Moral Tyranny . . . Again?

Moral Tyranny . . . Again?
  • 1225
  • 70
  • 11

My Recent Posts

Ok.  I watched the video with Dawn Laguens of Planned Parenthood and Fox News, Tucker Carlson.

I completely agree with Dawn . . . it is a woman's choice.  


Dawn Laguens is advocating liberty.  She stands for the individual in choosing and making value and moral choices.   She repeated this over and over and Tucker actually called her responses childish.    So, Tucker appears as an insolent host.  However, that is not the worst part.   Republicans may be slipping the country back into moral fundamentalism . . . another flavor of fascism.
Any republican leaning person who has been through eight years of moral dictates, who have survived the fascism of the "politically correct" elites, have struggled under the accusations of racism, and now chastise Dawn for her words of liberty . . .  they have not learned anything.  They have not learned that cramming values and morals down people's throats through the government is a policy of tyranny.  It is divisive.  It is arrogant.  It is regressive and has been this way for decades . . . only peaking in the last few years.
I'm a huge Trump supporter, have always been a republican and I say, "Wake up righties!"  Like holy hell, you still don't get it.  Don't drink the Koolaid just because your side is now the bartender.  Better to embrace liberty regardless of politics.  If you wish to impose your moral values on others then you are a fucking tyrant . . . just as we have seen the PC left become . . . and eventually, you will be rejected and on the losing side again.


If you want to debate the morality of abortion . . . great.  Let's keep that debate where it should be . . . at a personal level.  

If you want to debate whether or not the government should be funding abortion then I would start by saying that the government should not be funding these programs that have moral and personal implications.  This top-down, moral imposition from authority is a policy that will divide a nation.  And for the sake of all that was good in our country . . . don't use the government to legislate morality and personal values!  I'm sick of that crap and have lived that for the last eight years.  I have endured a corrupt government and a corrupt political party telling me what and how I should think and what values I need to uphold.  Fuck that.  Not again.


geez . . . didn't I write an article about this already?

Rant: Legislating Values



Louis E Weeks Added Mar 18, 2017 - 12:09am
So there is a lot of competing stuff in that story, hard to do it all justice in a single reply but I will try.
I am Conservative, not a Republican, but are not all laws based in some part on morals?  Do not kill, do not steal, etc?  At some point society said "that is wrong" and made laws against certain kinds of behaviors based on how they saw it morally did they not?
Now that said I do not have a big problem with abortions myself, if people want to make a "choice" to have high risk sex that makes a baby and then they want to kill the result of their "choice" then that is on them, but I see no reason why society in general, and Government, should be asked to enable or support such behaviors, we were not in the room when the baby was made so do not involve us when you want to kill it.
And that includes funding groups like PP.  While they can claim Government funds do not directly pay for abortions, there is no debate against the fact Government pays for the building, the electricity, the staff, the medical supplies, all the things that without the Government, the abortions could not be possible because the building and staff would not be there in the first place.
I would say if they want Government funds, the abortions must be performed in a separate facility where no government funds go to pay for any aspect of the abortion.
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 12:13am
Louis.  Thanks for commenting.
No.  Our laws are not based on morals.  They are based on the constitution. That's it.
Utpal Patel Added Mar 18, 2017 - 12:16am
Tucker is not saying that it isn’t a woman’s choice to have an abortion.  Tucker is making the argument that the people receiving an abortion should not use taxpayer money to do so.  He’s also saying it’s OK ethically to fund Planned Parenthood so long as agency does not perform abortions.  It’s a farce for Planned Parenthood to claim it’s not an abortion mill seeing it’s the biggest abortion provider in the country and is a woman’s health facility seeing it doesn’t provide mammograms, see interview.    So I have no idea what your article is about or where your criticism of Tucker comes from. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 18, 2017 - 12:46am
Does the Constitution specifically spell out killing others is wrong?  As a matter of fact most of our existing legal structure was established before the Constitution and came with us and all we did was gobble up all those existing laws as part of our new system.
And let's be honest, the concept of laws was not magically created out of thin air by our Constitution, laws for behavior were part of society for thousands of years so what was the basis for any society to form laws of behavior for that society William?
At some point that society formed rules of conduct based on the moral beliefs of the majority for that society and wrote them down.  Various penalties were applied for those who broke those written morals.
The same is true for today.  At some point our elected officials consider forming new laws to combat what they see as "wrong" and that basis is more often than not a moral judgement.  Here is Florida we have many laws protecting the elderly from scammers who intentionally target the elderly for scams.  Our lawmakers saw that exploitation as morally wrong, circulated his opinion to others and got a general support to agree with that moral assessment and pushed for and got new laws to combat this morally wrong practice in our State.
Other States also have passed specific laws to help shield the elderly in many ways as needing special protections for the same reason.  Written morals.
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 1:16am
Utpal, "So I have no idea what your article is about or where your criticism of Tucker comes from."
If you don't care about liberty as the pinnacle virtue of American society, then you may not understand . . . just like many modern Americans don't understand as well.
