Sweet Liberty

Let’s suppose you were born with an inheritance, something that accrues to you by virtue of being born and being human.

It’s something you can spend, but not directly, like a lot of cash.  But you can trade for it.  Let’s say it is a beautiful, rare, exquisitely cut diamond.  You can wear it, but it’s not quite suited for display.  It’s just something you’ve always had, more precious than anything else you have except life.  And if you keep it, lifelong, your kids will be given equal ones when they’re born, and then your grandkids too.

How would you go about safeguarding such a jewel?

Would you keep it always under your control, where you are the only one who has a say on whether it’s kept or taken away?  Or would you trust politicians – politicians who btw are telling you they can keep your jewel for you by taking other people’s jewel away and trading it to keep yours safe – to safeguard that jewel by putting yourself, your life and everything you own in their power?

I’m very afraid for a number of people the answer is the second.  And that the answer is the second for even one person scares me beyond reason.

I was watching Bill Whittles’s excellent video Cannibals, which details our fiscal and cultural troubles.  I wanted to leave a comment (ended up not doing it because youtube drives me nuts on registering to do so) so I looked at the comments.

Comment after comment, with names like “proudfree American” said things like “I voted for Obama because I don’t want to have to bear a rapist’s child.  My body is mine and no one else can make decisions about it.”

(A friend pointed out these are pathetic comments both in search of approval of like minded people, and sticking one in the eye of what they imagine to be the opposition. Let that stand for a moment.  I’ll come back to it in the end.)

Abortion is, of course, one of those complex things.  It is not a natural right.  It can’t be a natural right because a human woman in a state of nature who tries to abort will more often than not end up offing herself along with the child.  You could say infanticide is a natural right, as it has been practiced by most civilizations throughout the ages, less so in Judeo Christian lands, but impossible to stamp out just like murder is impossible to stamp out.  Of course it violates another person’s natural right to life, but in the case of infants that is always iffy as “natural” as they require someone else to defend them.  So, it is a very complex thing, not from a moral but from a NATURAL point of view.

Let’s leave aside for a moment that no one in this election – not even Todd Akin – ever said a woman BY LAW should bear a rapist’s child.  What Akin (who is an idiot for the way he expressed himself and for walking into the matter at all) and the other guy said was based on their own moral judgment, involving “if it happened to someone I love.”  Let’s leave aside, also, that my answer would be rather similar to theirs, and it’s more germane, since I CAN get pregnant.  (In theory.  Well, it happened once naturally.)  “If I got pregnant by rape, it’s impossible to know what I would do, but it would be hard to get over the fact that the child DIDN’T commit the rape, and that what causes a man to become a rapist is not necessarily genetic otherwise every man and woman born would be a rapist, because we’re all descended from rapists several times over.  Though I can’t say for sure what my state of mind would be, there’s a good chance I’d decide the moral thing is to keep the child.  Because I like children, because it would still be mine, and because it’s not the child’s fault.”

That is not important.  It’s also not important that while Mitt Romney made noises about abortion, the MOST he could do – and he wouldn’t, any more than he would abolish the department of education.  That’s not how DC works – is sent the matter back to the states.  And he NEVER said anything about outlawing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Let’s instead assume that it is right and just, always, for a woman to abort a rapist’s child.  This right to “not carry a rapist’s child in MY body” is not only NOT a natural right – it is one that depends on an advanced enough technology, a functioning economy, and no one being able to regulate what kind of medicine is practiced upon you.

There is an English proverb “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”  Same thing.  Updated “you buy your CDs, you buy whatever music you want.”  However, if the government is giving you free music, then you will listen to whatever they want you to listen to.  And it can change.

So, let’s suppose that for these young women the most important thing in the world, truly is that if they should get pregnant  from rape – unless you extend rape to “changed my mind afterwards” a small enough chance – they should be allowed to abort the child.

Very well.

To secure this non-natural (because it requires functioning high tech) right they voted for the man who promised them this AND contraceptives for free.  I.e. they voted for someone who said they’d pay for what these women consider a need, so that the women can “control their own bodies.”  Further, to secure this, this man – this party – is trying to make people against whose conscience it is to pay for such things… pay for them.  That is, they are willfully violating what is a natural right of other people: the right to not pay/endorse things that violates their conscience.

And these women think giving these group of people the right to pay for/decide what is done to them gives the women control of their own bodies.

It never occurs to them apparently that those who give them contraceptives/free abortions today can also deny them tomorrow.  Or that the fiscal mess Bill Whittle is talking about in the video means a diminishing level of wealth and therefore of tech.

What I mean is even if the government isn’t lying to you – and frankly, after Benghazi how can ANYONE believe these people won’t lie to you and with a straight face – their policies are almost guaranteed to make doctors flee the country in droves, or go into retirement.  They are also guaranteed to add a layer of bureaucracy that will delay everything.

The end result might be that you did in fact get raped – I understand in countries where law breaks completely down this is a risk women run from eight to eighty – and you got pregnant.  (Or you had a night of sex with your boyfriend and didn’t take precautions, so you’re being “punished with a baby.”) You have a right to your free abortion.  Great.

Only the nearest hospital is chock a block with more urgent cases and the nurse practitioner who could have done it is full up for six months.  In six months it will be a high-risk abortion, and gee, we just don’t have the equipment.  Maybe if you go to Mexico?  I hear they can do these same day, for ten thousand dollars.

Think this is unlikely?  This is almost guaranteed.

Other nightmare scenarios include the government running out of contraceptives.  (No?  When something is free, people get it.  And when it’s free there’s no incentive for companies to research better stuff OR to make it cheaper or more abundant.)  I once heard an – hilarious, because it wasn’t me, and because these people had escaped – interesting story by a group of Russians, at the end of the USSR, discussing how this group of ten men shared a condom which they washed after sex and which, btw, the one of them who worked in a rubber plant patched more than once.  If you think that can’t happen here, you have missed the fiscal mess we’re in to which we’re adding an unimaginable amount of debt for an “entitlement” that can’t be secured without enslaving doctors and other health professionals to serve at the pleasure of the government.

