Category Archives: children

A theory behind why government is sexualizing children

Governments are enthusiastically weaponizing the Leftist trend of sexualizing children, because doing so dramatically increases government power.

Yesterday I caught up with a month-old article from The Federalist, entitled The Pedophile Project: Your 7-Year-Old Is Next On The Sexual Revolution’s Hit Parade. The article details the myriad ways in which the Left is intent upon sexualizing children as fast as possible. A significant part of this sexualization has to do with the transgender movement, which was the train the Left hopped on the moment the Supreme Court found the previously invisible gay marriage clause in the Constitution.

If you have the stomach for it, you can watch this sickening Good Morning America video showing eleven-year old Desmond — a boy — dressed in full drag and writhing suggestively on the floor for a cheering audience. I’m still shocked that not one person in that theater stood up and said “This is wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.” But no one did. We have reached the point at which is it impossible to imagine someone saying, as Joseph Welch once did, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

What’s terrifying about the child transgender movement is that it’s moved beyond the moral degenerates of the entertainment and media worlds. We’ve now reached the point at which governments are rapidly internalizing it and using it to sever the parent-child bond. Last year in Ohio, parents actually lost custody for not being sufficiently supportive of their daughter’s claimed transgenderism. Currently, in Texas, a father is being told that, if he doesn’t get with his ex-wife’s program of insisting that their six-year-old son wants to be a girl, he will lose any access to his son.

Two years ago, Ontario, Canada, passed a law including gender identity in a panoply of protections the government extends to children. Ontario has been trying to assure parents who are not on board with giving their children hormones that cause cancer or sterility that the government really doesn’t intend to swoop in and take away their children. Instead, it will only take children away if that refusal to acknowledge the child’s new identity causes the child emotional distress — except we all know that the transgender shtick is that denying a child’s transgenderism is itself a form of emotional abuse. Can we say Orwellian language? Meanwhile, in the UK, parents are being told that if they do not let their autistic son have hormone treatments that could damage his body permanently, they will lose custody over him.

That there is no medical / scientific authority whatsoever for transgenderism, which seems to be a tragic mental illness akin to anorexia or other body dysmorphia problems, only this mental illness is one that the media, education establishment and entertainment world actively encourage. With that in mind, it’s terrifying to watch speed with which the government is weaponizing the transgender world view.

It’s also something I predicted almost nine years ago when I wrote Sex and State Power, which I reprint here in its entirety (with permission from American Thinker, where it originally appeared). Some of the links may be dead, and the push to sexualize children has gone far beyond what was happening a mere nine years ago, but I think the article holds up well and goes a long way towards explaining why governments in America, England, and Canada are so anxious to jump on board the transgender band wagon.

Sex and State Power — July 13, 2010

For many years, physicists have tried to find a unified theory of everything. They have faith that somewhere out there, there is a theory that will explain the physical properties of all things, without any exceptions. I’m not sure that dream will be realized in the scientific arena, but I think I might have stumbled across a unified theory that underlies statist philosophies, whether they are socialist or theocratic: sex.

Before you get too excited, this article isn’t going to be about voluptuous women in slinky, abbreviated clothes, or scantily clad men with rippling pecs and washboard abs. Sorry.

Instead, this article focuses on the sordid, depressing, government-controlled side of human sexuality. That is, it examines sex not from the viewpoint of any given individual’s particular desires, but from the viewpoint of a state intent upon gaining maximum control over that same individual.

Those of us who came of age before the 1980s, when the Judeo-Christian, Western tradition, though battered, was still ascendant, view our sexuality as a private matter. We believe that our bodies are our own property, which means that we should not be touched or controlled sexually without our consent. A person raised with this worldview inevitably believes as well that his ability to control his body is the essence of his individuality. This physical individuality is the antithesis of slavery, which represents a person’s ultimate lack of control over his body.

Statist regimes, of course, cannot tolerate self-ownership, which is the natural enemy of government control over the individual. The easiest example one can find of a statist regime using sexuality to deny individuality and dominate its citizens is, of course, Islam.

A wise friend of mine once opined that Islam’s entire quarrel with the West rests on its fear that Western values will undermine Islam’s control over its women and, with that, its control over the men who benefit from a system that subjugates one half of the population to the control of the other half. There’s a great deal of truth in that observation.

Unlike most other conflicts, Islam’s quarrel with the West does not revolve around borders, water supplies, or economic control over assets. Instead, it focuses on culture — and the heart of the Islamic cultural difference with the West, at least in the Muslim mind, is Islam’s statist determination to erase a woman’s individuality through control over her sexuality.

In the Muslim world, women are viewed as temptresses, and men as feeble creatures incapable of resisting feminine wiles. The only way to control the anarchy that this perceived sexual imbalance creates is for the State — and remember that Islam and the State are indistinguishable from each other — to exert total dominion over the women within its reach.

The best way to regulate women is to remove them entirely from view. Islam has traditionally relied upon harems to isolate women from view (and, not coincidentally, from the body politic). This practice is still used in Saudi Arabia, where women may not leave the home unless they are accompanied by a male family member.

Should the imprisonment option be unavailable, however, wrapping the women in completely obscuring, shapeless mountains of cloth is an adequate substitute. Women so enveloped, aside from losing any individuality, are relatively dysfunctional and, therefore, are entirely dependent on men.

Women who seek to express (or are suspected of or falsely accused of expressing) their sexuality free of statist constraints are subject to exceptional cruelty in the Muslim world. This cruelty often comes directly from the State. Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani, an Iranian woman and mother of two, was due to be stoned to death for allegedly having an adulterous relationship. When an outcry arose, the Iranian government threw in a surprise murder conviction to justify making adultery a capital crime. Ashtiani is not alone: Twelve other women and three men await the same fate for having allegedly committed an act that, in Western culture, is not a crime against the State.

Islam also sanctions private actions to control women’s sexuality in the form of so-called “honor killings.” These “all in the family” murders are endemic wherever Muslims live, whether in the Middle East, Europe, England, or America.

The Islamic state manipulates men sexually, too. On the one hand, it theoretically offers men the benefit of an enslaved female population. On the other hand, though, the isolation it imposes on women means that vast numbers of Muslim men are deprived of any access, normal or otherwise, to women.