Obviously, Tucker doesn't either.  He cares more about politics and the moral positions of his side than he cares about liberty.  That is my claim.  And I can say this because of his conduct and words in that interview.  Dawn was making a case for liberty.  It is the individual that has the right to choose their values and morals upon which to make decisions . . . ie abortion.  
Tucker completely missed this just as you missed the point of this article.  For some reason, people are convinced that the government and/or political parties are the champions and enforcers, from the top down, of morality and virtuousness.
And I say again, haven't we already had 8 years of this government and media led morality crap?
If you don't understand why Liberty is the pinnacle virtue in America (and should be for any society for that matter), then you might explore more why people will die for it (and die without it).
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 1:26am
Louis, "Does the Constitution specifically spell out killing others is wrong?"  
No.  The US government is authorized to make war and kill people.  
Better go deeper Louis.  
If you really do want to understand for what reasons the constitution and bill of rights formed the basis of our laws today, you would do well to read from some historical sources besides the bible . . . or this article.
The constitution is not the ten commandments passed down to Moses from God.  The US constitution is the basis for the rules specifically chosen to grant the individual self-preservation of life and property with an equal representation under the law.
None of the authors of the constitution justified any word in the constitution by saying, "Well it's just the morally right thing to do".   LOL
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 18, 2017 - 7:09am
William:  I also believe in free choice.  If the pro life people were more into birth control to prevent births, taking care of children who have been born, and anti war, I might be more open to their message.  But I find their message to be very hypocritical.  They want to outlaw all forms of birth control and outlaw abortion.  Its like they are forcing men and women to have children.  Yet they do not support help for mothers and fathers to raise their children healthy and educated.  They believe they should not have to pay taxes for any of that.  What is their goal?  To have poor families with children growing up without an education, forced to join the military to pay for their education so that we can have more young people as cannon fodder in the wars they support.  Do they ever stop to think about the message they try to cram down people's throats.  A message of misery and destruction.  I can remember a peace protest once where an angry conservative stopped her car and got out and shouted.  "my son will give his life for this country." And I'm thinking, that's why she raised her son, so that he would give his life for his country, how is that a good thing?  What does her son think about that?  Why are we proud of this?  Get married, have sex without protection so that we can have children who can grow up and die for this country.  Pass me the apple pie, amen.  
Louis:  Laws are not based on morals.  Morals are a personal interpretation and a government does not have a right to enforce its morals on its people, that would be communism which outlawed religion because in its opinion, it was immoral.  The laws of a free society such as we are supposed to be in, would be to protect the freedom of each individual.  In other words, as it was explained to me in Navy boot camp.  You are free to do what ever you like until your freedom steps on the freedom of another person, then, it is against the law.  
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 18, 2017 - 7:23am
Yery good MPP I'm on board with what you're saying here 1000%!, I've always wondered how the hypocrites get the nerve to oppose birth control? Who the hell do they think they are telling my husband and me when we can have sex or have more kids we can’t responsibly afford? Beyond outrageous! 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 18, 2017 - 7:26am
There is so much wrong in the comments of this good article I'm close to a meltdown. No wonder DUHmerican's rights are being ever more infringed upon. I'll explode if I try to respond so I'm just going to stop before I go off. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 18, 2017 - 7:38am
Political authority, or the authority of State, or the authority of Government, is something the average person virtually never questions. Almost everyone goes through their entire life believing that the Government – although it’s almost always composed of provable criminals, cheats and liars – still has a solid basis for its political authority. Many people, whether left, right or anywhere in between on the political spectrum, are Statists: they think that Government has an inherent right to rule, using coercion if necessary. Yet, even a cursory examination shows that if a normal person acted like Government, they would characterized as cunning, secretive and manipulative, and either be diagnosed as insane, or locked up as a danger to society, or both. So why do people allow and consent to such a situation?
John Minehan Added Mar 18, 2017 - 7:51am
Planned Parenthood is an interesting issue.
BECAUSE it is an abortion provider (if I am not mistaken, the largest provider of non-clinically indicated abortions in the country), it has access to certain demographics of women and a degree of credibility on OTHER women's health issues.
As Indiana discovered when it defunded Planned Parenthood and it had a major uptick in HIV infection (Planned Parenthood being a major provider of free/subsidized HIV testing in the state), there are a lot of potential unintended consequences. to be had here.
Dino Manalis Added Mar 18, 2017 - 8:11am
i don't like abortions, but I agree it's a personal moral decision and should be respected as such.
With respect to Planned Parenthood, there may be more strings attached to make the organization more family-oriented, but funding ought to continue.
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:21am
Good points Jeffry.  I believe the widening barrier between political sides, the divisive politics today, is almost all because the arrogant and corrupt government has convinced the public that it can legislate morals and values from above.
Gawdam politicians and media.  Fuck them.  They have no right to my values or the values that others adopt even if I don't agree with those values.
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:28am
Yes, John.  Planned parenthood does provide useful services besides abortion.  I would argue, like Dino implied, that it be more family oriented.  Ok, so 95% of the users of that service are women.  Do women really have 95% of the health issues among the age of breeding humans?  Not likely.
Planned parenthood needs to clean up their act.  Defunding it completely may not be the best response either but the current administration is taking an all-or-nothing approach.  No abortions or you get 100% defunded.