So, suppose you run out of contraceptives and your ONLY contraception is abortion.  But the birth rate is going through the floor and our lords and masters become aware they won’t have enough of a next generation to bear the massive burden of debt.  Think they won’t forbid abortion?  Or they decide you’re from a non-favored group and they don’t want you reproducing at all, so they mandate that you be sterilized and your existing children killed.  Think it won’t happen?  It’s happening in China.  Google “dying rooms” China and children, and I hope you have a strong stomach.

You think it won’t happen here?

Why do you think that?  Show your work.  Is your body any more sacred than other people’s convictions?  Why?  Why should a government that has the power of life and death over you, a government that can literally decide that you’re too expensive to keep alive and send you home with palliative care (no?  It happens practically everywhere the state runs medicine.  Maybe everywhere.  Reporting on these things is iffy) NOT make you bear a child because it suits the state’s needs?

You were born with this special, priceless jewel: Liberty.

You can keep it – that includes covering the costs of it, both monetary and in informed citizenry – and get to decide what to do with it, and in which circumstances to apply it.  OR you can entrust it to people who lie and whose very nature is predicated on having power over you.

Whether the liberty is freedom of religion, of assembly, the right to bear arms – no matter what those rights are, entrusting them to the government is a bad idea.  All the more so when those “rights” require a complex, functioning civilization to be effective.  (For instance, I would not vote for a government that promised me free weapons, because I know how bureaucracies work and in the end I’d have the right to a chipped bit of flint.)

No, you do not have a right to your own body.  No one does.  You can’t say “I won’t bear this child” any more than you can say “I won’t die from this cancer.”  Both of them involve a complex civilization and other people’s skill and knowledge to avoid.  And neither can be granted to you by a tyrannical government who HAS to control other people’s work, intelligence and freedom of thought to grant you this.

You do have a right to your own mind, and that so many people have chosen to give up their natural right to inform themselves and make informed decisions makes me seethe.

My friend was right, on the people who commented on that video being special snow flakes in search of social approval.  Of course why they think that idiotic statement makes them sound “correct” is why we must speak out.  For too long we’ve let the idiots own the air and the soundbites, because we didn’t want to rock the boat.  And what we’ve created is sort of a state religion, in which young people repeat platitudes that don’t make sense, in the sure certainty of social approval.

It’s time to start taking back their minds.  And then maybe they’ll understand how to keep control of their bodies.  And maybe they’ll understand the meaning of liberty.

You can’t enslave a free man.
Only person can do that to a man is himself.
No, sir—you can’t enslave a free man.
The most you can do is kill him.  Free Men by Robert A. Heinlein

 

102 responses to “Sweet Liberty

  1. Remember the (non)scandal when it was discovered that Bill Clinton’s Surgeon-General had, in her similar capacity in Arkansas, knowingly allowed proven defective condoms to be distributed by the state “in order to maintain confidence in the program”?

    I trust these cretins to be as protective of my health care as they are of my tax dollars.

  2. You just can’t persuade some people that the government can’t be trusted.Maybe it’s just that they’re young and haven’t quite gotten over “Mommy and Daddy will always save me”, just sort of transferred that to to the government. Unthinkingly. Obviously.

  3. You were born with this special, priceless jewel: Liberty.

    I wonder how many americans consider liberty to be a priceless jewel.

    I’ve met an awful lot of americans prefer to be sheep, a herd animal that has little use for liberty and longs for a strong government to tell them what to do. It’s simpler that way, even if it ends up killing them.

    • Wayne Blackburn

      Maybe, if we could find consenting adults to take care of them and tell them what to do, instead, it would help.

      • Wayne Blackburn

        Hmm… that was supposed to be, “if we could convince them to find consenting adults…”

        • You were right in the first place. People who can’t control themselves and pose a risk to themselves or others — that’s the very definition of legally incompetent.

          • Wayne Blackburn

            Ah, but the implication of my argument was that, if we can get them to rely on an individual instead of the government, then we wouldn’t have them pushing for more government to take over the role of telling them what to do.

            I also had a portion in the original comment suggesting that making voluntary serfdom legal would be one way, but deleted it because I suspect it would be a little too easy to game the system.

            • Once they’re crazy, we lock ‘em up and prevent them that way. This has the advantage of minimizing more than the damage they do with the ballot.

              • Who defines crazy? I certianly wouldn’t want those currently in power defining it. (and look how they stick to the constitution, I wouldn’t want them following a written definition from an earlier administration either.

                • BobtheRegisterredFool

                  I personally understand the recreational usage of certain classes of chemicals as being suicidally insane. Given the apparent effects of some of these, I think some of them qualify for ‘lock ‘em up, and keep ‘em away from children, sharp objects and ballots’. Of course, there are a lot of people who disagree with me there.

                  There is something to be said about the history of institutionalizing the mentally ill in this country.

                  Perhaps I am wrong about something that speaker can get me sorted out on. Or perhaps I am just nuts.

                • Unable to control himself and posing a risk to himself or others.

                  To be sure, the government can’t be trusted to this day. We live in an era where people publicly proclaim they can’t curb their sexual behavior to prevent their contracting, or transmitting, a fatal disease and have no fear that people will make the obvious deduction and institutionalize them.

    • Sadly, the reality is: The “state of nature” for Societies is “a few Dominants ruling over a whole lot of Submissives”; the variables are “how flagrantly do the Dominants lord it over the Submissives”, and “how much slack do the Dominants allow on the Submissives’ leashes”. Right now in the US, the amount of slack is being shortened, but in small amounts; and the Dominants are being remarkably subtle about how thoroughly they control every aspect of a Submissive’s life.

