Politics/Morals of Abortion

A friend posted today that abortion is a moral/ethical issue and not a political issue. She is both right and wrong.

On the one hand, it is absolutely a moral issue. The ethics in play when innocent life hangs in the balance are neither complicated nor the least bit unclear. To take a life is wrong, and no one but a sociopath would tell you differently. The gray area in which most of America seems to reside in regards to abortion, however, is completely manufactured.

The first argument is that an unborn child is not "alive." But as scientific advances begin to shed light on the mysteries of life in utero, it becomes more and more difficult to argue that a fetus is anything other than a slightly more helpless newborn. The ever-shortening age of viability proves that any argument based solely on viability is both arbitrary and disingenuous. The fact that an unborn child has fingernails, a fully functioning heart and the ability to respond to external stimulus all within the first trimester only further dismantles any argument claiming that a fetus is simply a "parasitic ball of cells" and is therefore expendable.

The second argument is that it is better for an unwanted child to be aborted than to go through life unwanted. This argument applies specifically to women who don't have the means to care for a baby or to pregnancies that result from rape. To accept this argument, you must first concede that the person making said argument is the arbiter of what is and is not moral. Then you must believe that taking a life that only "might" be sad or difficult can be accepted as a viable solution. You must believe that the proper response to a rape pregnancy is to give one victim the choice to create another. And you must believe that, when all is said and done, that a woman's bank account balance is of greater value than the life she carries.

The last ditch argument of every pro-abort is this: "what if it endangers the life of the mother?" Well? What if it does? That particular situation is exceptionally rare - and in most cases there is an option available like pre-term induced labor or cesarean section. Either way, the physician treating the woman has two patients - mother and child - and does everything in his power to save both. The only case where termination is always warranted is an ectopic or tubal pregnancy - if allowed to progress, an ectopic pregnancy WILL kill both mother and child. For that reason, it is not considered a viable pregnancy in the first place and termination is a surgical procedure to be done at a hospital rather than a clinic.

Whether or not they believe, as I do, that life is sacred because it is a gift from God, most Americans do believe that the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) are sacrosanct. What they forget when making arguments to excuse abortion, is that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are irrelevant if we don't first protect absolutely the most fundamental of the three: life.

But as is wont to happen in America, that which should have remained solely a moral issue has become a political issue. Roe v. Wade allowed a woman who lied about being raped to change our culture to the point that women can now walk into a clinic and end a life simply because, as it turns out, she'd really rather have a boy...

There are those who adamantly oppose abortion and those who claim that abortion is the only thing that gives women the freedom to sleep around. But today, the people I'm talking to are the ones in the middle. You know, the ones who say that they personally oppose abortion but don't feel that they have the right to tell anyone else what to do.

Well.

Then you have no right to tell anyone that rape is wrong.
You have no right to tell anyone that stealing is wrong.
You have no right to tell anyone that anything is wrong.

If you believe it is wrong and fail to stand, you are not advocating "choice" for women. If you believe it is wrong and you fail to stand, you are sitting in silent support of what they choose. If you believe it is wrong and you fail to stand, you are a coward.

"Our lives begin to end when we remain silent about things that matter." Martin Luther King Jr.

Last Weekend on Twitter...

I spent far more hours than I care to admit on Twitter this past weekend. It all started with a woman who took a position claiming that abortion should be a viable option as long as the foster system was overwhelmed, since making abortion illegal would funnel more children into an already broken system. She also said that legal abortion was the only thing guaranteeing that women could achieve economic independence.

What followed was exactly what you might expect. The abortion culture in the United States was compared – accurately – to the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Fetuses were compared – by her - to parasites that shouldn’t be considered “human” until birth.

But then the debate went sideways. When asked when killing a baby should become “wrong,” this girl said “no less than one year after birth.”

“Is that a serious response?” I asked.

“Why wouldn’t it be?”

“Just to clarify,” I said, “Infanticide should be legal up to one year if it provides economic stability to the mother?”

“Yep.” Three letters that brought the Twitterverse (or at least the corner of it in which I reside) to a screeching halt.

 “Yep.” The life of a baby is less important than the mother’s bank account.