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:57am
 They want to outlaw all forms of birth control and outlaw abortion.
That is a lie.  I have been in the middle of every aspect of normal Conservative/Republican circles for over 30+ years and I have never seen any widespread belief of them wanting to make birth control illegal.  Sure you can find the lone nut ball or radicals on the Right just like you can find them on the Left but there has never been a time when Republicans ever pushed to make all birth control illegal in recent history.
Why do all of you on the radical left have to lie?
I call you to challenge on this lie, please provide me the proposed Bill supported by Republicans in The House or Senate attempting to outlaw all birth control, if you can provide an example in the last 30 years I will gladly admit I am wrong and apologize.
Now what I have seen is those not wanting to pay for it or give it away for free, but not wanting to give it away for free is not the same thing as wanting to make birth control illegal.
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 18, 2017 - 10:05am
Nice try at dodging the point made, you claimed the Constitution made laws, I simply corrected you on that point.  I am very well educated on the Constitution and have been in awe of the massive experiment it represents.  I have nothing but respect for the Constitution and the hand full of men who made it possible, their work of art is humbling to say the least.
But my respect of that founding document does not change the facts my friend.  The Constitution does not specifically write any laws, it is individual Men and Women and then groups of the same who come together and decide on the rules of society based on accepted morality at the time and then write those rules down.  As I already pointed out, written laws are in fact written rules based on morals of that community.
Laws existed long before our Constitution was written or even those who wrote it were even born.
By the way, I never said those morals were based on religion, do you think only those with religion can be moral?  I am sorry to have to educate you on this point you should already know but I know a lot of very moral people who are Atheists.  Strong morals are possible in all people William.
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 1:08pm
I agree Tom.  The abortion debate is really tough and likely there will never be any adjustment in the future for social reconciliation.  
This is where elected officials must stop pandering and start doing the right thing by deferring that moral choice down to the choice of the individual.
And there are so many moral choices like these which the people should demand the government refrain.  A few examples:  Healthcare, sexual preference, sexual identity, religious preferences, conscientious objection, food & beverage consumption, drug use, racism, welfare, etc.  
As a matter of fact, I conscientiously object to all these things and want to not take part in any of my effort or money going to federal programs that in anyway support or deter these things.  Unfortunately, I have no way to legitimately do this.  But that may change someday.
The problem is that most people care more about power than liberty and will gladly sell their vote so their chosen party (with accompanying value system and moral edicts)  to gain power and control the other half of society.
William Stockton Added Mar 18, 2017 - 1:16pm
Lous, As I already pointed out, written laws are in fact written rules based on morals of that community.
Yes, I think today that is the case.  Unfortunately, these modern laws bind liberty inappropriately to pander a political side.  However, that was not the original intent of the US constitution . . . but an unforeseen outcome which the US constitution writers did not project.
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:04pm
Again you are misrepresenting laws and the Constitution.  The Constitution is a set of basic guidelines and is more important in setting limits of Government, but it does not limit the people from governing themselves and establishing a system of laws and riles as long as they follow those basic guidelines.
Laws have always been basic written morals established by society.
Do you think the preservation of life is a new moral?  It just suddenly appeared out of nowhere?  
So this idea you have that morals should have nothing to do with laws is simply wrong and maybe a little naive.  
But again, it is very appropriate for our leaders to sever all ties to abortion providers.  There is nothing in the Constitution that entitles any group to free Government money.  They should make it on their own.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 18, 2017 - 9:55pm
One thing no one seems to be mentioning is that Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions than it provides (by FAR) not to mention all the other services it provides. As I see it, and as the numbers support, if you support defunding Planned Parenthood you are supporting more abortions. Period. It's really what it boils down to in the real world. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 18, 2017 - 10:21pm
Is there some reason we can't shift that money to other clinics?  PP is a big name but they only have about 600 facilities in all of America, they are not a big player in the world of Women's health, they do not even perform a single mammogram.
If PP has made the informed decision that they prefer to stop all other services to women if they can't do abortions then that is on them, not the Government.  They can make their own informed choice, and accept it as their own, nobody is forcing them to make that choice.
I stick by my original point, government funds are in fact enabling abortions.  We pay for all the tings that make the abortion possible, without the government funding, PP could not conduct a single abortion in America because the Government funding pays for all the other things they need like the building and the medical equipment and the wages for the workers and the electricity and water to the building, etc.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 19, 2017 - 12:25am
fascism does not have to be a tyrannical or failed form of governance
Fascism - the melding of the needs of the state with those of the corporation is not fundamentally evil, tyrannical and designed to fail? 
Doug Plumb Added Mar 19, 2017 - 3:16am
re "No.  Our laws are not based on morals.  They are based on the constitution. That's it."
  By definition, law is to be universal and is based on reason alone. There are reasons for well written laws. However, our minds are being destroyed by Talmudism, preventing people from knowing much about the law other than for some reason, the courts seem to be inverting logic.
  As far as abortion goes, I do not believe the state has the right to tell a woman what to do. Logic and law tells us that the baby has no rights and is entirely dependent on the mother. The mother takes full responsibility for bearing the child. It is the mothers choice.