      And so long as the Dominants do not screw up by being too obvious about pointing out the Submissives’ place in the society and/or tightening up the lead too much, there’s not a hollering hell of a lot which can be done to stop them. (The one saving grace: Invariably, they will screw up, one way or another.)

  4. What I find particularly ironic about this debate over gov’t-funded contraceptives in the US is that up here in Canada, our health care system doesn’t pay for such things. American liberals seem so enamored with the Canadian system, but here, health care only pays for, well, health care. If you want to get it on, you do it on your own dime.

    • A lot of people seem to forget that mechanical and hormonal contraception is a luxury, in the sense that it requires a certain amount of technology and/or financial resources. With very few exceptions, it is not a medical necessity, and even then from what I understand, the hormonal aspect is much more important than the contraceptive effect.

      • Right now, a form of contraception (though it’s very unreliable for that, because it’s oddly constituted, but it does have SOME contraceptive properties, or at least it advises if I wanted to get pregnant I should quit it to increase chances) IS a medical necessity for me, but that is covered under ALL plans, since without it my health spirals down into really weird states, including thyroid insensitivity.

  5. Gregory Peter DuPont

    One of the many reasons I appreciate and think the world of you and your writing…. the ability to express what others think- but articulate it in such a fashion- is no small gift.
    And sadly, I believe you to be correct in your assessment of the ” state of the State of Liberty ” in America- that we are in danger of foolishly trading it away for shiny baubles and trite aphorisms.

  6. “You think it won’t happen here?
    Why do you think that? Show your work.”

    When talking to the snowflakes, IF you get this far in the conversation, all they can muster are flaring nostrils and clinched fists in response. “But, but, but…” and “*&%$# George Bush” won’t be far behind.

  7. Liberty and freedom both require a dose of responsibility for maintenance. Some people, who one suspects have never had to be 100% responsible for the results of their actions, seem to find that prospect scary rather than liberating. I can understand if they are part of that 10% of the population who are truly born to be followers and who really do need a leader in their lives. The rest of us need to get to work reminding everyone just how beautiful and precious that jewel is.

  8. BobtheRegisterredFool

    I have something to say on this topic. It is potentially so offensive that I would want to ask your permission to put it in a comment here first.

    Also, regarding:
    ‘what causes a man to become a rapist is not necessarily genetic otherwise every man and woman born would be a rapist, because we’re all descended from rapists several times over’

    I think there is something genetic going on, expressed pretty much uniformly across all males and females post puberty. Probably evolution requires a certain strength of drive, and associated impairment of judgement, in order to keep populations extant.

    • I don’t think I can give you permission to post something WITHOUT knowing what it is…

      As for rape.. no, sorry, don’t think so. Not in Western society. NOT anything as prevalent as it was.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        It is more or less a case of drawing parallels between different classes of killing people to the ultimate advantage of feeding the sexual drive.

        As far as the other bit goes, I must have written something incorrectly, because I wasn’t trying to speak about incidence of rape. You are correct that incidence is not what it would be in absence of law, society, and morality. And that laws, societies, and moralities are not all equal in their effect on the occurrence of murder, rape and other offenses. These, and personal choice, are a significant driving factor.

        However, genes have a non-zero effect. Consider that the expression of genes would be part of regulating puberty. Supposing that the genes were such that there were no puberty, I suspect that in addition to extinction, we would also see a decrease in rape and sexual exploitation.

        I suspect that there are genes that influence the strength of this factor. As far as genes go, I figure that all extant populations are roughly equivalent.

        I don’t figure there is a gene for something like a foot fetish. I figure that sort of thing is developed mostly in self wiring, and is weakly if at all influenced by genes.

        Breaking it into steps, the earlier step is highly gene driven, and can be neglected for many purposes as I assume it is more or less constant, and operating at too high a level to be rate limiting. Then there is the preference step, which I won’t say much about. Lastly, is the rate limiting step, the element of personal choice, as influenced by law, morality, and evaluation of consequences.

        If morality was not potentially a major factor, trying to convince people of right and wrong would be useless.

        Mores and custom are probably the only factors we can influence. Neglecting the study of the other factors, I think, can lead to a distorted perspective.

        • Here’s a trivia item which should scare the living hell out of everyone in the room:

          Guess which group in US society has the highest recorded self-esteem.

          Give up?

          “Serial Killers.” A S.K. is convinced he is superior to everyone around him, to the level that others are “subhuman”, and exist solely as Prey.

          Now, knowing this: What do you see being the result of all those wonderful programs in schools to “improve kids’ self-esteem”?

          Fuck Zombies — imagine raising an entire generation of Serial Killers.

          Sleep tight….

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            a) I don’t think the causality works that way.
            b) I don’t find that much disturbing compared to the intersection of my worst concerns about both the often ranted about recreational drug use, and failures of morality among those who give in to their libido, which I tend to be quieter about.
            c) Zombies can be understood as merely the intersection of recreational drug use and mob violence dressed in fancy clothes.
            d) Now I am really going to have to write a bit about child molesters, to forget about recreational drug use enough to sleep at night.

            • Wayne Blackburn

              Regarding a): It may not work that way to the extent of producing serial killers, who have a serious problem in their wiring, but it certainly does work toward making them more rude, more unwilling to compromise, and less polite, to the point, sometimes, of not caring if someone gets hurt when they are getting what they want.

            • Well, yes, it does work that way. High academic achievers have high self-esteem, but if you try to boost the esteem, not the academics, you end up with lower academics because you get the esteem via narcissism, not achievement.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                I wasn’t trying to argue that trying to artificially boost someone’s self esteem from the outside couldn’t mess them up real bad.

                My thinking is that abnormally high self-esteem alone is probably a symptom of whatever leads to being a serial killer, and not a root cause.

                I do not think it is possible to artificially produce serial killers by trying to raise self-esteem alone.

                I can see an increase in a number of problematic activities as a result.

                I do not think that artificial self esteem alone is enough to alter incidence of true serial killing. Of course, incidence is rare enough anyway that I’m not making a falsifiable, testable question.

