Wit or Wisdom

As you can tell by this post and the one two previous to it, I’ve been thinking about abortion a lot lately. And as I’ve been thinking about it, several different topics have been revolving around in my mind, one of these being the confusion over terms, usually intentionally injected by the “pro-choice” forces to keep people from recognizing the truth. One of these is the term “fetus.” “Fetus” is a word often used for the express purpose of making children in the womb seem to be just another disposable organ like the appendix or tonsils.

However, the biggest deception commited by the forces of groups such as NARAL is that of styling themselves to be “pro-choice.” This assertion seems to be accurate enough on its face. “Pro-choice” groups purport to give women the right to choose whether or not they want to have their baby. What they advocate appears to be a “convenient” alternative to the hassles of raising a child. (Go to my recent post, How Abortion Kills More than Just Babies, to see the convenience myth at least partially dispelled.)

The first thing we must explore is who the choice extends to. The mother? If the ideal hypotheticals and mission statements of the “pro-choice” forces are all true, then yes. The choice does indeed extend to the mother. In a moment, we’ll look at whether the “pro-choice” forces are really for a mother’s choice or not, but I’ll be nice and assume that for a moment, their true motives match their statements. Next, does the choice extend to the father? This is a little more complex. The truth is, in a large portion of abortions, the father is not present. He is usually not married to the mother, and less usually, but still frequently, not faithful to her. However, for those fathers who are present, does the choice extend to them? Here is where the “pro-choice” groups make no pretense. They insist that it does not. According to one Marsha Garrison, a professor at Brooklyn Law School:

That embryo is in the woman’s body, it is within her and can’t be separated from her, so it’s not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it’s about her body.

Hmm. WaF thinks that perhaps if she was so concerned about her body, she should not have engaged in sexual activity. The fact is, if the baby is born, then the father is expected by society to participate in raising the child. Of course, there is a larger issue here, that being couples who are not committed to one another having children, but that’s for another post. But if the father is expected to share the responsibility for the child, then it makes sense that he would be allowed to be part of the choice. Are we honestly to believe that the father is supposed to be involved in every other part of the process of raising a child, except the part where it is decided whether or not to kill the child? Of course, most radical feminists are probably consistent on this point, more than they should be. One need look no further than the title of Maureen Dowd’s book, Are Men Necessary, to understand the mindset of the radical “pro-choicer.”

Two other choices must be explored here. One is the obvious, that of the child in the womb. He/she is quite obviously not consulted in the choice. The thought would be comical were it not so accurate and terrorizing. “Hello, baby. Would you like us to kill you or not?” No, there’s no choice favored there. The final is not always applicable, but is important when it is. It is that of parental consent for minors. The “pro-choice” forces are quite well-known on their stance against the choice of the parents. (If the reader has not heard of this, he or she should get out from the grip of the television and start doing some research.) In every other point of society when dealing with minors, the parents are expected to be held responsible in some form or fashion. If a juvenile gets access to a parent’s gun and uses it to kill people, the parents are going to be blamed, if not charged with a crime. If a juvenile goes missing, the parents are questioned to determine that they did not have anything to do with the disappearance and viewed with suspicion. And if a juvenile has a child, the parents of the juvenile will likely end up having to help provide for and take care of the child for some time. Yet, if a juvenile wants to have an abortion, the parents are not supposed to have the right to keep them from that?

So, if we look at everything in the alternate reality that “pro-choicers” think in and would like the rest of us to live in, they support the choice of only ONE in four groups involved in the abortion. However, the alternate reality isn’t real, which is, ironically, why we call it alternate. A little research will reveal that pro-choicers really have little regard for “women’s choice.” They have no qualms about withholding information from women on the damaging effects of abortion that I talked about in the other post. If they really were for women’s choice, doesn’t it make sense that they’d give women all the facts so that they could make an informed choice. Remember what I said at the beginning about distorting terms. Carol Everett, who worked at abortion clinics, had this to say:

Another thing that callers ask is, “Is it a baby?” And the stat answer is, “No.” Now they may call it something different –the “products of conception,” a “blood clot,”"tissue,” anything, maybe even “a fetus” but never “a baby.” And those people in there know it’s a baby.

(By the way, you can read the rest of her account here. It’s rather disturbing.)