  History of abortion tells us it is a bad idea. Women who have abortions tend to be sorry later in life and suffer medical consequences such as increased rick of breast and overian cancers, as well as having the conscience of a killer - if it was an abortion of convenience.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 19, 2017 - 3:55am
I stick by my original point all. Namely that in real world practice supporting Planned Parenthood is opposing abortion, while opposing Planned Parenthood is supporting abortion and child murder. PERIOD. That is the real world consequences of said actions anyone who says otherwise is a godamn liar. 
Patrick Writes Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:15am
I wonder what the author thinks of late term abortions of the kind Kermit Gosnell performed. 
My understanding of this issue, abortion is legal. It's the law of the land. People don't want government funding them which is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. 
Late term abortions are the only component of this issue that's still a battleground as I understand. Late term abortions in most states are practically illegal (where a fetus can be viable outside the womb which is approx 25 weeks). That seems completely fair to me as well. Some groups push to make all late term abortions explicitly illegal and other groups push to make abortion legal on a full term fetus that is days away from being naturally born. 
Texas has tried some eyebrow raising stuff where they are trying to legislate abortion clinics out of existence. For the sake of law and order and the sanctity of the work of government, I oppose this as well. If you're de facto making abortion illegal in a roundabout way, you can't do that. 
But I think having an abortion is one of the worst things a person can do in their entire life (killing off their own child). I do believe they'll have to answer for that before that Almighty one day. Adoption is a wonderful thing. But my personal feelings are different from the legality of it. 
Patrick Writes Added Mar 19, 2017 - 6:23am
The only people who are against birth control (contraception) are Catholics. But usually it's only "out there" Catholics like Rick Santorum.
The proof is in the pudding. If you know Catholic families that don't have 12 kids, then they are using birth control. There are some Latin American countries who are Catholic that tend to have bigger families. Traditionally the Irish who were Catholic had big families too. I think it's a blessing for those who want to have 5 kids and more. 
But I personally think, as does pretty much all of Christianity minus Catholics, that there is nothing wrong with using birth control as well. 
William Stockton Added Mar 19, 2017 - 10:12am
Patrick-- I wonder what the author thinks of late-term abortions of the kind Kermit Gosnell performed. 
First, I don't have to make that decision so my emotional investment is very low if not zero.  That could make me ineligible to state any moral verdict.
However, from an overall society perspective, I will say that if a mother waits that long, has carried a child for 6 or more months and THEN decides she doesn't want it . . . either she is in a really difficult situation or she is a bad mother.  Far too many studies have shown that parents who lack emotional investment in their children raise kids who become a burden to society.  Therefore, the mother is probably doing the correct thing for herself and society.
Mothers (of all sorts of animal species) have been killing their offspring since the dawn of life.  There are many good reasons for it.  It is certainly not empathy for the unborn child . . . it is empathy for people who are among the living.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 19, 2017 - 2:58pm
NO Agency, cause, charity, etc. should be receiving funds from the public treasury - period!  All of the people supporting PP's receiving federal funds would go batshit crazy if a controversial conservative group like the National Rifle Association (NRA) got $510 million for "gun safety programs".  The Constitution DELIBERATELY never established the authorization for the Treasury to operate as a charity.
The result of doing so has resulted in the endless parade to the "Government Feeding Trough".   
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Mar 19, 2017 - 4:38pm
When you say no agency would that include the CIA, it's an agency. How about the oil companies? 
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 7:46pm
I agree with William that our federal law is or should be based on the Constitution.  The Constitution says nothing about abortion.  Even Roe Vs Wade is not law.  It was legislation from the bench.  The whole issue is settled by taking it out of the hands of the federal government and giving it back to the states.  Let the states deal with the moral issues and the creation of laws.
I've had to face abortion firsthand.  It is ugly.  My wife comes from a culture where abortions are the norm.  The proximate cause is the former one child policy of the government.  It created two major problems: 1. preference for boys, and, 2. the perfect baby.  The woman does not give birth unless she is convinced the child will be perfect.  My wife goes to the hospital while pregnant.  The doctor congratulates me telling me the baby is healthy.  He recommends to my wife that she have an abortion.  Why?  Because she had a rash on her fingers.  No joke.  The doctor, after birth, apologized to me.  He was Western educated.  He told me what a Western doctor would.  He asked me to understand that he was practicing in another culture and had to practice the norms of that culture.  My wife begged me to let her have an abortion.  It was very stressful for me.  Every night around the dinner table, her family discussed just how retarded our child would be.  I didn't follow the rules and abstain from alcohol for 3 months prior, so that was another reason.  Another example would be my colleague, also an expat.  His wife was pregnant with his fourth child.  He was so proud and happy.  Someone asked, "Will you cancel the baby?"  Gave me chills.  Do we really want a society so cavalier about taking the life of a child?  I'm all for choice, but the man should have a say and there should be limitations.  It is for the states to decide what the people can stomach.
Patrick Writes Added Mar 20, 2017 - 12:45am
For anyone who cares, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey), from the 1972 Supreme Court case died last month. 