                • Serial killers, no. I do believe there is a significant increase in crime and misbehavior for the unfortunate children subjected to those programs.

                • I don’t know if we have enough evidence yet that it would cause serial killers. In my humble opinion we won’t know this for a few decades or more (yea, or nay). However- as Mary said– we are seeing mob behavior (petty crimes) etc.

                  • There are studies demonstrating that unearned self-esteem makes its “beneficiaries” more intellectually timid, less willing to take on challenges. They are also quicker to assert themselves in defense of their ill-founded self-esteem.

                    Serial killers are enough of an outlier that their occurrence is probably only attributable to the faux self-esteem incidence through secondary effects. The larger the pool of persons who feel themselves privileged and special and free to act on their slightest impulse, the fewer barriers to psychopathology.

                    Think of it as society’s failure to inoculate itself against such predators and failure to practice good hygiene. Most mentally transmitted diseases (MTDs) are minor and merely inconvenient, but a few strains will mutate into full-born threats to the health of the body politic.

                  • BobtheRegisterredFool

                    Serial Killers are rare, may operate or develop over the course of decades, and are not that regularly discovered or captured either. This suggests to me that a statistically useful level of measurement might well be impractical.

                    As for the other, well, civilization is never more than a generation away from barbarism.

                  • I have found it interesting that people are so naive to the idea that a serial killer could operate in their area. I have seen subtle evidence that there might be serial killers working the highways and freeways. When cars and trucks are found in certain places and the people who were driving them are not seen again (one just happened a year or more ago in my area), and it has happened more than three times, then I know someone is doing something–

                    We do have times when the owner of the vehicle has gotten out and walked through snowstorms. In those cases we find the bodies the next spring (that has happened many times too). But– if you don’t count those incidences, there is a lot of problems in our highways. I don’t go into a public rest area without someone with me– The first kill I heard of was when I was a young child. A couple went to a rest area to take a look at the valley. Two guys killed the man and raped the girl. They tried to kill her too, but she survived. The guys were not from the area–

          • They have too high self-esteem to listen to such problems with their esteem-boosting programs.

  9. Teddy Roosevelt once gave a speech where he warned against supporting politicians who promise you things you do not deserve. He said that someone who will do wrong on your behalf will do wrong against your behalf if if benefits them.

    I know a lot of people on the right dislike TR because of his progressive policies. But, he did fight against corruption. The modern day progressives like Obama are the corrupt. I have a feeling TR would have been fighting the good fight against them.

    When someone surrenders their freedom, they surrender everything. Then, they are at the mercy of their masters.

    But, freedom does requires responsibility. Otherewise it become self destructive.

    • If Theodore Roosevelt was alive today he would be hated by both parties, he was a complex and I believe sometimes confused man. You could describe him as a patriotic, pro gun, pro sportsman, big government progressive. He had so many conflicting ideas on big government that it would be hard to sort them out.

  10. Regarding forced sterilization, that *has* been tried here. Though they didn’t go after the existing children.

    • No. And yes, I know that. Just not on that massive a scale. “Three generations of imbeciles” and all that. And apparently that too was a lie. I mean, people’s background.

      • They do greatly encourage voluntary sterilization, of a form, by promoting abortion in certain ethnic and racial neighborhoods.

        While abortion is not exactly sterilization (the long term health effects of sterilization are probably less detrimental) the net result is the same: prevention of increase in less-desirable populations.

        The disproportionate dispersal of abortion clinics in such ethnic neighborhoods is well established and should no be cause for dispute. While it may be that middle and upper class populations have more ready access to abortion through their regular service providers and thus constitute less of a market for such clinics, analysis has shown a significantly greater correlation of abortion clinics clustering according to ethnic populations than according to class.

        A study of the cultural messaging employed to promote positive attitudes toward abortion in various populations would likely prove very informative, although there are probably no grants available to fund such research.

  11. You have a logic problem:
    “… you do not have a right to your own body.”
    “… You do have a right to your own mind…”
    If you don’t have a right to your body because it can be injured or diseased, then you don’t have a right to your mind for the same reasons.

    The correct statement is that you have a right to your body and your mind, but you don’t have the right to perfect health. (The first property right as an adult is that you own yourself.)

    Also, the Heinlein quote is one of his few idiotic ones. If you shackle a man in a mine and inflict pain if he doesn’t work, that’s enslavement even if the man composes music in his mind while chipping rock.

    • No. We’re talking of two types of enslavement. You can force a man to work for you. You can’t make him into a slave in his own mind. yes, there is a difference.

      You don’t have the right to a perfect body, I should have said — and you don’t have the right to enlist others to give you a perfect body. You do have a right to make up your mind and stick to it. You don’t have the right to make up others’ minds for them.

  12. Pingback: Hoyt has a point | Something Fishy

  13. I think President Ford put it very succinctly: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

    Word.

    • But if you try to explain that to a leftist you get the standard “Oh, they’d NEVER do that. They care about us. Unlike those evil rethuglicans who just want to ban ladyparts and let poor people and children die in the streets.”

      I have literally heard what can only be described as a flaming moonbat utter the phrase “He’d never do that, he’s a democrat” with regard to Clinton when she was prattling on about Bush trying to sterilize Africans using the Peace Corps and a friend of mine asked how she knew Clinton didn’t have anything to do with it. I can only hope she took her moonbattery back to Maryland and stayed there.

  14. This is one of those subjects that makes me sad. Not so much for the fools who choose to trade their birthright for a mess of pottage, but more because my niece and nephews will be punished because of those fools.

    I’ve done a lot of thinking about what is wrong with America and I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem is that the sense of individualism and responsibility so prevalent in our forebearers has been missing from the upbringing of American children for at least the last two generations (which sadly includes me). The most recent generation is the worst of all.