To style a baby a “blood clot” is not just misguiding, it is a bald-faced lie. The truth is, if “pro-choice” groups are really for “choice,” they’d recognize that there is more to choice than just presenting two options. Making a choice is pointless unless you know the reasons that you make the choice that you make. If you are presenting only half of the argument, you have failed to truly represent choice.

I’m pro-choice. But the true choice is whether or not to take the “risk” of concieving a child. Once a person has made that choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind just because it isn’t convenient and kill the kid she consented to the conception of. (Don’t throw the “rape” charge at me. I’m willing to discuss it in a post in which I write about it, but I’m not talking about that here.) You cannot expect to make a first right by a second wrong. It simply doesn’t work.

Well, I’d better write this one fast, as it’s nearing midnight here, which will mean it is no longer the weekend.

I got a 30 on my latest ACT test. This means that I am now officially in the 97th percentile of American high school students who take the ACT, and according to my private tutor, a certifiable genius. A friend tells that I’m a nerd, as well. This also should, hopefully, maybe, perhaps, allow me to actually be able to afford college without being in debt for the rest of my life. Though it’s still going to take a good deal of trusting in God’s provision. Currently, my two finalists are Bob Jones University and Oklahoma Baptist University.

~

Isn’t it just a little bit disconcerting that the man who will most likely be our next president, Barack Obama, has Louis Farrakhan, an advocate of violent Islam, saying that “this young man is the hope of the entire world”? The Grit advises us to break out our weapons. I’m inclined to be found at his house if it all comes down.

~

Speaking of nerdiness, I have a book given to me for Christmas from a good friend called “This is Not a Book.” It’s a series of philosophical mind games that examines all the logical possibilities of, and asks impossible questions about, statements such as “I have never spoken a truth.” On the surface this is a self-refuting statement, but when you delve into the logic of it all, it gets very confusing. Honestly, what strikes me about it is how hopeless living according to “rationalism” is. But it is still entertaining and quite interesting anyways.

~

It amuses me to watch people who haven’t the slightest clue, or have far less clue than they’ve fooled everyone into thinking they have, do their work. Particularly when it comes to music. It’s also very irritating when you have to be the one working with them. Something that I’ve learned from playing the piano, among other musical endeavors over the past fifteen years since I started music, is that there is always someone who knows more than you, even if everybody worships at your feet and heeds your every word. I learn things all the time from people who aren’t necessarily as experienced or “good” as I am at music, and I get rather frustrated when I run into people who refuse to listen to other opinions, and then can’t even keep their own opinion consistent. Sorry, I know that’s incredibly vague. Gotta vent on somebody!!!

~

Hey, look, it’s midnight!!! *snore*

A tragic story has emerged, via the front page of drudge, of an artist who hanged herself after getting an abortion. Predictably, anyone, like myself, who says that this is just another sad example of why abortion is damaging and a horrific process, will be branded by the pro-abortion forces as trying to scare women into “not having their choice.” Quite frankly, I’m somewhat proud of being accused of such a thing. Humans are uncomfortable with fear, or rather fear shows that they are uncomfortable, but sometimes, it is a good thing to be uncomfortable. While I’m not trying to make a person’s pain worse, they need to be uncomfortable with the prospect of murder. If someone has no qualms whatsoever about KILLING a baby, then they have deeper problems than a little old pro-lifer like me telling them that there will be negative consequences from their decision. But I digress.

Aside from the fact that science has incontrovertably proven that “fetuses” are real, live humans, there are a multitude of other reasons not to support abortion. One of these is the negative effect that abortion has on those participating in it. There is, of course, the baby, who is dead. But beyond that, there are also the effects on the parents. From an online book by Dr. and Mrs. JC Willke, they quote statistics which say:

“The suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth…. the rate for women following a live birth was 5.9 per 100,000; following miscarriage 18.1; following abortion 34.7.”

A study about substance abuse from the Elliot Institute says that…

This finding is based on a national, random sample of 700 women participating in a reproductive history survey.