This deprivation enables Islamic leadership to use the mere promise of sex to entice men into committing suicide on behalf of the state. Islam assures men that, if they engage in suicidal attacks against nonbelievers in order to advance Islam, their reward in the afterlife will be unlimited sex with the famous seventy virgins (or, maybe, they’ll enjoy sexual congress with seventy raisins, a much less titillating inducement to suicide).

What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery.

The practical problem for the Left when it tries to attack individuality as expressed through sexuality is the fact that a person’s sense of an inviolate physical self develops quite early, during childhood:

Once a child individuates, he becomes aware of being his own self. … The most basic thing one can own is one’s own self, and not letting others touch that self in ways you don’t like is an exercise in self-ownership. (Emphasis mine.)

The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

Once upon a time, the radical Leftists were quite open about their agenda. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, German Leftists explicitly sought childhood “sexual liberation” as a political goal. In practice, this meant exposing children to adult sexual practices, focusing obsessively on the children’s external sexual organs, speaking about sexual matters in the crudest terms, and, unsurprisingly, engaging in actual sexual molestation. The Leftists advocating this liberation framed it as a way to break free of stifling bourgeois notions of morality that enslaved people and prevented them from realizing full sexual pleasure.

Reading the Leftists’ contemporaneous literature, however, reveals a more comprehensive aim than merely breaking those much-derided bourgeois sexual chains. The Leftists also intended to destroy the traditional nuclear family, with its bright lines between parent and child, and to bring down the capitalist system, which is dependent on a competitive, and therefore individualized, workforce:

For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation — as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nor can the above ranting be excused as the thoughts of a radical fringe. For example, these same European Leftists infiltrated the Catholic Diocese in Mechelen-Brussels, in Belgium, creating a sickening environment that actively promoted pedophilia. In other words, this particular church’s forays into perversion were not the secretive gropings of individual priests. Instead, there was a concerted effort, led by a liberal Belgian church hierarchy, to make pedophilia a routine practice within the Church.

Incidentally, Frank Marshall Davis, a radical Leftist who was Obama’s surrogate father and mentor during his childhood years in Hawaii, fully supported this politically-driven hyper-sexualization, including sex with children. He engaged in and wrote about disturbing sexual practices such as bondage, simulated rape, undinism, and pedophilia (or, at the very least, pederasty). Since Obama’s political ascendancy, both his poetic forays and his peculiar disassociative behavior have supported speculation that Davis, giving free rein to his personal preferences and his commitment to preventing the child from gaining ownership of his own body, may have practiced what he preached on the fatherless young boy given so unthinkingly into his care.

While the overheated Marxist rhetoric of the 1960s has died away, the Leftist preoccupation with childhood sexuality, and its relentless desire to have the state control a child’s sexual development — and, by extension, to deny the child self-ownership — is still alive and well. The primary pathway the Left currently uses to decouple childhood sexual development from self-individuation is the gay rights agenda.

Many of us who believe that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue their personal lives free from discrimination have felt bewildered by our discomfort with and resistance to all of the homophilic programs that have suddenly invaded our children’s schools. To use the language of the Left, though, we should “listen to our feelings.”

Subconsciously, we recognize that these pro-homosexual programs have nothing to do with teaching tolerance, which is a virtue in a pluralistic society. Instead, the programs have everything to do with having the state substitute its goal of sexual, and therefore social, control in place of a parent’s desire to inculcate his children with traditional Judeo-Christian values, values that focus on the inviolability of the individual, beginning with his body.

Examples abound of supposedly anti-discriminatory programs that, instead of focusing on tolerance, work to direct a child’s sexual development away from the zone of privacy that is a hallmark of Western sexuality. Robin of Berkeley describes a group called “Gender Spectrum,” which has the ostensible goal of allowing “transgender, gender bending, [and] gender nonconforming” children and teens to hang with each other and share their experiences. She rightly sees this not as an effort to promote tolerance, but as a way to make it “cool to dabble in polyamory and gender nonconformism,” thereby “destroy[ing] the West by degrading traditional values.”

Only four years ago, California narrowly escaped a legislative effort to pass a bill that would have required all California textbooks, starting in first grade, to include materials focusing on famous homosexuals — with the focus not on the achievement that made them famous, but simply on the homosexuality itself. A parental outcry forced the legislature to retreat to something more in keeping with a free society, which is the requirement that children may not be exposed to material that is discriminatory to people based on their sexuality.

In Helena, Montana (Montana!), the school board is contemplating a K-12 sex ed program that repeatedly blurs the line between demanding tolerance, which should be an imperative in a free society, and advocating alternative sexuality, which is consistent with the Leftist agenda of separating sexuality from individuality. In Grade 2, children would be taught, appropriately, that “making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. ‘homo,’ ‘fag,’ ‘queer’) is disrespectful and hurtful.” By Grade 3, however, the focus is on breaking down traditional familial norms, as children are taught that to “[u]nderstand media often presents an unrealistic image of what it means to be male or female, what it means to be in love & what parenthood & marriages are like.” And so it goes, with a proposed curriculum that veers wildly between respect and advocacy.

The relentless Leftist obsession with homosexuality and variations on traditional sexual gender roles is deeply embedded in the Obama administration. Last year, a vigilant blogger exposed the fact that Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” as part of his leadership role in the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (“GLSEN”), aggressively promoted child pornography in the classroom. GLSEN’s actions had nothing to do with creating a safe, non-discriminatory environment for young people with different sexual orientations and everything to do with using the government (i.e., public schools) to inculcate in children the notion that their bodies have no boundaries. A body with no boundaries, of course, is a body that can easily be decoupled from the individual’s control and then ceded to the state.

While the gay agenda, which is cloaked in civil rights language that makes it hard to challenge, is the leading edge of the state’s desire to control children’s sexuality, Leftists also use the schools to manipulate heterosexual behaviors so as to destroy a child’s physical boundaries. In England, parents were aghast to learn that a school was requiring its first-grade pupils to massage each other. In Iowa (Iowa!), one middle school has abandoned any pretense of traditional morality and, instead, is teaching its eighth-graders “how to perform female exams and to put a condom on a 3-D, anatomically correct male sex organ.” The body is a tool, and nothing more.