    Between the helicopter parents who refuse to let their precious little snowflakes fail, the precious little snowflakes themselves – and I can guarantee they are milking the situation for all it’s worth – who buy into all the over-the-top BS about how special they are, and the freefall education has been in since the federal government decided it needed to stick its grubby fingers into yet another pie, it’s completely unsurprising to find that liberty is less appealing to these little teacups than the idea that, no matter how many mistakes they make, some form of mommy (and daddy if they’ve ever had one) will make sure they never feel the consequences of those mistakes. And because they have no actual critical thinking skills and mommy and/or daddy never punished them or treated them in a negative way, they think that’s how big daddy government rolls. So of course there will always be somebody else to whisk away all the hurtful things of the world, because there always has been. And if you point out that’s not how the world works you are a big meanie who should be marginalized in any way possible. It’s disgusting but it works because we are now living in a society run by adult children or people who know how to make those adult children stampede in the direction they want them to go.

    My patience with these people was already on thin ice before the election. I was bitched out by a ‘friend’, then unceremoniously dumped because I dared to finally stand up and call bullshit on the whole Benghazi thing. Then the election happened and I realized that my years of service – and that of everybody who has ever served – doesn’t mean shit to these people. I have given up rights to do something I love for friends and family and for a country I absolutely adore, that I would give my life for, and I’m ok with that. Because I chose to put myself in that position. Almost two weeks ago I watched half of America shit all over the sacrifices I and others have made so they can screw whoever they want without bearing the consequences and I’m done. I have no sympathy left to give. Some people pull themselves out of the endless welfare loop, but most are content to tell me to go screw myself so they screw everything with a pulse and have the government pay for that and every other aspect of their lives.

    I will fight for America, but I’m fighting for my version of America. In my version of America, the government sticks to the Constitution. You are responsible for your life. If you want something, you have to earn it. If you want to sit on your butt when you are perfectly capable of supporting yourself, you can starve. You voted for Obama and lost your job? Tough shit. That’s your problem. You voted for Romney and lost your job? I’ll do what I can to help you out.

    Can you tell this is a subject that pisses me off?

    • Mac – Pisses me off too. My sacrifice for my country has gone down the drain for the little pisspots. My hubby too– I think I have been crying since I realized that the little pisspots would give away the country so that they could continue on their merry way–

    • Mac. Well said. We are becoming a nation of weak, dependent, uninformed, childish people who think they are the most special things that have ever existed. That did not happen by accident. And, that is not what made this the most free and prosperous country in the history of the world.

      We will each have to fight for the America that was in our own way if we are to save it.

      PS. Thanks for your service.

      • Ditto.

        But you know what makes people grow up really fast? Adversity.

        • And not rewarding bad behavior. That seems to help encourage good behavior and a tendency to grow up. Why people don’t understand these simple concepts is beyond me.

        • Some people. OWS was filled with people not maturing despite adversity.

          • Mary — there was no “adversity” in OWS. Those were the rich kids. They all had laptops and iphones. They were nothing but a bunch of small, overgrown brats that didn’t want to have to pay the bill they’d run up getting a PhD in “gender studies”

      • We were once a nation that could truthfully say we were special. Unfortunately, there are those who are doing what they can to change that and they’ve already dragged us pretty far down that road. Here’s hoping we can knock them out of play and drag ourselves back.

        It’s disheartening to see how many people are fine with how things are. People who should know better.

    • Wayne Blackburn

      I think you shouldn’t repress your feelings so much. ;-)

      It all goes to show that there is truly no limit to the ability of the human mind to ignore facts and lie to itself.

    • Mac,
      I feel the same way. I also absolutely HATE the people who will say “I appreciate your service” one minute, and then complain about having to PAY for that service the next. There IS waste in Defense spending — the program is set up that way. It’s not half the waste that’s in Homeland Security, “Justice”, Energy, Education, Interior, or a half-dozen other government-run programs, and don’t GET me started on the EPA! We’re heading toward a point — possibly within the next four years — where those of us that actually want to live under the Constitution will have to shove those that don’t out the door. We shouldn’t be the ones seceding — we should force those that constantly vote for the “freebies in exchange for liberty” out of the nation. We might be a bit smaller when it’s all over, but I think we’ll all be better off.

  15. so that the women can “control their own bodies.”

    Every time I hear that phrase I think, if these women controlled their bodies in the first place, there would be no need for an abortion.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      That is getting around to some of the same material that I was worried about being too offensive.

      I do not consider unreasonable any level of restraint or preparedness on this matter that I have carried out myself.

      The law restricts some of what my rights and options are. If I cannot tolerate the consequences of a thing, I do not do the thing.

    • I agree with bearcat, but look at it from the Hollywood producers point of view: If this “self control” behavior were to spread, where would the next generation of reality TV stars come from, and for that matter who would watch them?

      High school and junior high school teacher friends (if you want to hear about full-stealth-mode in-the-1950s-closet lifestyle, akin to being an undercover CIA operative in Stalinist Moscow dodging the NKVD, chat with a teacher who is other than hard left Marxist) tell me that the normalizing effect of MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom” were quite notable down to age 12 in the young ladies under their care. Between popular media and the schools, I know parents of young ladies in that age cohort who’ve been occupied nearly full time by their deprogramming efforts on that front.

      • It used to be the same in writing. Turns out setting bridges alight is very… freeing.

      • Kiliing the TV may be wise.

        The destruction of stable family structures is vital, because they decrease dependence on the Leviathan and so the amount of control that can be exerted over the subjects of the state. The free abortion and contraception is part of that.

        Just like the Soviet Union targetted the family up front.

    • Wayne Blackburn

      I’m sure you know you can’t use logic in one of these cases. 8-)

    • It isn’t their bodies which need controlling; it’s their minds. “It can’t happen to me” is all-too-common; it needs to be replaced by “It Could Be You Next Time”.

      And the same needs to be applied to the other half of the equation, as well.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        I remember that wretched excuse for sex ed they stuck me in back in the day. They were going on about how much lower the pregnancy rate was using condoms.

