at conception but then not caring about that life after birth. Removing this hypocrisy as they see it is a major step.

The above principles are really just a rough start to what could become a powerful platform. There are likely some issues which I have neglected to cover (such as the role of contraceptives, the teaching of abstinence, how pregnant minors are to be dealt with, how any exceptions for abortion in cases of danger to life of the mother if such cases even exist). Even if you disagree with some of these, please promote and recommend the article to bring in more discussion and debate.

And I will finish with a disclaimer that may surprise some. Although I have tried very hard to lay out convincing arguments for a greater pro-live movement to re-invigorate conservative ideals and appeal to young people, I myself am not pro-life. I am in fact pro-choice (although mild compared to what the rest of society seems to be), in favor of capital punishment (since I agree with a “eye for an eye, life for a life” in principle), and never want any children of my own (even abstaining from sex to make sure that happens). However, despite my traditional beliefs on the matter, I have tried to come up with arguments and a platform that could even convince me to join a pro-life movement.

Cross-posted at RedState.

I have a personal blog and I wrote this entry for it. It was originally intended to be an essay complaining about how we have feral cats in the back yard and we keep catching, spaying/neutering, and releasing them... and there are always yet more of them. It sort of got away from me though and I thought that it might be a good essay for here as well.

If the abortion policy of the country is to be changed, first the minds of the people have to be changed. The stuff that has been done in recent decades has not been working, I posit. The pro-life folks pretty much strike me as being oblivious to the power dynamics that exist in the minds of women when they hear abortion being debated and, once again, the social conservatives seem to have this "you people" undertone that really undercuts their message.

I don't really have a solution for that, really. But I do think that if you can get people to change their minds about abortion, it'll be a *LOT* easier to ban, for example, third trimester abortions. The point of this particular essay isn't to change minds as much as it was to complain somewhat about the dang cats in the back yard... but I suspect that it deals with the power dynamic that is very much there in a way that won't automatically result in the assumption that oppression and control is there. Then again, maybe it's just yet another navel-gazing catblog. (When I give an aside, know that this essay was originally written to my own personal friends... within the circle of whom I am the most Conservative. Yes, I know. I'm a Cosmotarian Libertine. I am still the most Conservative guy in my circle.)

In any case, the essay follows:

==============================================================

A few months back, there was this Ron Paul guy. He was running for president. He was also pro-Life. He was an obstetrician and delivered a kabillion babies and ran for Congress on the "I did not have sexual relations with those newsletters" ticket. I wasn't really a Paul supporter, myself. I saw (and see) him as a Paleocon and while there is some overlap between Paleos and Cosmotarian Libertines such as myself, there isn't enough to get me to donate to a g-darn blimp instead of sitting on my butt, not doing anything, and call myself "Boston Tea".

I digress. Anyhow, I was arguing politics and the argument came up that Ron Paul must hate women or some such. This knitted my brow.

When I was a kid, there was a healthy debate on the whole abortion thing... on the right and on the left. Now, as an Evangelical Christian, I was pretty much only exposed to the debate on the Right (which amounted to whether there should be exceptions for rape/incest or if there shouldn't be) but, as I started digging into the debate, I found out that there was a healthy debate on, of all places, THE LEFT. It freaked me out. Instead of a debate that didn't really take the whole power dynamic of sex, pregnancy, whatnot, into account, there was a debate where such things were vital. And yet, there was still room for disagreement. The counter-arguments ranged from stuff like Jesse Jackson saying that he found the arguments about "keep your government out of my property" to remind him of the arguments given by slave owners (wow! He really said that!), arguments in The Progressive talking about the responsibility of the powerful to protect the most powerless, and Nat Hentoff.