Freud was right when he speculated that sex, perhaps because it is the least easily satisfied human need, may also be the most powerful physical need driving human beings. Freud, however, viewed sexuality through the spectrum of a given individual’s desires. What the statists understand — and have always understood — is that our bodies are the first line in the battle between statism and individualism. If a person is allowed to develop a sense that his body is his own to control, he will never willingly yield to the demands of the state. Only by convincing its citizens that they have no personal autonomy, beginning with control over their own bodies, can a state completely subsume the individual to the bureaucracy.

So if you’re getting an itchy feeling between your shoulderblades when you contemplate your child’s hyper-sexualized reading list and gender-bending sex education curriculum, you need not fear that you have turned into a repressed, homophobic Victorian. Instead, there’s an excellent chance that you are someone with a deep respect for individual freedom who resents the Leftists’ efforts to co-opt your child’s body as a necessary sacrifice to the State.

The post A theory behind why government is sexualizing children appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Forum: What Do You See As The Most Important Fronts In The Culture War?

Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Do You See As The Most Important Fronts In The Culture War?

Stately McDaniel Manor :The battle over what is wrongly termed “gun culture” is our most vital cultural struggle. The term assumes there is some monolithic, massive group of people that share the same ideals, aspirations and values. This kind of group-think is natural for Progressives, who are compelled to place people in specific, progressive-defined categories, but it is nonsense. Most Americans own motor vehicles. Do they comprise a “car culture?” Is there a blue jean culture? Perhaps an underarm deodorant culture?

During the Age Of Obama, an unprecedented number of progressives–some now former progressives–have become gun owners. Surely progressives, by definition, cannot be part of a gun-loving, God-honoring “gun culture?” Would not the same apply to women? Black people? Hispanics? Are gay and lesbian gun owners members of the “gun culture”–first, or is their primary allegiance to their sexual orientation?

Since Barack Obama became the greatest gun salesman in American history, progressives have bemoaned the enormous ground lost in the gun culture battle. The NRA’s membership continues to skyrocket, and more and more Americans buy guns, yet the rates of violent crime continue to decline. True, Progressives are doing all they can to reverse that trend by forcing the police to avoid arresting criminals, and by trying to free convicted felons from prison, but poor Progressives have been horrified to discover that the fundamental transformation of America Mr. Obama promised did not extend to gun ownership.

However, as it took progressives a century to get Obamacare, and they had to do it through trickery, they will never give up on destroying the Second Amendment though it take millennia. Actually, all it will take is a progressive Supreme Court majority or a Democrat President and a large enough Democrat majority in the House and Senate. Either and both are possible in the near term.

So why is this the premier cultural struggle? It is the Second Amendment that secures every other human right. If there is no Second Amendment, or via Supreme Court dismantlement it has no application in the lives of Americans, there is no right to self-defense. When that day comes, expect government to take advantage of that advantage. Politicians have not yet gone too far because of the rule of law, enforced by the individual arms of all Americans. When we lose those arms, we lose the rule of law, our lives, and America. That process is already under way.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The culture war is being fought primarily in our schools, beginning in pre-K and all the way through to our universities. Teaching multiculturalism and diversity seems to have started in the United States with the International Baccalaureate program which came out of the United Nations. It was and has been sold to parents as a rigorous program in which only a select few students are invited to participate. According to the IB website “The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.” In addition:“These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.”

While International Baccalaureate began as a high school program in the 1960s it now includes a primary years program for ages 3 to 12 and a middle school program. Getting to children at younger ages when they are still impressionable and their consciences and belief systems developing is extremely dangerous to a society. It is how Hitler was able to bring about the rise of the Third Reich; indoctrinating German youth beginning as early as ten years and the Hitler Youth programs that began when they turned fourteen years old. It was easy for Hitler to engage the German people with promises of a return to greatness for their country. Here in America we are a nation comprised of people from many different nations and cultures who have been able to keep alive some of the traditions of our former cultures while assimilating into this melting pot with the shared vision of a land of limitless opportunity for those who work hard and follow the rules. However, our country’s foundation comes from the Judeo Christian tradition and the belief that we as individuals are born with rights coming from our Creator. We understand the concept of the “laws of nature and nature’s God.” Most of us acknowledge these laws are inviolable and should not have anything to do with one’s culture.

While exposing our children to other cultures can be educational and enlightening, it is the moral relativity that comes with it that is where the culture war is being fought… and sadly being won. This moral relativity creates doubt and uncertainty and leaves our children vulnerable to indoctrination from forces with evil intentions. This is not so much a culture war as it is an attempt to deny the laws upon which we have based our western civilization.

Progressives are working hard on college campuses inciting our youth to protest for social, economic and even environmental justice. They have no idea they are being used in this effort to fundamentally transform America. The only way to win this war is to take back our education from the progressive left and teach our children the truth; that the laws of nature are and always will be inviolable and cannot be denied. And that other cultures and people, with their differences, might just be wrong.

JoshuaPundit : We live in a time when decadence is not only celebrated, but mainstreamed. The work is done through our media, our schools, our politicians and even some of our religious institutions. When someone like Curt Schilling can be fired by ESPN merely for pointing out (privately, not on the air) that he’s against allowing males with male equipment to use women’s bathrooms where they have the opportunity to assault and molest women and children, you know the rot goes deep. And yes, some cases of this have unfortunately occurred already.

This is yet another tool to be used to disrupt and eventually supplant the traditional family with loyalty to the state, something Mao, Hitler and Stalin would find completely familiar and understandable.

Votes and even our Supreme Court have proven to be of little help in this struggle against the destruction of our culture, although voting and political activism may still play a role in the future. The basic weapons are organization, the realization that money talks and voting with our feet.

First, any parent should do two things. First, if they have the means, they need to get their kids out of the public schools as soon as possible and into private schools, or if not, home school. And organize to force politicians to allow voucher programs and school choice, or elect ones that will.

The second thing, if very young children are involved is to get rid of television. Even a casual glance at supposedly innocuous PBS might surprise you. Very young children lack the mental armor to defend themselves from what’s being fed to them, and it takes time for them to develop it. Also, the amount of television viewed in many homes promotes passivity and inaction.

A third tool that needs to be used far more aggressively is the realization that money talks. Imagine what would happen if ESPN’s advertisers received a few thousand or more e-mails and calls informing them that those members of the public would no longer patronize the products of companies that supported a network that violated Curt Schilling’s First Amendment Rights? And that they were going to spread the word to others? Duck Dynasty is a good example of what happens when this garbage is exposed to sunlight.