        Keep in mind that I hadn’t had formal training in statistics, and I think I hadn’t had any informal at that point in my life.

        I more or less intuited that if you don’t want to initiate the fetal growth cycle, lowering the success rate per trail isn’t going to do as much as they suggested, if people go on to do very many trials.

        • Part of the problem is that they typically fail to properly disaggregate groups. For example, in presenting the success rate for The Pill they commingle the results for 30-Something year-old housewives and 13-year-old girls. Reasonably the former group has habits of self-discipline and consistency that enable them to take the pill consistently at the same time of day, critical for effectiveness, while teen-age girls are justly famed for their erraticness and lack of control over their lives.

          This is not to say The Pill is ineffective or effective, merely that the stats not only mix apples and oranges, they add in pineapples and banananananas as well.

          And, of course, The Pill won’t protect you from STDs.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            Someone, I think Lin in the Kratskeller, explained that STDs used to be plain old skin infections before clothing forced them into their current niche.

            This implies that condoms have some major weaknesses with STDs also. As best as I can tell, it would take some care to do that sort of thing without any bare skin touching at all.

            IIRC, the folks I’m thinking of weren’t terribly impressive as science teachers either.

      • Everytime I hear some Liberal go on about how we cannot know when life begins and so we have to leave it to the individual, two things occur to me.

        We cannot determine which lives are human so why not leave it to the individual to decide who is human and who is property?

        We do know when there is no question of life having begun: at conception. We also know that at some point after the egg is fertilized, absent interruption of the process, a human life will result. So why not give the benefit of the doubt in favor of life? How is it that the same folk arguing that a rapist serial killer mass murderer is entitled to presumption of innocence, but a developing human being has no rights for the state or its parents to respect?

        I know – if I am going to insist on logic and consistency in this world I am never going to be happy; I should just shut up, watch reality shows on TV and be thankful I am not governed by mean old conservatives who think I ought be responsible for the consequences of my actions. I’m just along for the ride so leave the driving to them!

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Compare to what CF just said about how the Serial Killer views his or her victims as prey, inherently less than human. If we distrust the evaluation of humanity by one type of twisted individual…

          Anyway, I’m still finishing the piece on this that might be a bit much for here. Perhaps I might email it to you if Sarah thinks I go too far?

          • It might be possible, although I doubt Sarah will deem any well-founded argument as going too far.

            Although … the trolls seem to be filtering in and trying her patience.

            • I don’t think he’s a troll. He has a degree in history and seems to think this makes him knowledgeable.

              DEFUND COLLEGES NOW. MAKE THEM EARN THEIR KEEP.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              I study my enemies. I do this so that I am better able to hinder them.

              I have a longstanding irreconcilable enmity towards rapist murderers.

              About equally as old is my theory of why. I view them as people who are unwilling to shackle their drives, and who treat others as tissue paper because of that.

              Maybe they don’t directly obtain sexual enjoyment from the murder. Maybe they rape, and then fearing the consequences, murder to cover it up. I see it as the same.

              Think about a woman pregnant from acts she fully consented to, who is in no exceptional medical danger. Turn off, for a moment, considerations of law, tradition, rights, societal implications, and your own perspective. Borrow my eyes. If I see a fetus as a person, and she chooses to abort, why would /I/ feel any differently about her than I would about someone who is a rapist and a murderer by law?

              I know how unlikely it is for a zygote to implant. I understand how very prone to miscarriage and spontaneous abortions babies are in the earliest stages of pregnancy. I appreciate that it would be deeply stupid and problematic to give the criminal justice system the jurisdiction to get in the middle of all of that.

              I accept that without a critical mass, which we are not near having for this case, of people who agree that a thing is deeply wrong, all the laws in the world would be useless.

              Where other people are concerned, all I can do is articulate my understanding as best as I can.

              All I can hope to control is my self.

              Where I am concerned, there is one way legally available to me to ensure that children of mine do not get murdered. It is simple. A kid younger than puberty can figure it out. I do it, and I stick to it, because I can not stomach doing otherwise. The idea of being party to that sort of thing, towards my own flesh and blood, out of my own weakness makes my skin crawl.

              I do not know what other people do. To a large extent, I don’t want to know.

              I used to consider myself aligned with the feminists. I eventually realized that they had never really been compatible with my ideals. I view the feminists as having sold out, as taking half measures, as being unwilling to do everything that is really needed to fight rape and sexual exploitation.

              In the end, I count myself fortunate. In our society, it seems like we can hope to have a critical mass for punishing those who rape and murder children, those who rape children, those who rape and murder women, those who rape women, those who rape and murder men, and maybe even those who rape men. Yes, Sandusky and Savile, Kennedy and Clinton. Yes, there is a great deal left to do. Yes, this is a task we will never complete, this side of the second coming. But, I feel that there is more to work with, more like minded people with whom I can at least partly ally with, than I might have expected when I was younger.

              Maybe the counter-predation techniques I developed and implemented as a youngster can be useful for others.

              • it seems like we can hope to have a critical mass for punishing those who rape and murder children, those who rape children

                As part of No Child Left Behind, a study was done of how many children are molested while attending school. The conclusion was nearly one in ten — or, as the study’s author put it, a child is a hundred times more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest.

                Do you remember the hysteria when it came out? Of course not. There was none. There is a critical mass for using charges of child molestation as a stick to beat those whom they want to beat already.

                • BobtheRegisterredFool

                  That actually doesn’t surprise.

                  As for the truth of the quoted bit…

                  Some of the models I had during my younger years were significantly less optimistic. I honestly feel that I have more ground for hope than I did then.

  16. I find the rape argument for abortion unconvincing. However, I realize that it’s politically impossible to outlaw abortion in that case, and I have yet to hear anyone in politics seriously propose it. I think it should be pointed out that pregnancy-due-to-rape is responsible for (according to the Guttmacher Institute) less than 1% of abortions. Thus the argument is a red herring. Allowing women to commit abortion if they were raped into pregnancy won’t go away any time soon, even if all other abortions are banned (also unlikely).