Let me pull a moment out of The Princess Bride for a second. Allow me to reassure you and point out that I am pro-choice. Hell, I think that abortion should be legal up to and including the moment of crowning for reasons as trivial as sex-selection (not that prefering this gender over that one is trivial, of course). This is not an essay explaining that I'm pro-life or think that women are chattel or that my favorite book is A Handmaid's Tale or that sort of thing. Okay? Back to the essay.

Anyhow, I was arguing with someone about the election and they pointed out that Ron Paul must hate women. Well, I remembered a lot of the stuff I read about when I was still making up my mind and started arguing and pointing out that there were plenty of reasons to be opposed to abortion and not all of them involved denial of the power dynamics that are fundamentally there. I pointed out that, yeah, Ron Paul was an Obstetrician. You catch them kids popping like a cork outta the playdough fun factory of life long enough, I reckon it might give you opinions that you might not pick up otherwise. Well, this argument fell on deaf ears. It instead earned me a free psychoanalysis session. I was asked if I was a pro-lifer. I explained, no, I am not. Pro-choice. I hit the high notes of those italics up there. Well, the conversation turned into whether I thought that abortion was morally wrong. As it turns out, I do. I was called pro-life again. I disagreed and pointed out that I think that the wrong of abortion pales in comparison to the wrong of Prohibition of it... I went on to point out that, as a Cosmotarian Libertine, there are plenty of things that I think are wrong but don't think should be illegal. I was then asked if I thought that I was merely hedging my bets so I could tell God that, hey, at least I thought it was wrong come Judgment Day.

Sigh.

That's not what inspired this essay, however. That was yet another neo-Christian argument splitting hairs over not whether I acted in accordance with Accepted Dogma but whether I *BELIEVED*. (I should probably get used to that kind of argument, I am beginning to suspect.)

Anyway, all this was well behind me... until we started catching cats again. Today we took our 12th feral cat to the "Nut Extraction Factory" (as my beloved wife has so eloquently dubbed it). They have a form, of course, that they make you sign. I hereby authorize the clinic to spay/neuter this animal. I hereby authorize the clinic to notch the animal's ear. I hereby authorize the clinic to test for FLV/FAIDS. If the animal is pregnant, I hereby authorize the clinic to terminate the pregnancy.

That last one sort of stuck in my brain. It's a paraphrase but those words were used.

Terminate.

Pregnancy.

That sort of brought the whole argument back to mind for me. Not the whole "pro-choice" thing, they're cats. Yes, I love my kitties and I anthropomorphize them as much as any Sensitive New Age Guy has anthropomorphized any critter that has been called "kitty" unironically. It's not a choice thing, though. They're just cats.

It's more the sense that the world is a certain way... and the things that we are doing with the cats in the back yard is completely against the, for lack of a better word, Tao. More than that, it seems deeply nihilistic. Life is a positive good. This is covered in Genesis... look at the world. Wow... it *IS* Good. The light is Good. The land is Good. The seas are Good. Vegetation is Good. The sun, the moon, the stars... they are Good. The fish of the sea, the birds of the air... they are Good. The wild beasts and the domestic animals. They are Good too. Even Man. Even Woman. Look at all of it. It is Very Good.

And here we are, catching cats by the onesies in the back yard, taking them to the clinic, removing their reproductive organs, and placing them back there. With authorized notches in their ears.

And, of course, there is a chorus of people explaining to me that, no, we're doing the right thing. "Don't think about it that way", they tell me. "You're doing the right thing."

I've always felt that when people point out to you that "you're doing the right thing", there should be klaxons going off in your head.

 Anyway, I'm still pro-choice. Up to and including the moment of crowning. For reasons up to and including those as trivial as sex selection.

But I think I have put my finger on why it strikes me as wrong... this is not the way the world Ought to be. It goes against, for lack of a better word, the Tao.

(No, I am not a Taoist either. Not even close. I can't think of the right word/concept in English, however.)

And it's not something that we'll likely stop doing prematurely. It's something that needs to be done, after all.

Thankfully, there's no shortage of people telling me that we're doing the right thing.