Part of that sunlight also involves seeing whom these companies give their money and support to. Often, they’re not even aware of the full nature of whom they write the checks to. Calling their attention to it and perhaps even following up with a practical demonstration of what their continued support can cost often can be surprisingly effective.

Organization, voting with our feet and political action.That’s how to win the culture war. In fact,it’s how the Left has been waging it, bit by bit.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Link to article: 

Forum: What Do You See As The Most Important Fronts In The Culture War?

Article written by: Tom White

Rubio: Go To War to Defend UN Resolutions! That’s Outrageous (Especially in Light of Women and the Draft)!

Almost forgotten in the midst of the entertaining fight between Donald Trump and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (finally a debate to listen to again and again!) were these words by Senator Marco Rubio (from the Time official debate transcript with emphasis by the blogger):

09:35:50:00 I just wanna say, at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time that it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) And you can– I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple things, but he kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe, but he– no matter what you wanna say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolutions, in open violation, and the world wouldn’t do anything about it. And George W. Bush, enforced what the international community, refused to do, and again he kept us safe. And I am forever grateful to what he did for this
09:36:29:00 (OVERTALK)

It is outrageous to even consider going to war to enforce United Nations resolutions.  Especially in light of the ideas that women can be required to register for the draft and serve in combat.  War should be declared in some manner by Congress and only for a compelling national interest.  I don’t want my children fighting in war to enforce UN resolutions.

I think that pretty much rules out Sandy’s support for Senator Rubio.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Forum: Have Relationships Between Men And Women Changed For The Worse?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Has The Relationship Between Men And Women Changed For The Worse?

The Razor : Feminism once meant equality between the sexes. It has long since devolved into man-hatred, with women portraying men as sexual predators incapable of reaching maturity with psychopathic tendencies. In the process they have recreated a neo-Victorian sexual paradigm where women are too weak and feeble and must be protected from men, their ideas and thoughts as well as their sexuality. I half expect feminist college professors to faint at the next microaggression. Thirty years ago I thought college age women were neurotic. Today I think they are absolutely insane.

Being the gatekeepers of sexuality has traditionally elevated women’s worth, forcing men of that age to put up with a lot of hassle. Fortunately today there are more distractions that compete for men’s attention, putting a limit to the amount of trouble they are willing to put up with in order to have sex. To put it bluntly, women are in danger of pricing themselves out of the market.

I once thought that because of the innate inequality of sexual desire shared between the sexes that men would always be dependent on women. But thanks to technology I see men growing independent from women to a degree that I once didn’t believe possible. And I’m also seeing women react in surprising ways to this change in the balance of power between the two sexes.

In all likelihood the spasms of feminist dystopia we are witnessing on today’s campuses and among the liberal elites will settle down and the he-ing and she-ing that has characterized our species since its inception will continue unabated. But if it doesn’t, women will stand to suffer more than they expect as men decide their crazy, self-contradicting controlling desires are simply not worth the trouble. Bring on the replicants!

The Independent Sentinel : Since the sixties, I’ve watched the man-hating feminists demean men. I won’t negate the fact that they have helped raise the status of women, but they’ve also elevated them to the point that they are encouraged to kill their babies at any time up to the moment of birth because it’s their bodies. In the process of boosting women, they’ve used the tactic of belittling men and attacking them as aggressors to win their points.

The left today includes both men and women putting men down. Women are seen beating up the bad guys while men are too often portrayed as weak or looking like Pajama Boy or walking around with orange hair and crashing into cars in Foster Child commercials. Aggressive sports are on the ropes and football players are portrayed as more violent than the other men though research proves it’s not true.

Older men and women appear to have great relationships in this country but I don’t know what the situation is going to be for the new generation. I will say, however, that women need to get ahead on their own merits, not because of preferential treatment, lies about their abilities, and degradation of men.

The Glittering Eye: I don’t find the Forum format conducive to long-form, citation-filled responses. Maybe I’ll write a post on this subject. I’ll just jot down a few quick thoughts.

I’m an empirical kind of guy and, if there’s empirical evidence that men and women are happier and better off, that their relationships are happier, longer, and more satisfied, and that children are being reared in more loving and secure environments than was the case 50 years ago, I have yet to see it. Over that period marriage rates have waned, divorce rates have risen, and the proportion of children being reared in homes with both of their biological parents has fallen to levels unparalleled in American history if not in human history as well.

Increasingly, men are becoming dispensable. A relative handful of elite women may wield more power and influence and reap more wealth than ever before but by far the greater number of women are being left to rear children alone.

You can change the laws. You can change the expectations. You can’t change millions of years of human physical and social evolution in a few years or even in a few generations. Is it any wonder that suicide rates have risen?

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : We know it to be true that for a society to survive we must first start with a secure family unit consisting of a father and a mother raising their children together; providing for them and teaching them morals and values and how to be productive members of society.

I really feel sorry for the youth today growing up exposed to progressive indoctrination especially when it comes to the male/female relationship. While the majority of children in the past grew up secure in their sexual identities, today the emphasis is on the aberrant among them. Our children are being taught at a very early age that there are all types of sexual preferences and all of them are acceptable. They encourage self-exploration at very early ages. It’s almost as if the majority of people, the heterosexuals, should NOT be the preferable choice. All this is doing is causing the lines to be blurred and creating uncertainty in our children. Like so much of the progressive agenda, uncertainty is the key to indoctrination and the younger the child the easier it is to shape and mold their morals and values.

Relationships today must be very difficult for young adults, given all of the information they are being fed from their progressive teachers and the media. However, I believe most of them will follow the traditional route and find a mate and settle down and raise their families. After all, we are hard wired to do so. Indoctrination will never be able to change human physiology.

JoshuaPundit : Ah, the prog fascist model! Remember ‘Julia,’ the character in that famous Obama ad? Something that immediately struck me and that I haven’t heard mentioned anywhere else was that there is another famous ‘Julia’ who was used as a model for cradle to grave government control of a woman’s life. She appears in Orwell’s 1984 and like her lover, Winston Smith is crushed by the State and condemned to live a loveless, lonely life afterwards.