    Of course allowing rape as an excuse for abortion will lead to more false charges of rape, but a woman who’s already decided to kill her own child is unlikely to scruple at destroying a man’s life.

    All that said, it recently (as of November 7th) occurred to me that most women who get abortions are likely to vote Democrat. While I have sympathy for the children, I no longer have a problem with the Left auto-Darwinating. We need to focus on breaking their stranglehold on education more than on saving the lives of their unwanted children.

    • The irony is that those who speak passionately about the need to teach evolution never managed to learn it in the first place.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        I tend to think that the schools may so completely screw up teaching certain aspects of the sciences, I get fairly irritable over thermodynamics and aspects of mathematical modeling, that one could not really make things worse by bringing in both Flat Earthism and Young Earth Creationism.

    • It recently struck me that the inverse of the argument for allowing a raped woman to abort is frequently made in support of naturalizing the children of illegal aliens.

      The child did nothing to violate our laws, they are in this country the victim of their parent’s actions and should not be punished for the crimes of the parent. (Lay aside arguments of moral hazard here; I’ve yet to see evidence the Left comprehends such arguments.)

      Just so, the unborn result of a rape committed no crime, did nothing to justify punishment, yet we are told it is horrible to impose that pregnancy on the body of an unwilling woman even though they demand that the body politic bear the burden of the unwanted children of lax immigration policies.

      Consistency is obviously too much to demand; they will insist a zebra is black with white stripes when it suits their agenda, and white with black stripes when that furthers their ends.

  17. Rather than pick any single comment for this response, I address at large:

    The Democrats have engaged in a massive campaign (at least forty years) of voter suppression. It isn’t simply that voters aren’t attracted by conservative principles, it is that they have been conditioned to believe that conservative principles are liberal. (Put differently, they’ve been taught that 2 + 2 = 5, pace Orwell.) The American population has been subjected to a massive campaign of disinformation about conservatism and Republicans (heck, many Republicans are victim of this as well.)

    Look also at the large number of possible voters who believe “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” For a variety of reasons — institutional lying chief among them, as witness the differential coverage of the TEA Part and OWS — they do not see any difference. They may even be right, in which case damn both parties.

    I am reliably informed that in 1960 the black vote in the Democrat primary was bought by JFK’s father for $5 a vote (which was pretty good money back then.) When I first learned of this as a naive youth I was appalled at the idea of selling your vote; after consideration I realized that for a black person in West-By-God Virginia in 1960 it made no difference which rich white man became president: take the $5 in the hand.

    Along with spending almost a billion dollars telling voters that Romney was “not one of us” (and imagine for a moment if Romney had even suggested as much about Obama) the Obama campaign engaged in massive fraud and cover-up ( a listing of the lies and misrepresentations by the current administration starts with his background and doesn’t end with hanging four Americans out to die in Benghazi.)

    The American people did not vote for subjugation over liberty; they voted for comfortable subjugation over uncomfortable subjugation. They haven’t abandoned Liberty; they didn’t see it on the menu.

    It is important to distinguish between a vocal and highly-publicized minority of the population and the much greater portion of the populace that just doesn’t see what they seek being offered. In spite of the fables about the Sixties and the anti-war movement, most of that generation did the duty they were called to perform. Most troops sent to ‘nam performed well and honorably; when leaders were undermined (or fragged) it was because they had lost the confidence of their troops.)

    The problem is not the American people, it is the fact that so few have confidence in our national leadership. There are many sources for this, but only one cure: elect capable leaders, hold them to high standards and don’t let them slide by with excuses.

    When a people are alienated from their republic, when they lose confidence in their leaders, when they become resigned to the belief that nothing they can do will affect things they lose liberty because they have been led to believe they have no liberty to lose, or they believe in a false liberty. As for me, i will live like a Narnian.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh55SzhLkmc

    Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      If you count the antebellum practice of, effectively, collecting a fraction of a vote per slave*, and ‘padding’ the representation of the slave owners district, it goes back well over a hundred and fifty years.

      *(I want to say that it was 5/9, but I forget.)

      • 3/5ths — the South wanted it to be a full count for apportionment of seats in the House, even though they had no idea of letting those thus counted cast any vote.

        There is even a (sort of) intellectual justification of this, in that a single man and a married one each had but one vote, even though the married man was counted as two persons (husband & wife) in apportioning. The analogy works even better if, like modern feminists, you view wifedom as a form of chattel slavery.

        Understanding the logic and concurrence in it are two rather different things, of course.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          That makes sense and sounds more correct. Fifths are a bit less of a pain to work with. I was probably confused as one Rankine is five ninths of a Kelvin.

          A single woman could move, a single woman could own a gun… Yet again, political utility provides even the weakest of ideas with credibility.

          I do admit my ‘a hundred and fifty years ago’ arguments are not the best suited for convincing the voters of today. I remember mainly because it would be a terrible shame if everyone forgave and forgot.

          As for the feminists, I should write up the thing and try running it by Sarah.

          • “A single woman could move, a single woman could own a gun… Yet again, political utility provides even the weakest of ideas with credibility.”

            A single woman had no vote, a married woman could influence her husbands vote. Thus many married women did not make it easier for women to get the vote, because by only men having the vote, they felt superior to those unmarried floozies running around.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              What I was getting at was that, presumably, a free single woman would have had zero votes, and counted as a person toward apportionment. She would have still had much more options in the case of an objectionable local government than a slave would.

              The parallel that RES points out seems fairly absurd to me on those grounds.

              Also, one would assume the amount of married and unmarried women would make up a nearly constant amount of the population in the more settled areas.

              Conversely, slaves to free men was a more manipulable amount.

              • I agree that the parallel is absurd, but that is all to commonly true about the arguments some people make. I sometimes think their goal is not to persuade others they are right so much as to persuade others that arguing with such folk is too exhausting to pursue.