After excluding women who engaged in substance abuse prior to their first pregnancy, Elliot Institute researchers found that of the women surveyed, those who aborted their first pregnancy were 3.9 times more likely to engage in subsequent drug or alcohol abuse than those who have never had an abortion. These new findings have a high degree of statistical significance, p<.0001, which means that the there is less than 1 chance in 10,000 that these findings could have occurred due to chance.

and…

During in depth interviews with 30 post-abortion women, Speckhard found that 60% admitted to increased alcohol use following their abortion. The majority of the women interviewed specifically attributed their drug or alcohol abuse to stress related to the abortion. Only 10% stated they had already engaged in substance abuse prior to their abortions.

So, clearly, abortion does have a negative effect on the parents, particularly the mother. Here’s one more article in support of my point.

So, apart from suicide risk, we have increased alcohol and drug abuse, increased risk of breast cancer, and other various health risks. As much as Planned Parenthood and all of their minions would like to deny it, abortion obviously has a high likelihood of causing severe mental and psychological damage to the woman who has it performed. The irony is that abortion is supposed to be pro-woman. If you were to describe a phenomenon that increased the risk of breast cancer under any other circumstances to feminists, they would be on it in a second, seeking to destroy it and its harmful effects on the population of women. Yet, because it is abortion, something that is deceptively described as a woman’s “convenience,” this and the other large negatives are simply ignored. Could it be that there is some ulterior motivation involved? A desire to make money… for the “pro-choice” adherents to not be shown blind, ignorant fools?

Aside from these effects, there is the aspect of irresponsibility without having to handle the consequences. There was a time in this country where you were expected to deal with the repercussions of whatever it was that you did. For example, if you were convicted of homicide, you died. I am not advocating the death penalty for women who have an abortion, nor for doctors who conduct abortions under the current laws, but at some point, we have to recognize that not only is no one paying any legal price for a clearly reprehensible practice, but that people are being taught that they can engage in any kind of immoral behavior, or perhaps just irresponsible behavior, with a person of the opposite sex, and then, merely for money, can make the consequences go away. While a child should be looked at as a blessing and not a curse, a child concieved by two people unprepared to the pay the price is also a form of a lesson. To simply allow someone to kill the child is not only wrong, but it is feeding a false perception that consequences can be defeated for money. This message is especially sent to men, who, while they might feel emotional and psychological damage from the abortion, will certainly not suffer physically. The brutal truth, however, is that not only do the consequences not go away; but they take a far more terrifying form.

The efforts by pro-abortion forces to mask the consequences of an abortion and to protect their own selfish interests are reprehensible, and have no place in a society as information-rich as ours. That they have not been exposed more frequently and with greater fervor is amazing to me. Uncomfortable is an emotion that these people certainly should have with the brutal, gory, and woman-damaging industry they engage in.

This is what I’d like to call a bi-topical post, that is, it has two topics, neatly summarized in the title. Ironically, the first, My Life So Far, is an explanation for why the second, Why I Blog, has been less frequent as of late.

Some of you know, and some of you are about to learn, that I have a mentally ill father. I know there are some out there going “why is he sharing such private information?” Well, I don’t consider it to be all that private, for if you knew me in real life, chances are you’d at least meet my father at some point, and you’d probably be able to tell that something was not quite right with him. Anyways, regardless of my reasons, the fact remains that he is mentally ill. Every person has different symptoms for a mental illness, the illnesses in his case being bipolar, schizophrenia, and depression. What mental illness often does is attack you at a weak point in your life, and causes you to take certain things to extremes. As a result, my dad has used his Christianity to justify illogical and radical extremes. Frequently, he will take a verse or verses from the Bible out of context, make an odd connection to his life, and then attempt to force this on everyone around him. If everyone around him does not accept it, he feels that he has failed and must repent, so he prays for hours and hours on end. It sounds comical to those outside, and indeed, reading my own account prompts me to chuckle slightly at the absurdity of it, but this is only one example that scratches the surface of how bad things are with him. Sadly, because of this, my family has had to separate. We recently moved my father out of the house and into a small apartment. It was a depressing day to be sure, but for the time being necessary. Now, before you all go posting comments of great sympathy (not that I don’t like sympathy) I have definitely come to grips with what has happened in my life over the course of the last seven years. I won’t pretend it doesn’t hurt, but I’m merely telling you all this to explain why I’ve been so slow in posting as of late, and it also explains most of the other gaps I’ve had in posting in the past. Also, pray for my father (his name is Tim). I don’t expect God to heal my dad here on earth. God has shown through the last seven years that He has a much larger plan. It reminds me of what Max Lucado writes in one of his books: “We’re thinking: save the body. God’s thinking: save the soul.”

Now, to happier things. I, Pandora, and Neil have both recently posted “why I blog.” So, I thought I’d take my shot at it. Why do I blog? Well, it started as a release of sorts. A way to let out my tension and unleash it on the world through writing about politics. It’s been a year now, and I’ve certainly done some releasing along the way. However, with time, my purposes have shifted. I do not address politics nearly as often or as in depth as I did when I first started. This is largely due to the fact that I don’t have the time to sit and think of what to say on any particular topic. So, my now few and far between posts of substance are a result of cognition upon a certain subject for a long time. In between, I fill time with things I find funny, links to news I find interesting, etc. Some of it is probably a waste of your valuable time, but hey! Nobody says you have to read it. So now, I mainly blog for the entertainment value. I’m not nearly as concerned as I used to be with my hit count, and I don’t have the time or energy to keep up with most people’s blogs. For those of you who link to me, or who I link to, and I never comment on you, it’s not because I’m not reading you. GoogleReader is very nice. Very nice, indeed. I just don’t have as much to say as I used to… or more accurately, as much time to say it. A few interesting stats about this blog:

Most popular post ever: Very short. Foul Language Continued. What Does the Bible Say? Second by about four hundred hits is this, my examination of whether or not man is inherently good.
My personal favorite? An essay on Abraham Lincoln.
Best day ever? Almost a year ago, February 18, 2007. A large part of that was due to debate over one of my early posts on the fallacies of evolution. There’s a search bar on the side if you really want to see them.
Currently, I’m just over 27,000 views, and I’m nearing the 1,500 comment mark.

So, those are some of my stats, things which would have made me giddy not long ago, but I now do not care. Like I said… I blog for the fun of it.

I’m a member of the illustrious hucksarmy.com, and I recently received this email. The truth is, this race is far from over, and things are looking up for Mike Huckabee. He’s not done, and he’s not going to quit. Mark it down.

Memorandum to Huckabee Campaigners

From: Ed Rollins, Campaign Chairman; Chip Saltsman,
Campaign Manager

Re: Our Path to Victory at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
convention

Too many Republicans have tried to turn this nomination battle into a
coronation, not a series of further election contests. Big mistake on
their part. They are wrong. We know that we are running an underdog
campaign, but that’s nothing new—we have always been the underdog. And yet
a whole lot of onetime “overdogs” are now on the sidelines, licking their
wounds. The Republican National Convention is seven long months away; a
lot can happen in that much time. A lot will happen.

But in the meantime, as you all know, Governor Huckabee is not a quitter.
He has never shirked from a challenge, and he never will. He has always
told us—and personally reaffirmed to us just today—that he is in this race
to win. That is, to win the Republican presidential nomination, and to win
the White House. Why? Because he cares deeply about the issues that
inspired him to get into politics in the first place—back in the 60s, when
he started studying the works of the great conservative thinkers and
writers, back in the 70s, when he was an ardent supporter of another
underdog Republican. And what was that fellow’s name? Oh yes—it was
Ronald Reagan.

So don’t let anyone tell you that it’s over! In fact, as of today, no
fewer than 27 states, districts, and territories have not yet had a chance
to vote. That includes such big states as Texas (Chuck Norris’ home state,
‘nuff said), Ohio, and Pennsylvania. All the Republicans and
Republican-minded independents in those states want to be part of the
process, too, and they deserve to have a choice put before them. Folks
don’t want the Republican Establishment to pick the nominee for them,
through a premature rush to judgment, and they sure as heck don’t want the
media to pick the nominee!

We note that in many of the hottest contests so far, the vote has been
divided into thirds—typically, about one-third for Governor Huckabee, one
third for Senator McCain, and one third for all the other candidates. And
as you know, typically, Governor Huckabee has done best among hardcore
Republicans—the activist base. That’s one reason why we are looking
forward to Governor Huckabee’s speech to the legendary CPAC, the
Conservative Political Action Conference, in DC tomorrow morning. You’d
better believe that the folks gathered at the Omni Shoreham hotel are the
go-getters who make or break primary elections. Just wait till they get a
load of Mike Huckabee!

We are confident that we will get most of the activists, the folks who work
the hardest because they care the most about the issues. In addition, we
note that many of the jurisdictions that have already voted have merely had
the first round of their delegate-selection process. To be frank, there’s
still plenty of time for politicking, as Republicans really focus on the
question of who should lead their party into the November election. Who’s
the most stalwart champion of Republican and conservative values? Who’s
the most articulate and effective campaigner? We know the answer to those
questions—that’s why we have been working our hearts out for Mike Huckabee.
But soon, everyone paying attention will know that, too. As the campaign
season grinds on—and let’s again remember, this is just February!—there
will be plenty of time for reflection and reconsideration, especially among
those hundreds of delegates pledged to candidates who have now dropped out.

As we saw in West Virginia on Tuesday—where Governor Huckabee swooped in on
the day of the state convention and won a decisive victory that changed the
tone of the remainingSuper Tuesday coverage—a single good speech from our
candidate is often worth more than all the tens of millions of dollars, and
all the big-shot endorsements, that the other candidates have been able to
drum up.

Indeed, it’s interesting that Mike Huckabee has done so well in the states
so critical to Republican prospects this November. That is, those “swing
states” that are essential building blocks of a Republican victory
coalition this year. Let’s face it: This November, we’re not likely to be
looking forward to a GOP landslide! The last two presidential elections
were close—the GOP won 271 electoral votes in ’00, and 286 in ’04—and we
fully expect the ’08 election to be hard-fought and close, too, as both
parties wrestle to get the majority of those 538 electoral votes. What
does all this mean to Republican activists? Well, it means that the next
Republican nominee has to be able to nail down the electoral votes of such
“must-win” states in the South and Border States—exactly the states where
Mike Huckabee has done so well this year. Hard-nosed political activists
know that it doesn’t do much good, November-wise, to run well in the blue
bicoastal states. Sure, it would be great to carry New York and
Massachusetts and California, but those mostly liberal states aren’t a part
of any gut-it-out “270” strategy. (In fact, we think that Mike Huckabee
would actually run stronger among traditional Independent and Democratic
constituencies than any other Republican, but that’ll be the subject of a
future memo.)

And now, with the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson, who is the “gold
standard” of social conservatism, we fully expect that Movement
Conservatives—those who fight the good fight on Life, on Marriage, on the
Second Amendment—will increasingly rally to our cause. In fact, come to
think of it, any American who reveres the US Constitution has a stake in
Mike Huckabee’s success, because he has been an unstinting proponent of all
our Constitutional freedoms, including the First Amendment, which he
believes has been wrongly abridged by wrong-headed campaign finance
“reform” legislation. Of course, there is one amendment that MH doesn’t
like: The 16th Amendment. That one was a mistake, which he will fix with
the Fair Tax!

Mike Huckabee has great respect for John McCain. He has always defended the
senior senator from Arizona against unfair and scurrilous attacks, and he
always will. And because MH is who he is, he will continue to campaign as
he always has—in an honorable and honest way. He will draw distinctions, he
will debate and debate hard, but he will always be civil and decent. In
fact, even many McCain supporters have told us that they appreciate the
constructive role that Governor Huckabee can play in the months to come,
because a vigorous discussion will keep all the media “oxygen” from
migrating over to the heated Democratic contest.

Faith. Family. Freedom. Those are the words that have guided Mike Huckabee
this far, and they will continue to guide him, and us, all the way to the
White House next January. The 44th governor of Arkansas will be the 44th
President of the United States.

See you at the Inauguration!

Pray for me! I got a 29 last time, and I’m trying to reach the magic numbers of 30 or 31.

If any one has seen the excellent movie “Antwone Fisher” a true story directed by Denzel Washington and starring the director and Derek Luke, you’ve heard this poem. It touches my heart, partially because I can identify with it lately in my own way, and partially because I’ve seen people who can identify with it. It was written by the real life Antwone Fisher, a poet and author.

“Who will cry for the little boy, lost and all alone?
Who will cry for the little boy, abandoned without his own?
Who will cry for the little boy? He cried himself to sleep.
Who will cry for the little boy? He never had for keeps.
Who will cry for the little boy? He walked the burning sand.
Who will cry for the little boy? The boy inside the man.
Who will cry for the little boy? Who knows well hurt and pain.
Who will cry for the little boy? He died and died again.
Who will cry for the little boy? A good boy he tried to be.
Who will cry for the little boy, who cries inside of me?

I’ve added my own second verse here:

Who will hold the little boy? Lost and all alone?
Who will hold the little boy? Forgotten among his own?
Who will hold the little boy? Wanting for a word of love.
Who will hold the little boy? Wishing for a peaceful cove.
Who will hold the little boy? Knowing naught but tears.
Who will hold the little boy? Giving a haven from his fears.
Who will hold the little boy? Impossibly he fights alone.
Who will hold the little boy? Swimming, sinking, gone.
Who will hold the little boy? Trying again to be a man.
Who will hold the little boy? Failing again, mocked by man.

Right before the Super Bowl, rumors and stories are swirling around the Patriots and their cheating, with a former Patriots video official, Matt Walsh, hinting that he knows things that he’s not allowed to say. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is leading a congressional investigation (another instance of the government getting involved where they oughtn’t). Now, it comes out, according to the Boston Herald, that the Patriots were allegedly video-taping the Rams’ final walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI, which the Rams lost. This is only an allegation, at this point, but if it’s true, the Patriots are the biggest cheats in sports history. They will have successfully stolen at least one Super Bowl, with a long ugly investigation into more.

Honestly, the timing of all these stories coming out right before the Super Bowl is really, really, really, really idiotic. The Patriots are probably getting really mad about now and will probably go out and destroy the Giants tomorrow.

Regardless of timing, however, experience as a sports fan tells me that this is a whole lot deeper and darker than we want it to be. Or perhaps as deep and dark as we want it to be. The Patriots are loved in Boston, hated in most of the rest of the country. Nobody likes cheaters, and nobody likes dynasties, but everybody hates cheating dynasties, and the Patriots stink like one. While the prospect of cheating on this level appalls me, there is a terribly horrid part of me that wants to see the Patriots get it. Yes, part of it is anger at how the Patriots defense absolutely hammered the Rams receivers illegally and the Patriots offense tackled defenders again and again in Super Bowl XXXVI. But injuries heal over time, and the two teams are almost completely different. The real reason there’s a part of me that would like to see them get exposed as liars and cheats is that they have consistently violated the most sacred rule of sports, that being that you do not run up the score. It is considered degrading and insulting to the other team, prolongs the game past necessary length, and, most of all, marks you as arrogant. And one thing the Patriots certainly are is arrogant.

The NFL is either ignorant, foolish enough to think they can get away with it, or they know that nothing has happened. I honestly hope it is the third of those three, but I have a feeling its probably one of the first two. We’ve seen cheating on so many levels of professional sport in recent years, from baseball to cycling to basketball to running, it won’t surprise me even a little bit to see it coming from the NFL. I mean, after all, this league is so paranoid that they’ve mailed letters to churches forbidding them from having large Super Bowl parties and copyrighted the name of the Super Bowl so that even the advertisers running commercials during the game cannot use the name. If they’re that concerned about naming rights and Bible-readers, perhaps they have bigger things to hide.

Because I really can’t help myself.

Chuck Norris is like Paul Bunyan, except he’s real.

Chuck Norris and the entire French Foreign Legion once visited a deep dark cave together. Shortly after that, the French Government requested UN sanctions on Chuck Norris.

The agent of Chuck Norris asked Chuck if he wanted to be in Brokeback Mountain. Chuck Norris’ agent has been missing for almost 2 years now. Never ask Chuck Norris to be in a gay cowboy movie.

And, in recognition of the Super Bowl…

If Chuck Norris played football, all the other teams would leave the field. He would be undefeated by forfeit.

If the Giants had Chuck Norris, they wouldn’t need eleven men. Or ten. Or nine. Or eight. Or…

If the Giants had Chuck Norris, Tom Brady’s face mask would be rearranged and his helmet would be flattened on one side because of a roundhouse kick from Chuck Norris. The head that formerly occupied Tom Brady’s helmet would have been vaporized by that same roundhouse kick.