She had 3 kids and in the early 90's was a practicing lesbian and abortion rights campaigner until she converted to Christianity (and stopped being gay).
She lived the rest of her life campaigning against abortion. She said she felt like she was used as a pawn in the early 70's by people looking for pregnant women who were seeking an abortion to challenge the ban in Texas (on abortion).
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 20, 2017 - 8:23am
When you say no agency would that include the CIA, it's an agency. How about the oil companies?
Or BATF, airlines, GE, Lockheed, Federal Baby Incinerators, FAA, EPA, Boeing, Walmart or Bureau of Land Management?
Mike Haluska Added Mar 20, 2017 - 9:09am
Jenifer & Jeffry - good catch!  It should read no PRIVATE agency etc.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 20, 2017 - 9:14am
However - it would be appreciated if you evaluated the message of the post.  After making the correction you both suggested, do you support my position?  Alexis de Tocqueville said:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
William Stockton Added Mar 20, 2017 - 10:59am
David Horowitz, a life-long Marxist until 1985, has a great interview with Dave Ruben (classical liberal).  I would highly recommend this video detailing the state of politics today in the world and the potentially severe outcomes . . . although this interview left me rather somber.  
In this interview, they discussed abortion which I thought particularly gripping and pertinent.
Leroy Added Mar 20, 2017 - 6:57pm
"Another issue that needs to be brought to light is that when people visit places that are different in culture than their own, is it proper for you to push the values of your culture on other  cultures in other countries?"
Let's say you visited a country with a colleague where there were no laws against sex with 10-year-old girls.  Your colleague is offered sex with one of these girls as a gift and he accepts.  That's ok with you?  Would you accept or impose your moral values?
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 8:54am
Stockton - I held your position on abortion for a long time - primarily because I just didn't want to debate something that always led to a fight.  Then a friend of mine and I were discussing this topic and he invited me to watch a video of an actual abortion - no commentary, no bias - just the procedure.  When you see an infant in the womb (stop using euphemisms to dehumanize - we're not lab rats!) struggling to get away from knives, saws, pincers, etc. and then get sliced up and vacuumed out . . . you'll change your opinion instantly.
The old excuse of "right to my body" and "choice" make no sense scientifically, morally, legally or ethically after witnessing an abortion.  The first thing that came to my mind was how the hell anyone trained in Medical School to save lives could come up with this barbaric procedure.  The next thing that occurred to me was that the mother wasn't doing anywhere near the arm to HER body as she was to her BABY's body - and the baby certainly had no CHOICE in the matter!
Trust me - there is a good reason that Planned Parenthood fights public display and factual knowledge of abortions.  If a nationwide broadcast of an abortion was ever made, I Frakkin' guarantee you that public opinion would switch overnight to 90% opposed.
If you readers out there doubt me - don't take my word for it.  Watch an actual abortion video, just have a bucket to vomit in and tissue paper to dry your tears because if you have an ounce of humanity in you, you'll definitely need them.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:00am
One other point - there have been over 56,000,000 babies aborted since Roe vs Wade was passed.  Let me repeat that in English - fifty six million human lives extinguished for convenience
This makes Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hussein look like a bunch of amateurs.  But the women's movement insists that this is some sort of "liberating, exhilarating, wonderful right" that deserves Constitutional protection under "Free Speech". . . right. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:01am
Its none of anyone's goddamn business what someone decides to do with their own body or anything in or on it. FULL FUCKING STOP!!!
Can't any of you get that through your fucking head?
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:15am
Jeff -
You make a great point!  What someone wants to do with THEIR BODY . . . doesn't include the little human being inside the person making the "choice" for both of them.  
So, if you want to be scientifically and morally honest - just say that you support murdering innocent children in their mother's womb.  Changing the terminology to "fetal tissue" doesn't change the fact that YOU started out life this way - as did every human being who ever lived. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:26am
with their own body or anything in or on it
As usual Haluska you fail the honesty test. Pretty typical of Randians. 
ANYTHING IN IT OR ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why did you leave that part of my statement out ??? 
Because you're basically dishonest. 
Ya got a business license hanging on the wall so the gov't won't interfere with your essential dishonesty though so whoopeee that makes it just all right!
Off you go now, mind the gap between train and platform. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:30am
This makes Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hussein look like a bunch of amateurs. 
Compared to those the DUHmericans killed world wide all those were mere pikers. 
DUHmericans have no moral high horse to sit upon. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 21, 2017 - 9:51am
When the woman and man made the "choice" to have a high risk sexual encounter (let's remember anything that can make an unwanted baby can also transmit many diseases) was that then doing what they want with their own body?
An abortion is the action taken to avoid taking responsibility for a "CHOICE" already made.
Now that said I am still not completely against abortions, if they were so irresponsible to not use any form of protection they will most likely be horrible parents and their offspring will suffer not to mention the fact their children will be inheriting the same genetics and be irresponsible human beings themselves so I am not really against them stopping the spread of their genetic material into society.
My only issue is I and the Government played no part in their decisions or the "fun" so leave us out of the results.