Many women in America used to meet their spouses at school or at work. Today, most sane young men wouldn’t dream of asking anyone they work with or go to school with out on a date. All it takes is a malicious accusation of ‘sexual assault’ and they face expulsion or being fired. The risks are simply too high.

A lot of the young women who revel in this ‘victory’ will end up a lot like Julia in their mid to late thirties..unloved, miserable, childless and wondering where all the good men have gone to.

Lots of men are rethinking things too. After being demonized from that first day in kindergarten by the very society they helped to build and make a much more safe and pleasant place for women, an increasing number of them are choosing to avoid marriage and hold on to their adolescence as long as possible. Or they’re looking for wives elsewhere. As one of them put it, your children and 2/3 of your earnings is too high a price to pay for the privilege of seeing the average American girl naked.

Some bright spots – while the current laws and the culture being pushed today is designed to eliminate till-death-do-us-part marriage entirely, it persists stubbornly the among more traditional cultures in America, especially where religion is a factor. And those families are the ones having most of the children in America today. And there is also this. When times get hard, people tend to flush the sophistries of the Left and return to the traditions of the past. Marriage rates shot up during Great Depression.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


Forum: Have Relationships Between Men And Women Changed For The Worse?

Article written by: Tom White

Two More Useful Ideas (One Appears to be a Bill Already) That Maybe Ought to be a Law!

I was recently honored to be published in the semi-annual newsletter of the Trusts and Estates Section of the Virginia State Bar (That is not an endorsement of the positions taken of course or of me in general) on an interesting (well, to me, enough to publish an article about it!) subject:  No-contest clauses in wills and trusts.  I’ll have to try to hunt up a copy of the newsletter available.

My article is concerned with these clauses which punish those who contest a will or trust provision with loss of whatever bequest in given to that beneficiary if they lose the contest.  The Commonwealth is surprisingly strict on these clauses, giving them full force and effect, albeit perhaps reluctantly (one of my points in the new case the Supreme Court of Virginia just decided on them is that neither the trial nor appellate courts seemed eager to use the clause to defeat the bequest challenged or in this case allegedly challenged) but most states have a probable cause standard – the clause has no power if there was probable or reasonable cause to believe the contest had legal merit.  (Some states allow a challenge if there is an allegation of forced documents or similar fraud.)

So I propose another law (I perhaps have more bill ideas than some legislators!):

“A provision in a will or trust or similar document purporting to penalize an interested person for contesting the will or instituting other proceedings relating to the estate is unenforceable if probable cause exists for instituting proceedings.”

It’s based on a provision in the Uniform Probate Act (a proposed law by the Commissioners for Uniform State Laws) and is the law in for example Arizona.

Seems to me that no contest clauses can serve a useful purpose to discourage frivolous litigation by disappointed parties who did not get from a relative what they wanted or expected.  BUT it also hinders access to courts and that is a biggie for me.  So I could support this law in Virginia and have asked several delegates and senators to consider it.

The second idea is not mine.  The article was written by attorney John T. Midgett.  But it describes a reform of the augmented estate.

What?  My readers are asking…well read on

You might have heard the saying:  You can’t disinherit your spouse.  The reason you cannot is the augmented estate (at the ancient English common law it was called dower and curtesy and it said one third for the surviving widow but one half for the surviving widower) which is now a statute that provides for one-third of the estate to the surviving spouse (whichever gender) at the election of that spouse.  The spouse however has to renounce any bequest under the will or trust.  As the disclaimers at the end of commercials say:  Restrictions may apply!

What Midgett calls for is a 50% augmented estate (of both spouses’ estate) but he would make it a sliding scale based on years married and also allow more effective ways for an incapacitated spouse to make the election.  I think this is wise policy although I am not entirety convinced.

Delegate Jay Leftwich seems to have made this a bill in HB 231 for the consideration of the Virginia General Assembly.

HB 231 Augmented estate; elective share of surviving spouse.

Introduced by: James A. “Jay” Leftwich | all patrons    …    notes | add to my profiles


Augmented estate; elective share of surviving spouse. Revises provisions of the Code related to the elective share of the surviving spouse of a decedent dying on or after July 1, 2017 to track revisions made to the Uniform Probate Code by the Uniform Law Commission. The bill calculates the elective share of the surviving spouse as a graduated percentage, taking into account both spouses’ assets and the length of marriage. Under current law, the surviving spouse is awarded 50% of the estate if there were no children and 33.3% if there were children. The bill also clarifies the process by which the elective share is to be claimed and provides instructions for the valuation of assets to encourage uniformity in the method of calculation of the elective share.

I also asked the same group of solons to consider this bill, too.  I would like to see more concern about divorce laws but this is the beginning of a start.  And Delegate Leftwich is a Republican from Hampton Roads (Chesapeake) area!

Now that my readers know a lot more about estate planning than they wanted to, perhaps even these issues can show intent to do sound government that does not cost gobs of money, set up new programs or nakedly advance progressive agendas.



Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Consider Coming Out for Loren Spivack


Loren Spivack

Dec. 6th, 2015

Loren Spivack “The Free Market Warrior” was born and raised in Massachusetts and spent most of his adult life in New York City. Before becoming active in politics, Spivack worked for several non-profits and as a management consultant for both profit and non-profit companies.

Spivack founded “Free Market Warrior” in 2009 in an effort to make a positive difference in American politics and economics.

His “Free Market Warrior” store was expelled from Concord Mills Mall in North Carolina in July of 2009 for selling material critical of the Obama Administration. (Mall owners, Simon Property Group, are major Democratic donors.) Since then Loren has devoted his time to teaching conservative groups about free market economics. He conducts “Economic Literacy” seminars across the United States. So far, Spivack has delivered his famous seminar on “Economic Literacy” to over 200 groups in 20 states.

Spivack is also the author of “The New Democrat” a parody history of the Obama administration, based on a famous children’s book. With pitch-perfect rhyme and clever illustrations, “The New Democrat” transforms the political personalities of our times into cartoon characters in a conservative morality play.

Spivack’s second book “The Gorax” is an anti-environmentalism/pro capitalism parody starring Al Gore and presenting his movement as a threat to American freedom and standard of living. Once again Spivack is both funny and poignant as he makes the case that capitalism (represented by the “Onepercentler”) is the real victim of environmental extremists who destroy prosperity without achieving even their own goals. Along the way, Spivack takes well aimed shots at everything from “The Fed” to the teachers unions. “The Gorax” came out on July 1, 2013.