“Yep.” Life isn’t *life* so much as it is political capital.

“Yep.” Oh, by the way, a “fetus” isn’t an *actual* baby.

Within minutes, the full weight of the pro life lobby on Twitter descended on her head. Not surprisingly, she quickly tried to play it off as a joke.

“Wow. You guys are too dense and stupid to understand sarcasm?”

Sarcasm is amusing. When it isn’t advocating INFANTICIDE.

“I was just trying to prove how crazy pro-lifers are.”

By telling jokes about KILLING LIVE BABIES.

“OMG you guys are a riot.”

Because people who think KILLING ALL TEH BABIEZ is wrong are about as funny as jokes about rape. Only less so.

The problem with her “sarcasm” in a nutshell: there are people who SERIOUSLY hold that position. Why would anyone assume that she was employing sarcasm when a)the position, though reprehensible, lined up with every other argument she had made up to that point, and b)she not only took the position, but doubled down on it. Twice.

On an unrelated note, her Twitter account was banned later that day…

I Get By... With a Little Help From My Friends

If the economy wasn't already bad enough, it now looks as if at least the individual mandate of Obamacare is going to be rammed down our throats in a matter of months. Despite heroic efforts from the likes of Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz (along with several others), the vast majority of Congress is either in favor of the atrocity or terrified of the repercussions of standing against it. Which means that households in America are having conversations that sound surprisingly similar to this exchange from the USA series Psych:

Burton Guster: What's your dental plan?

Shawn Spencer: Don't get cavities.

Burton Guster: Health plan?

Shawn Spencer: The same, but with hepatitis and shingles. 

Getting sick in this economy and this political climate is quite possibly the worst thing you could do. And it's even worse if you happen to have a family that relies on you for support. 

But unfortunately, sickness does not come when we are prepared for it. Sickness does not come when we can afford it. Sickness does not come only to those with the ability to recover on their own without outside help.

I am writing today because in the last week I have seen three crowdfunding efforts - one I started myself for a close friend of my own family - set up to help care for the families of people whose illnesses have rendered them unable to care for their own families either physically, financially, or both.

Here they are:

David Singleton, father of two, suffering from chronic pain due to Rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disc disease, and fibromyalgia. Read more and donate.

Heidi Surface, mother of three, about to undergo surgery and treatment for breast cancer. Read more and donate.

Caleb Howe, father of two, currently hospitalized with a failing liver. Read more and donate.

If you have the means and feel compelled to do so, please donate what you can. $1, $10, $100 - it all adds up quickly, and the families will surely appreciate the help. If you can't donate (and trust me, in this economy we all understand that), please take the time to share this post and help us reach more people who can.

Thanks, guys.   

 

 

 

 

A Lesson in Women's Health

If you live in the United States, you have probably learned more about women's health in the last year than you ever wanted to know - and even with the supersaturation of information, the take home lesson still leaves me perplexed.

If you listen to Sandra Fluke, the truly empowered woman should not be responsible for the cost of her own birth control lest it interfere with her freedom to engage in casual sex without consequence. 

If you listen to Nancy Pelosi (and let me add that if you can do this at all without your ears bleeding, you are a stronger woman than I), the truly empowered woman must have access to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy because if you only give her three or six months, your end goal is to watch her bleed to death on the floor of an unsanitary clinic (which she also tries to pretend does not exist).

If you listen to the women fighting HB 2 in Texas which passed last week and limited abortions to the first twenty weeks of pregnancy, the truly empowered woman needs access to abortion for a full nine months of pregnancy because five months is not long enough for a woman of average intelligence to determine that she probably should have either paid $30 a month for birth control or insisted that her partner wear a condom.

The final assessment, according to these sources, is that women are generally too stupid or helpless to prevent pregnancy. With that as a given, they must therefore be granted unlimited access to a procedure that absolves them of responsibility for their chosen actions. If you deny them that access, #WarOnWomen!!!

So what happens when we put the shoe on the other foot? What about men who engage in sex without protection and get their partners pregnant? Barring the woman's subsequent choice, what procedure can a man opt for that absolves him of responsibility? What choice does he have other than either pay up or risk being labeled a "deadbeat" and facing legal action? 