                • Which is what we’re seeing with the agitprop gang and why no other will be approved — If they want to comment, fine, but I’m not even reading it, just deepsixing unread. They can share their deep wisdom in their parents’ basements which is ALL their education has prepared them for. Good news though. At least Randy-darling got his exquisite misseducation by virtue of Canada, so NOT our tax dollars at work.

  18. “It is not a natural right. It can’t be a natural right because a human woman in a state of nature who tries to abort will more often than not end up offing herself along with the child.”

    In the natural state of nature, something on the order of half of all humans die before the age of five, while in sub-Saharan Africa–still poor, but still hugely better off than the vast majority of humans in time–the average woman has a one-in-sixteen chance of death over the course of her career as childbearer.

    Does an argument from the state of nature mean that children under 5 and childbearing women have no right to expect the benefits of modern technology? Or is the argument only being used to buttress a prejudice?

    • JUST when you think that it can’t be done they build a better idiot.

      What prejudice, you stupid idiot?

      Should we provide contraceptives to African women? We do. Should we provide abortion? — that is WAY more complex, since you’re using the tax money of people who believe it a sin.

      Do I believe children should die under the age of five? WELL, hell, no. Interestingly, I have an African friend who said Obama’s election was a disaster because Bush backed programs that helped these people.

      Do I think it’s justified to spend tax money — well no.

      BUT THINKING YOU SHOULDN’T USE TAX MONEY DOESN’T MEAN I WANT CHILDREN TO DIE. Do you contribute to charities to support and educate and bring clean water to Africa? No? I do. BECAUSE I THINK CHARITY IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

      What does Africa have to do with any of this, btw? Are you that incapable of thought that “natural rights” must mean raaaaaaaaaaaaacist.

      I’d recommend psychiatric treatment, but I think you’re incurable, rendered incapable of real thought by indoctrination.

      • Because, being liberal, they know they are generous — more generous than conservatives.

        Because they don’t give money to charity freely, and therefore know that conservatives don’t.

        Don’t try to dent their heads with the knowledge that in fact conservatives give one third more than they do, and unlike them, favor charities that help the poor to those that serves the rich (such as private schools their children attend, a favorite charity for liberals). They will start talking about donating it to churches, as if keeping it would be more generous, or to religious charities, as if sending money to Catholic Relief Services somehow nullified its ability to prevent small children from dying.

        • I don’t donate as much as I SHOULD but even when we were dead broke, we allocated money to help those who can’t help themselves (as well as our friends in dire need, duh) because that’s what humans do.

          I WILL fight any attempt to extort money from me by force to give to whomever the government pleases, but I will give to those I KNOW need it.

    • Gawd, what rock did you crawl out from under? It is obvious from this comment, as well as your comments on the previous post, that you have no idea what Sarah believes nor what she has lived through. But that isn’t going to stop you from throwing around hot button words like “prejudice”. Nor does it prevent you from ignoring the rest of the post. But I guess you like pulling out one or two statements, taking them out of context, and seeing what sort of shit storm you can stir up.

      Go back and actually read what Sarah wrote. Better yet, go back and read the last year of this blog — even her posts on writing would help you. Then quit quoting statistics, without cites I note, and look at why these women aren’t getting the benefits of modern technology. Look at how money and supplies/food/equipment that are being sent to their governments never make it to those who really need it.

      I suggest you go find yourself a nice liberal blog to comment on where you can all congratulate yourselves on your “uplifted” insights into the world. This blog isn’t going to candy coat what’s going on in this country or anywhere else. This blog is written by someone — Sarah — who has lived under regimes that don’t give a damn about those under them except to ask what can that person do to benefit me (especially if that person has monies/properties/etc that can be confiscated for the “good of the state”). She also has one of the strongest moral compasses of anyone I’ve ever known. So to suggest that her comments about abortion are merely to bolster a prejudice is not only insulting to her, it is ridiculous.

      BTW, don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

    • Your argument, Randy, misconstrues the concept of natural rights. It requires a redefinition of what natural rights are: rights inherent in the person, rights the exercise of which can only be blocked by effort of outside force.

      Your challenge is thus premised on a false interpretation of the concept. Under what conceptual basis do you assert that anybody has a right to that which is not theirs? By what right does anybody have an expectation of benefit they have not earned?

  19. Rush Limbaugh should not have called Sandra Fluke, who was demanding that someone else pay for her contraceptives, a slut. Her sexual activity is completely irrelevant. Limbaugh should have called her what she is — a great big overgrown BABY.

    When babies want something, whine and complain until someone gives it to them. When adults want something, they step up to the plate and find a way to pay for it, or they go without*. Sandra Fluke, and all those like her who are whining and complaining to make other people pay for what they want, need to be called out for the babies that they are.

    * Obviously this does not apply to things that are essential for survival such as food. But the list of things that are essential for survival is very, VERY small. Much smaller than Fluke and her ilk would have you believe. You’d be amazed what you can go without if you have to.

    • Robin, give this administration another 4 years without opposition and none of us will have to be amazed.

    • How can that which she paraded before the public as a matter of public policy possibly be irrelevant? How can anyone expect that putting something forth as a matter of public policy would not be discussed?

      • Each of those questions has the same answer, an answer which, in simplest form, is: Because she’s a liberal twit; she is Privileged.

        This can be expanded upon and developed (unlike Ms Fluke’s intelligence) but, really, why bother?

      • It was irrelevant to the main point, which is that she was whining until someone bought her what she wanted. By focusing on the sexual activity rather than the whining for free stuff, the Democrats very effectively redirected attention away from the truly dangerous part. What we need to do is focus like a laser on how infantile it is to want someone else to take care of you, and how if someone else is paying all your bills, they’re effectively in control of your life (because now that you’ve forgotten how to buy things for yourself, they can threaten to cut off the funds, and you’ll just fall in line).