Mr. Spivack lives in Massachusetts with his wife and 3 of their 6 children (the other three having grown up.)


Sunday, December 6th, 2015 at 2:00pm

Best Western Crossroads Inn

135 Wood Ridge Terrace Zion Crossroads, VA


I-64 Exit 136, North of I-64, opposite Lowe’s and Walmart

RSVP TO or 540-967-3616


Event is non-partisan, free of charge and open to the public.

Sponsored by the Louisa VA Tea Party

Hat tip to Bob Keeler for this tip!  You are also helping Fred Gruber, our Seventh District GOP Chair

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Forum: Does Education Need Reform?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:Does Education Need Reform?

Fausta’s Blog : Yes, education thoroughly needs reform.

All schools must be answerable to the parents, who should have freedom to choose what schools they want for their children.

Elementary schooling is most important in a child’s development. For instance, substantial research on the brain’s neuroplasticity shows the importance of learning cursive handwriting during childhood. My experience is that few elementary school teachers are even aware of such research – and teaching cursive is a long, hard process which is not favored by the “teach for the test” environment.

In today’s society, schools are called to do many functions that parents should. At the same time, most teachers’ colleges favor a politically-correct approach of “everybody gets a trophy” instead of focusing on a sense of the value of virtue, a work ethic, and thorough respect and familiarity with the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, all of which are American values.

As the mother of a boy, I can attest to the fact that most schools – public and private – are oriented to teaching in a way that does not foster the way male students learn. Luckily we were able to place my son in an all-boy’s school that encouraged hands-on learning, and where recess was never cancelled (in fact, the youngest grades had two brief recesses in the morning). He graduated from college with honors.

Current curricula is affected by the latest trends. I remember when the local school board proposed to change (at great expense to the taxpayer) the math curriculum years ago. My husband asked “were any studies done comparing the new plan’s effectiveness to the current one?” Not one member of the board had even thought of such a study. Now we have Common Core, with murky math exercises that I cannot understand even after having completed nine semesters of college and graduate school statistics, calculus, and economics.

I also believe that one of the most important things a good educator can have is a sense of the value of learning-from-failure, which goes hand-in-hand with understanding the value of healthy competition. It is tragic that the present educational environment can not comprehend either. As ever, it falls to us parents to make sure our children do.

Maggie’s Notebook : We first need the will to change education. To do that we need parents insisting on it and finding a way to sacrifice whatever is necessary to put their children in good schools when their public school is failing. Most importantly, we need teachers willing to stand up for truthful text books and honest methods of teaching, grading and passing pupils. Today’s teachers come out of their own education taught to hate and be victims. We are on a merry-gro-round. When our kids fall off, the merry-go-round continues to spin.

How do we get truth into textbooks? The only answer I have is that educators and parents must insist on it. If we find a way to provide truthful civics and history textbooks, then can our children CANNOT pass the SAT, aligned to Common Core, and testing is not going away anytime soon. For decades, Liberals have tried to bring racism and victimization into everyday life so that every school child is turned into that community’s organizer.

We barely teach English and Math. Neither are considered important today –– nor is it important to know how to balance a checkbook or understand the stability behind a bank account yielding profit. It’s more important to learn how to put a condom on a banana, or create a flier showing support for Islam. History is so obscenely distorted, we may not be able to reconcile the decades of damage already done. After all, many of our schools are staffed with those who themselves were taught to feel victimized.

Spend some time with Fox News’ Jessie Watters on beaches in very influential communities, or on some of the university campuses considered the finest in the country, and you’ll understand how little our children know or care about liberty and freedom.

Some parents believe their efforts have removed Common Core from their schools, but as long as English, History and Mathematics are taught to pass the current testing, Common Core lives.

The crux of all evil in our schools are the two major teacher’s unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). We can’t fire them, even when they molest our children. Such a teacher may be removed from the classroom, but not removed from the payroll and retirement benefits. To be sure, there are excellent teachers, who suffer over this problem every day of the school year, but in our current and common environment, good teachers can do only so much.

Then there are the lawsuits –– dropped on schools on a whim –– costing thousands to defend. It’s easier to give in. Banish the child that chews his pop tart into the shape of a gun. Praise the child bringing a suitcase with the guts of a clock inside that clearly looks like a bomb. That early teenage child has been told that MIT will welcome him.

Does education need reform? Such a disturbing question. I don’t think there’s an answer to fix it. I don’t think there are enough aware parents to shield their children. I don’t think there enough good teachers to fight their unions. I think there are far too many teachers/administrators teaching the poor to continue to be poor, to continue to hate others for their plight.

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : Many people today are surprised to discover the U. S. Department of Education was created during the administration of President Carter in 1979. Until then, the control of our public education resided within the states. Our Constitution makes no mention of the federal government having any duties or responsibilities related to education, and as such the DoED is an unconstitutional agency. In the past thirty-five years, the federal government has taken control of the education of our children by enticing states and counties with funding. Unfortunately these funds come with strings that have shaped everything from the curricula to what our children are eating for breakfast, lunch, and even dinner in some districts. School districts compete for these funds and policies enacted in order to receive these funds.

Right now we have the federal government colluding with private corporations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, taking our tax dollars and turning our education system over to entities not as much interested in providing our children the best education as they are making money and pursuing the social engineering of generations of our youth. Our schools should not be laboratories and our children should not be guinea pigs to untested and unproven standards such as Common Core. The Common Core State Standards is the latest incarnation of the old No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top programs, all promising to improve standards and turn out children who are college or career ready. Charter schools and magnet schools are being sold to parents as an attractive alternative to low performing schools, but again, people must realize this is the taking of public tax money which should be going to public education and putting it in the pockets of private corporations. The states have no oversight over these charter schools and the curricula is proprietary, meaning no one is able to see or review what our children are being taught. An early charter school, International Baccalaureate, has direct ties to the United Nations through UNESCO, and promises to promote “rigorous” study and create young people who embrace multiculturalism and diversity as “global citizens” and where, as they say on their website “These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.” IB started out as a high school diploma programme, but now includes primary and middle year programmes as well as a career related programme. The Common Core State Standards appear in many ways to be fashioned after the International Baccalaureate programme.