William Stockton Added Mar 21, 2017 - 10:29am
Mike, Ok let's say I did watch a video of a live abortion and saw the heart-breaking scene of life trying to live.  And I am sure I would find it quite disturbing and gut-wrenching.
I used to hunt.  It was this one instance when hunting where the screams of the dying animal caused me to question my actions.  Why do I need to hunt when there are plenty of meat in the supermarket.
And I never went out again . . . But I also eat meat every day.  And that life is also killed every day.  Brutally so and without a word from the "pro-life" followers except maybe, "Dang this burger tastes great!" 
So what's the difference?  Perhaps you are putting a human fetus above other mammalian life.  Maybe you have religious convictions this way.  Ok.  I don't want to change your values.  But you as a male and an engineer know very well the dangers of making emotional decisions (ya, of course a video like that raises empathetic emotions).
My last point is that a male does not have the same emotional investment in that decision.  A mother is designed to protect her life for her child . . . even unto death.  This is not the same with a male (few exceptions).  Therefore, if a mother chooses to abort, I can only surmise that she is weighing an emotional battle which I could never fully appreciate.  That protection of a mother for a child is more rigorous than any law that could be passed to prevent her from aborting.  So, I continue to say . . . let the mother decide.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 10:30am
Jeffry -
I have an uncle buried with thousands of other Americans at Normandy who would have loved to have a "private conversation" with you about your views of a "warmongering America".  Americans don't start wars - we just finish them.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 21, 2017 - 10:43am
Americans don't start wars - we just finish them.
NO Haluska, you don't DUHmerica has started more shit around the planet than the whole of all the others combined. And you haven't finished shit since WW2. 
16 fucking years in Afghanistan and a bunch of illiterate goatherds are still fucking with the great and mighty DUHmerica. FUCK YOU with your cheerleading bullshit. And your Uncle. 
William Stockton Added Mar 21, 2017 - 10:43am
My final point Mike.  Abortion is bad.  It's really bad.  In fact, abortion is a disaster.  So how do you reconcile a disaster?  And that is the problem with your argument . . . in that you never solve the problem for a mother.  If you had your way would you just then imprison any mother that aborts her fetus?  Do you charge her with murder and then give her a life sentence or worse?  If you don't, how do you morally reconcile this debacle with any recourse?
It is called a logical quandary and cannot be solved. 
Again, you want to instill raw emotions through a video without any recourse for a legitimate solution . . . in my opinion, that is the same as the current main-stream, progressive, emotional manipulation.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 21, 2017 - 10:51am
in my opinion, that is the same as the current main-stream, progressive, emotional manipulation.
Yes William, and in light of Haluska's adoration of an immigrant who's greatest love in life was a baby killer rather fucking ironic one would think. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 21, 2017 - 11:39am
I will add to the quandary, Fetal Homicide laws.
In most States to include some very friendly to abortions, killing an unborn baby without the permission of the mother can find the perpetrator charged with murder.  Now how can this be?
This is either a dead person, baby, or it is not.  It was either killed or it was not.  Same dead baby, the only difference is if the mother wanted the baby or not?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 21, 2017 - 11:52am
My only issue is I and the Government played no part in their decisions or the "fun" so leave us out of the results.
You'd definitely be involved in the results of another 56 million unwanted kids running around DUHmerica clogging courts, prisons, hospitals and morgues wouldn't you. 
I mention this only because another commenter is so personally affronted by the results of abortion AND out of control government spending. 
I knew I hated kids so much, that my mother's second husband was an asshole and no model as a father other than how not to act, and I was too damn selfish to ever begin to think I would successfully raise a child so I had myself cut while still in my teens. No DUHmerican doctor would perform the procedure. Had to go to a civilized country to have it done. 
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 12:43pm
Stockton - I agree with your points.  However, it is very sad that while we have so many children being aborted we have highly qualified couples waiting 7 years or longer to adopt a child.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 12:50pm
Stockton - one point I missed.  It is never "emotional manipulation" for people to fully grasp what they are advocating or opposing.  The "manipulation" is being done by those who support abortion - that's why they need euphemisms and keeping videos out of the public eye. 
Also - I didn't make a legal argument, I was making a moral one.  It is my hope that abortions become rare because of a conscious choice by people rather than a government mandate.  There may be a statute against murder, but that's not why 99.9% of sane people refrain from committing murder - they refrain for moral reasons.  They have a natural respect for the sanctity of life and that's why they don't do murder.
John Minehan Added Mar 21, 2017 - 1:50pm
"If a nationwide broadcast of an abortion was ever made, I Frakkin' guarantee you that public opinion would switch overnight to 90% opposed."
But that would be an emotional reaction, rather than a rational one.
Is the abortion more horrible than a pregnant woman being killed (essentially torn apart) by an ectopic pregnancy or a hydrocephaly-in-utero?
"Maternal-Fetal Conflict" (in plain English, something has gone wrong with the pregnancy that endangers the mother's life) are a reality and, for that reason, abortion has never been absolutely illegal.
Because, as between two similarly situated pregnant women, the one having a "medical home" (an on-going relationship with a provider) and the other not have such a treatment relationship, we should not criminalize one abortion and not the other.
Simply put, I agree with Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J. that abortion should have been de-criminalized rather than legalized.     
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 21, 2017 - 2:04pm
It is assumption we would see 56 million more unwanted kids, as usual with human beings is they never change unless you force them to.  If legal abortions were eliminated we would see a short term rise then I believe it would drop drastically as people come to grips with the reality.
Actually today we have a lot more options then when Roe-v-Wade was decided.
But again I am not asking for abortions to be eliminated, just pointing out a few things that are part of the larger picture.
Let those we say have the right of choice also have the responsibility of that choice, that is all I ask.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 21, 2017 - 3:30pm
John - your statement:
"But that would be an emotional reaction, rather than a rational one."
If you consider that human life has irreplaceable value, then it is rational to react emotionally to the murder of another human being.  Sociopaths react "rationally" to murder - is that something we should aspire to???
John Minehan Added Mar 21, 2017 - 4:49pm
That assumes that we are talking about murder.
If we are talking about taking life outside the ambit of "murder" than, GED, it must be considered rationally, for example: triage at a mass casualty event; a jury deliberating at a capital trial; or an S-3 Section or Fire Support Element considering an Operations Order or Fire Plan. 
William Stockton Added Mar 22, 2017 - 8:48am
Louis, "In most States to include some very friendly to abortions, killing an unborn baby without the permission of the mother can find the perpetrator charged with murder.  Now how can this be?"
This can be when you consider that the mother has (and should have) complete authority over the life she created.  Nobody else has that right over her.  
When moralists (another "ist" to describe those who think the government is better at enforcing and deciding morals than the individual) put themselves into a value paradox by saying that the legal system must stop and prevent mother's from having full control over their children . . . they then will say that the government has too much control over parenting (spanking, care, etc).
Can't have it both ways in a blind legal system.  The government is already too intrusive into parenting and the upbringing of children.  I am a staunch advocate that parents should and need to have 100% authority over their kids up to the legal age . . . with few exceptions.  
The same paradox of values exists on the left when they advocate for a mother's right to choose and then restrict her, by law, if she strikes the child in discipline.
How about we just stop, both sides, in legislating morals, and values through the government?
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 22, 2017 - 9:00am

If you consider that human life has irreplaceable value
Nothing of which there are 7.5 billion of has irreplaceable value. 
Even that monster Friedman you worship will tell you that.
William Stockton Added Mar 22, 2017 - 9:07am
Mike, Thanks for your comments.  Excellent discussion although I doubt we fixed anything.  :)
I thought about this 15-minute miracle problem.  You know, the 15-minute emotional decision that starts all human life.  The same emotional decision that far too many people end up regretting when they are faced with a lifetime of consequences.  That same emotional decision that tells us in that 15 minutes, "This is the best decision you have ever made!"  Well, that's a problem and also nature's big lie.  
So, in fact, we have now identified the culprit.  Right?  
If a mother is even contemplating abortion, there is no more planning happening in her "parenthood".  It is really disaster recovery.  And that is also the big lie with planned parenthood . . . abortion is not planning.  In fact, it the emergency effort to fix a 15-minute miracle/trainwreck which nature has wrought unto life without considering consequences.   
I say again, let's not make another emotional decision on top of one that created the problem in the first place.  There must be compromise and a respect for liberty first.  
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 22, 2017 - 10:29am
This can be when you consider that the mother has (and should have) complete authority over the life she created.  Nobody else has that right over her.  
But wait a second, there is no life there according to the same PP and all advocates for abortions.  This is a "zygote" a clump of cells that are more akin to a parasite or a cancer than anything human according to them and that is how they rationalize it's destruction.
The same was true with slave owners and Germany where they would rename human life to make it easier to kill it, you were not killing a human being, you were killing a Jew or a Nigger or a Zygote.
So my point is the double standard, same dead baby, but we only call the baby a baby if the mother wants to keep it, otherwise we label it something else to make it easier to kill.
 I am a staunch advocate that parents should and need to have 100% authority over their kids up to the legal age
So the parent should be allowed to kill their child at any point?  does this include the man should be allowed to slip his girl an abortion drug if he does not want the baby to live?
How about keeping your child in a box or selling them sexually for some extra spending money?  
Refusing them medical care and refusing to feed them?
I can think of thousands of ways children should have some form of basic society protections from bad parents or other caretakers.
William Stockton Added Mar 23, 2017 - 9:13am
Sure Louis, I can take a hard position on any topic and find many reasons why that value position doesn't work in every possible situation.  And you just provided examples to prove my point of this article.
So you have identified why hardline value positions don't work all the time and I am not under any pretense that my value position SHOULD be applicable in all instances.  
Liberty is not just a rally word that only serves to fuel revolutions and political movements.  People, employing liberty, choose values that best serve their situations . . . something that laws can never do.  There are places for the law but clearly, our legal system has been corrupted by moralists on both sides who arrogantly believe that their morals are the morals everyone should choose, and then make laws for such.