Why do we accept - in fact encourage - a lack of responsibility from women when we demand responsibility from men for the exact same actions? What happened to equality for women? At what point do we admit that the call here is not for equality, but for the ability to impose our own sexist demands on men in order to shirk responsibility for our own choices?

The point they are all missing is very simple: freedom of action does not guarantee freedom from responsibility. If you do the crime, you must do the time. If you go to bed unprotected, why should a man automatically be held responsible for his choice while a woman gets another retroactive choice as to whether or not she will accept responsibility for the consequences of the *SAME CHOICE.*

Heroism, According to Bill McClellan

St. Louis columnist Bill McClellan has been a hot topic this week - mostly because he suggested that in order to save money we (and by "we" he means the government) should stop footing the bill for military honors at the funerals of all veterans. Why? Because "they aren't ALL heroes." Of course, he did concede that those who were killed in action were heroic enough to still receive such honors... Big of him, don't you think?

I was annoyed by the article to begin with. But then today I heard him do a live radio interview with Dana Loesch during which he clarified his position. He mentioned that he himself was drafted into the Marine Corps during Vietnam. He explained that after he came home, he went to college on the GI Bill. He said that he "didn't need military funeral honors" because he doesn't consider himself a hero.

So riddle me this, Bill: what benefits each individual soldier deserves should be dependent on a) your definition of the term "hero" and b) your assessment of which benefits are important?

Let's take a simple example: my father. He accepted a direct commission into the Army Reserve in 1999. He served for eight years, including one 9 month tour in Afghanistan. His camp faced a few minor rocket attacks, but nothing of consequence. He would be the first to tell you that he is no hero. For him, serving in the military was something he had always wanted to do. His oldest brother was a veteran of the Delaware National Guard. His nephew was a Marine. His other brother had served in Vietnam. And his father, who passed away four years before Dad got his commission, had served in Belgium in 1944-45. Military service in his family goes much farther back than that - there are at least two distant relatives that we know of who served in the Union Army during the Civil War.

By Mr. McClellan's standards, my dad should have had access to the GI Bill (an "important" military benefit) but not full military honors at his funeral. But here's the problem: my dad had a Masters Degree before he took his commission at age 45. Education was not something he needed. But a military funeral? He may not want one, I haven't asked him. But if he does, perhaps to him it would be more about connecting with his family history.

The point is this: Mr. McClellan is a veteran, and I respect him for that. But his assessment here is both wrong and reprehensible. Patriotism and heroics are not measured by the lives given in service to the country, but by lives offered freely. Perhaps the draft ruined that perspective for him, and if that's the case he has no business outlining what is "deserved" by those who volunteered.

A hero is one who writes that check, filling in the amount "up to and including my life." For that heroism to be rewarded, it should not also be required that the government cash it first.

More Sequester Pain to Compound Suffering of Soldiers, Veterans

On Wednesday, Dr. Jonathan Woodson addressed the House Armed Services Committee. Woodson is the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

He begged Congress to do something to avert the sequester cuts, saying, “We understand that the Department of Defense must do its part in regards to budget concerns, but we have a responsibility to do this smartly and judiciously. The path forward with sequestration is neither.”

What Woodson fails to grasp is that the sequester is no longerCongress’s fault. First, the House has posed several solutions to the sequester – all of which have been quashed by Harry Reid before they ever reach the Senate floor and are under threat of veto by President Obama should Reid dare to defy the Great and Powerful.

Congress also has the power to allow cabinet members to rearrange funding, pull it from one program and give it to another. In fact, Congress has been pretty much begging cabinet members to present them with just such a solution for the past several weeks if not longer. But Presidential memos warning cabinet members not to make cuts that would ease the pain of sequester for even one person have thus far been keeping the cowards-that-be in check.

So what does that all mean? It means that military healthcare facilities will face sequester cuts. Most facilities have around 40% civilian staff, most of whom are affected by 20% pay cuts and mandatory furloughs. Many facilities are older and most have equipment that is nearing the need for replacement, but because of funding cuts they will be told simply to “make do.”

Veterans benefits (to include healthcare) are exempt from sequester cuts, but not from sequester impact. If the hospitals they attend are facing reductions in staff and are unable to upgrade or even maintain necessary equipment, how can they expect to receive the same standard of care?

Add in the little tidbit that isn’t being publicized: while healthcare for veterans is technically exempt from sequester cuts, healthcare for active duty soldiers and their families is not. Which means that active duty soldiers being treated, some for injuries sustained in combat, will see a reduction in the quality of their service, could see a reduction in the services provided, and may be forced to take on some of the cost for their own treatment. They will see the same effects as veterans – hospitals with reduced staff and obsolete equipment – along with a bonus: since the veterans are “exempt” from sequester cuts, in order to maintain their standard of care they will be pushed to the front of the line. Active Duty soldiers and their families will be shuffled to the rear to wait for the leftovers.

Let me be clear: at this point, President Obama owns this sequester. He bought it and paid for it on credit, and now that the bill is coming due he’s stomping his feet and demanding that it be paid by the very people who have already sacrificed their time, their families, and in some cases their lives for him.

Sequester to Ensure Truth of Sec Kerry's "Troops are Dumb" Comment

I joined the Army back in 1999 for several reasons. At 19, even after three semesters of college, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. Staying in school at that point would have been a waste of my time and a waste of my parents' money. So when the recruiter talked to me about job training, adventure, and benefits (that included education) it sounded too good to be true. And to soldiers who are currently serving, it apparently is too good to be true.

Education is one of the main reasons young soldiers give for joining the military. An incredible number of soldiers receive degrees from the Associates level up through the graduate level using the highly successful Tuition Assistance program to access thousands of online courses through schools all over the United States. And I think we would all agree that educating our soldiers could prove to be beneficial in regards to national defense.

Enter sequester, stage left. Yeah. From the White House. And if that's not enough, in order to ensure that the evil Republicans (who in this case did nothing more than cave and let the petulant child-in-chief have his way)get what's coming to them, an e-mail from the White House directed at least one department to do whatever was necessary to ensure that the fears "mongered" by the administration concerning sequester cuts were realized by the American people.

It stands to reason that a true leader would look for the spending cuts that would do the least damage to the American people. It stands to reason that a true leader would cut wasteful spending first. Like grant money for shrimp on treadmills, cocaine for monkeys, or - oh, I don't know - excessive golf outings. But not our President. He figures that the best people to absorb the sequester cuts are our soldiers. The guys who put their lives on the line everyday to keep his golf courses safe. The guys who, unless they finish their educations and become officers, will probably spend most of their lives earning a salary that barely qualifies as "above the poverty line." The guys who, whether they like the President or not, would step in front of a bullet for him because they understand the meaning of words like "honor," "duty," and "leadership."

A memo from DoD Comptroller Robert Hale dated March 5, 2013, went out to each service branch, strongly suggesting that all new enrollments to the Tuition Assistance program be placed on hold. The Marine Corps has since announced that they will also be pulling all Tuition Assistance funding for current students at the end of this semester.

You'd think this administration couldn't sink any lower. And you'd be wrong. One possibility for further cuts is TRICARE, the healthcare program for active duty soldiers and their families.

But that's not even the best part! What is the best part, you ask? This President can still be the hero! How is this possible you ask? Well...

If these and other cuts are implemented, as directed, in such a way as to make them as acutely felt as possible, Americans will cry out for relief. The President, with the help of a complicit media, has already been mildly successful in convincing the public that the sequester can be blamed on the Republicans. The minute he signs into law any eventual compromise that brings relief, it will be a fairly simple matter to convince the public that he is the author of their salvation. 

In the real world, when one party intentionally injures another party for the sole purpose of then swooping to the rescue, it's a mental condition (Munchausen by proxy). When the President does it to the entire population of the United States, it's apparently grounds for reelection.

Update: And one more thing that is totally awesome - or as I like to call it, the even better best part - is that the organization Citizens Against Government Waste has already outlined several cuts (yes, even a few within the Department of Defense) that would more than cover the necessary sequester cuts and would only cut programs that are already draining the system for little or no payoff. 
Translation? If we cut the stuff they suggested, there would be far fewer drastic/harmful effects related to the sequester. But then that wouldn't suit the narrative at all, would it?