In the 2016 presidential election we must get behind a candidate who promises to abolish the DoED and return education to the states and local districts. The future of our country resides in taking back control of our education system at the local and state levels and assuring our children are being taught the basic knowledge and skills that will carry them into being productive, competent and capable citizens into their adult lives and professions.

JoshuaPundit : I think a great many people have finally become aware of how poorly our education system works over the last decade, and that’s been underlined by the nonsense that’s been making headlines lately at our universities.Fixing this is going to involve several steps,and it’s going to be necessary to look at the origin of the problems, break down the root causes and solve them in increments.And since part of the solution is obviously political, a lot is going to depend on the national will.

Let’s look at K-12 first.

School choice is important, even vital but it merely underlines the fact that the enormous amount of money spent on public education has largely been a waste, since parents, given the choice, overwhelmingly choose private schools whom are normally able to educate students for less money per pupil and at a much higher level than majority of the public schools. My own experience is that the average 12th grader in private schools is at least 3 years or more ahead in terms of the work they’re doing.

Private schools usually have these things in common – parents whom care very much about their children’s education and are willing to invest in it, high standards of discipline, work ethic and conduct for the students themselves (frequently including religious and moral education as well as sex segregated classes), non-unionized teaching staffs and a much lower ratio of administrators to teachers than the large public school districts. Teachers also have much more freedom to gear the pace of learning to the classes’ level rather than having to devote set amounts of time to mandatory programs that bore the more intelligent children or overwhelm those whom need more time and help. And teachers are likewise judged by their empirical results rather than tenure or other considerations.

Once public education became unionized and the Left took control of it, most of not all of the above qualities including scholastic ones were degraded over time as education became indoctrination, standards were lowered and bureaucracy became an end in itself. The tool the Left used to accomplish this was federal and state money, which is why the attendance head count in the morning has become the most important part of the day. Ironically, it’s also a tool that can be used to reform the system in the right hands.

To fix K-12, the following steps are necessary in my view: Breaking apart the larger urban school districts into smaller units, de-unionizing teachers by making public employee unions voluntary and regulating the involvement of public employee unions as organizations in political campaigns, getting rid of tenure and enforcing much higher standards in teachers are the first steps.

The Federal Department of Education and the threat of withdrawing federal money can be used to accomplish much of this, and federal school choice legislation would be needed for the rest.

The next steps are more difficult, because they involve changes in attitude. First, the pernicious influence of the Left needs to be curtailed. A good start would be for textbooks to need to be approved by a new Bureau of Standards as a part of the DoE before they could be used in the public schools, and for standardized tests to be administered at different grade levels for tracking purposes of both teacher fitness and individual academic progress. And yes, I’m talking about British-style O-levels. Some children are university material and some are better served by good vocational training. Moral education also needs to be taught again at an early age in the public schools as it once was, and discipline re-established. This unfortunately is vital nowadays.

Public education should not be thought of as a right but as the privilege it is. Children and teenagers who habitually disrupt classrooms, act out in school and show disrespect for teachers should be removed to a single facility in the district more geared to their special needs so that they do not deprive the other children who actually came to be educated.

Dealing with the Universities is an extension of this.

Even private ones receive public money and subsidies as well as student loan funds. This can likewise be used as a lever to effect change.

College has become an overpriced scam particularly in the Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, which these days are anything but liberal. This could be changed with the following policies.

First, any university receiving federal funds of any kind would have to eliminate tenure, base admissions on a race neutral basis, have its curriculum meet certain federal standards as established by standardized yearly testing and allow ROTC training and military recruiters on campus in accordance with the Solomon Amendment.

In addition, the Federal DoE could easily create college curricula for various majors that could be available online at a fraction of the cost of what college costs today, and some universities already offer such programs. My daughter is now working as a special ed teaching assistant in the field she wants to make her career while taking online courses that will give her a BA in a year’s time at a fraction of what even a state university would cost, and minus the indoctrination and ethos that entails nowadays.When she gets ready to start her career, it will be with actual job experience on her resume and zero debt.

Those students who want ‘the college experience’ as a prolonged adolescence, are legacies with wealthy alumni parents who are seeking contacts or want to use college as a talent showcase for the professional sports franchises will still likely want a typical high priced brick and mortar university, but the opportunity to obtain the same degrees at a fraction of the cost is going to appeal to a lot of young Americans.

The DoE could also enable a rebirth of vocational colleges and paid apprenticeships in various trades that would be far more practical, useful and cost less than some of the ridiculous majors many students are currently pursuing while bankrupting themselves or their parents at the same time.

Implementing these changes would take time, but the results would be seen fairly quickly. And they would revolutionize education as it is today.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

This article is from: 

Forum: Does Education Need Reform?

Article written by: Tom White

The Spirit of Fear and the “Syrian” Refugee Crisis

The Syrian Refugee crisis has created dramatic divisions amongst Americans and amongst millions of Europeans across the EU. On the one side, we have people who don’t want anymore Muslims let into their countries; and on the other side, you have people who feel that these refugees are in need and deserve help. On both sides we are witnessing the inevitable results of fear. Fear is one of the most debilitating and toxic psychological states and has consequently clouded both sides of this debate, and has prevented any hope for a thoughtful or rational dialogue.

The most common cause of hatred is fear, mixed with a dash of powerlessness. Hatred of people groups is almost always fear driven. Muslim children throughout the world are taught to fear the Jews, the Zionists, the little Satan. Surrounded by her enemies, Israel still stands, attributed to Israel’s manipulation of global powers, and due to her protection by the Great Satan, America. The hatred of Israelis is palpable throughout Arabia, Africa, Persia, and the Near East. All because of lies ingrained in the minds of children. There is no reasoning with them.

shariaHatred of Muslims is also derived from fear. The Islamist reign of terror has stretched across the globe in its’ attempt to spread Islamic Orthodoxy and to establish Islamic Caliphates. Many Muslim immigrants have fled the tyrannical rule of Sharia Law and the civil wars between Sunni and Shi’ite throughout the Muslim World. Westerners witness the chaos, the beheadings, the crucifixions, the burnings, the drownings, and 7 year old children parading the severed heads of their victims down city streets, and they are afraid. Many citizens of the Western World do not trust their governments to deal with this violence. In The United States, we’re equally depressed by our government’s role in the creation of most of these terrorist threats. We armed AQ, we armed ISIS, we armed Saddam Hussein. With no government to trust in dealing with these threats, fear plus powerlessness becomes a blanket of hatred – irrational and applied absolutely toward all Muslims.