The USA has become a legal quagmire where every citizen wakes up each day facing over 30,000 laws . . . an impossible legal gauntlet.  This is very much the same as the pharasitical problem of the bible where the Pharisees had so many laws and legal restrictions nobody could ever hope to be in compliance with God.  This created a society then of perpetual and never-ending penance foundries.  (I am not religious, but use an example you probably know.)   Penance foundries always become obsolete as people rise in revolt.  The USA is very close to this situation.  And I say that religions on both political sides (one from old books and the other from the religion of modern social-justice) have pushed the legal system from protecting individuals to now one of impossible compliance and never ending penance.
Stop legislating morals and values!
Mike Haluska Added Mar 23, 2017 - 9:58am
Stockton - What is really sad is that with today's technology (Birth Control Pills) it is inexpensive (or free if you're poor) to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place.  I don't want to force my view on others either - I don't advocate the courts getting involved one way or the other.  I just try and persuade as many people as I can in the hope that someday abortion will be minimized because people are more aware and compassionate.
Mike Haluska Added Mar 23, 2017 - 10:02am
Stockton - your post above is one your best.  The US is chock full of lawyers and short on scientists and engineers - Japan is just the opposite.  That says a lot about our society in general and our litigious nature.
William Stockton Added Mar 24, 2017 - 8:51am
Thanks Mike.  I appreciate your feedback and for reading.
wsucram15 Added Mar 26, 2017 - 6:05pm
William..Hi.  Interesting article.  But you know my pov, instead of arguing this just thought I would say hello and oh..didnt your side just TRY to eliminate planned parenthood? Making the cost of birth control skyrocket?
William Stockton Added Mar 27, 2017 - 10:39am
Thanks for reading Jeanne.  Ok.  I won't argue your points, but I disagree that "my side" was trying to eliminate PP.  It is about funding abortions.  I think it is important to note that the government does not have a moral or ethical edict to fund anyone's lifestyle choices or value decisions.
wsucram15 Added Mar 27, 2017 - 6:14pm
William thank you. I made my case in Expats article.  I dont believe for many reason other than what I stated on there that anyone has a right to decide what you, me or anyone else has the right to tell another person how to treat their body.
After 3 months I am against abortion for my own personal reasons.  But prior to that, it is a fundamental right and moral decision that believe me, a woman never forgets.  I also agree with research, it saves lives.
Shane Dean Added Mar 29, 2017 - 1:33am
William, I had a little trouble following where you were going with this article in some spots, but I think that was just coming from some emotional frustration.  Overall, I do like what you said.
I have a hard time with this issue on so many levels.  The idea of abortion bothers me, but having volunteered with at risk youth, I hesitate to get behind the idea of forcing a woman to have a child.  Children who grow up knowing they may not have been wanted (and believe me, they know) are much more likely to get into all manner of difficulty.  While I don't think we should just off any kid who isn't born to the perfect family, forcing the creation of a family is not a moral choice either.  
I often wonder where all these righteous people are when there are about 60,000 kids in foster care every year.  And the vast majority are not the ones who have a small family issue and things work out and the family is reunited.  Most of these kids start in foster care and stay there.  Pro Life people love to say the babies will get adopted.  Then how come so many kids don't?  Sometimes they come from parents who do drugs, and thanks to sensationalism, people assume the kids will have problems and the kids don't get adopted.  Far right people want to force the kids to be born, then bitch and moan when they have to pay taxes for welfare.  
Also, another thing no one wants to talk about is that we used to have septic abortion wards in every hospital in the country.  Wards specifically designed to treat women who tried something to stop a pregnancy and had major complications.
While I don't like abortion, I like the fallout of removing that a whole lot less.  I find it laughable that people who talk about the love of God can act so hateful, hurtful, and judgemental to their fellow man...and woman.  
And speaking of moral choices, we already have way too many people on this planet, starving and dying because our planet is not really capable of sustaining that population.  Is it really moral to force someone to come into such a world?  And all the other issues of wars and rumors of wars.
I have three boys, and my wife and I planned for each one.  And as much as I love my children, and children in general, I cannot in good conscience advocate forcing any woman to bring a life into the world.  Especially if she has no help from the other part of the pregnancy equation.
Finally, even though I think babies are great, for all intents and purposes, until they can survive on their own outside the womb, I think it is sentimental and foolish to call them a person.  Technically they are a parasite.
I am sure that many people are going to say "What if your mother had chosen to abort you?"  My reply is simple.  I was part of the universal energy, not constrained by a mortal shell.  Then I arrived on this earth, and things haven't been a bed of roses.  I believe the universe wants me to go through this trail called Life so I will do my level best, but if I had my druthers I would still be free energy in the universe.
Anyway, thank you for writing this, William.  Sorry my comment meandered so much.  Guess I had some emotional energy to get rid of too.
William Stockton Added Mar 30, 2017 - 11:46am
While I don't like abortion, I like the fallout of removing that a whole lot less.
Thank you for reading, Shane.  I agree with you that life has many trade-offs.  Fundamentalism cannot be the square peg solution in a world of varying shaped holes.
Paul Robbins Added Apr 14, 2017 - 11:07am
Right vs Wrong.  Laws of God vs Laws of men.  Thou Shalt not kill is the law of God.  The Truth has been given by God to man.  Man needs to repent and believe God. 

Recent Articles by Writers William Stockton follows.