Frightened by fear, others in the Western World have swung wide upon that pendulum’s swing, arguing that there are no reasons for fear in the first place, arguing that anyone in need should be helped, regardless of the cultural dissonance and persuasion of those seeking refuge. Terrified of those they see as bigots, they abandon all reason and merely come to the rescue and aid of those they feel are being treated harshly.

In the end, everyone comes out looking like fools. We’ve got half the people across social media trying as hard as they can to demonstrate just how little they know about the Bible, trying to use it to justify one position or the other. We’ve got people who are against an open borders Hispanic migration, demanding we bring in 100,000 Middle Eastern refugees. This is what happens when governments do nothing. Everyone becomes powerless. Everyone freaks out. They all get mixed up in hate or cowardly abandon reason in order to resist the hate they see around them in favor of appeasement.

I would offer advice, but you cannot reason with fear. You cannot reason with those captured by hate and you cannot reason with those desperately clinging to appeasement. What I will say, is this: The world is being forced to deal with a global revival of Islamic Orthodoxy and it has proved itself ill-equipped to do so. Those who have embraced the Marxist-attitude that need is a claim upon the obligation of others are half the problem. Those embracing hatred of all Muslims are the other half of the problem. Check yourself. Hatred is a result of fear. Do not be afraid. Be rational, objective, and deliberate. Demand a better government, one that leaves us less susceptible to terror here at home and one which no longer finances it abroad.



Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

The Most Libertarian, Conservative, and Important Speech of our Lifetime

As our candidates campaign – I would ask that you would, once a week, watch this video. Share it with your children. Share it with your friends.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is a speech no Libertarian could disagree with. This is a speech no conservative could disagree with. This is a speech that no Constitutionalist could disagree with. Watch it. Watch it with your kids. Tell them – “this is a great man”.

He addresses Iran, Corruption, Corporatism, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood and the Nature of the United States Congress.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Much Ado About Abortion

The following video of a Planned Parenthood executive discussing the harvesting and selling of unborn children’s organs, tissue, and extremities has reignited the abortion debate in this country. A “third-rail” topic and a Republican fund-raising topic (Republicans raise millions of dollars off of the abortion debate every year and do absolutely nothing about it), abortion is a difficult topic to grapple with. (damn prepositions)

Click here to view the embedded video.

We Libertarians are split on abortion, between those who believe that the government should keep its’ collective nose out of a woman’s pregnancy and those who believe that using force against unborn human beings is just as wrong as using force against born human beings.

I have written many papers, participated in debates, and read everything there is on abortion ethics and abortion commentary; and I think we often gloss over the fundamental realities of what abortion is all about, why it exists, and why abortion really is as awful as some people claim it is.

abortionThe reason abortion exists, is because of the fiscal and emotional costs and responsibilities associated with pregnancy and with raising children. Human beings love sex, but they do not want to take care of every single baby that results from their sexual activity. Women and men alike, both have a vested interest in contraception and abortion – whatever it takes to prevent the human consequence of sexual activity from taking place and becoming a reality in their lives. I know that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about the murder of a human being, but most people are raised to believe that a person does not develop rights, as a human being, until after they are born and after they have proven themselves capable of sustaining life after birth. So, we aren’t talking about cold hearted killers. We are talking about irresponsible people – people literally unwilling to take responsibility for the sustenance and life of their conceived children.

We try hard to pretend that these babies aren’t “people”, as if some one event in the life a person results in their person-hood. This is pretense. There is no sound philosophical or medical or ethical argument which has ever successfully demonstrated that human life starts anywhere but at conception.

When we talk about justifying abortion, we have to talk about what we’re really talking about – which is killing those of our children we are either ill-equipped or ill-prepared to care for. The only reason we cannot have this discussion, is that people who favor legal abortion do not want to have a debate wherein they must recognize that we are talking about killing a person when we talk about abortion. The rationalizations are absurd and I don’t think anyone really believes that their babies aren’t ‘alive” or “people” until after they are born. People aren’t that ignorant.

So, could we stand to live in a world where every healthy baby conceived was born? People complain about all the babies poor people have that we, as a society, are forced to pay for; how much worse would this be if it were not for the fact that we kill so many of these children before they are born? Honestly, societies are always interested in procreation, because we have to deal with every person born, good or bad, brilliant or less so, dependent upon the state or a member of the tax-base.

We argue that open borders can’t work, because of our welfare state. If it cost us nothing to accept immigrants, that is one thing. If two out of three immigrants are sucking up our tax dollars, that’s another thing all together. Is it not the same with children?

Do we truly want every 12 and 13 year old girl, who gets knocked up, to actually have and raise those children?

Do we truly want every poor person who seems to get knocked up every year or so to have all those children?

Do we really believe that forcing women to go through with their pregnancies will actually put an end to women killing their children?

Do we really want to go back to an age of back-ally abortions? Coat hanger abortions? Drug-induced abortions?

The answer to each of these questions is, that no human being has the right to murder another human being. I understand that if killing our unborn children is rightfully considered a crime, that many of our lives would look a great deal differently than they do today, and that our society would experience an untold number of complex and difficult problems; but if the only answer we have is to kill a living human being, then maybe we’ve got deeper problems than we’ve even considered. That we have to kill 3,300 children every day is a remarkably horrific reality.

We should be dealing with the causes of this reality, not with laws or murder, but with reason, morality, and individual responsibility. I know, it seems impossible to imagine that adult human beings can be trusted to behave responsibly, sexually, but I cannot accept, or stomach, the idea that abortion is a solution we can live with.

We are killing 3,300 people every day and planned parenthood is selling their organs, tissue, and extremities for god-knows-what, and we consider ourselves civilized or moral? We are barbaric. We have actually decided that murder is a just act, insofar as it alleviates responsibility. This is madness. This is evil. And this has to stop.

Abortion is a gruesome cruelty. I understand why it exists and why we accept it and why we don’t want to talk about it – but it is wrong. We must begin holding ourselves accountable for our actions, and stop excusing our worst sins by virtue of the fact of our unwillingness to deal with reality and the consequences of our actions.







Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker