Welcome To Modernity, Ireland

Ireland finally legalized abortion, which was previously banned per their Constitution. Wow Ireland, welcome out of the dark ages! Congratulations on your long-awaited recognition of women as human beings. You deserve a real gold star and a pat on the back for finally elevating the rights of women above that of embryos and fetuses.

In other news, I unfriended a “libertarian” on Facebook who likened this legislative act to legalized murder. Ugh, I cannot handle the drivel of people who think governments should force 10-year old rape victims to give birth and/or condemn women to death for the sake of human reproduction.

Never Fuck Men Who Are Anti-Abortion

The Brisbane Times reports a Catholic school teacher threatened  to send an email to the staff and parents of the school at which he worked with a colleague if the colleague went through with a planned abortion. He has been charged with 3 counts of rape for threatening to release explicit videos and mar the reputation of a colleague if she refused to continue in a relationship and have sex with him. The man, who remains anonymous (but shouldn’t – the media should let us know who this vile mother fucker is) pleaded not guilty and claimed he took these measures as a “last resort” to prevent the woman from “murdering” his child.

And this is why women should never, ever, ever have sex with men who are anti-abortion.

Men who are against abortion think of women as less than human, because they value clumps of unconscious cells over the mind, desires, preferences, and bodily integrity of full-grown human women. These are the types of men who would sooner sentence 9-year-olds and 11 year-olds to a lifetime of depression, anxiety, and irreparable health consequences than permit her to abort a fetus created out of rape.

Most people do not value the preferences and needs of plants, snails, chickens, or goats, all constituting one form of biological life or another, over the lives and happiness of other people. Essentially then, men of this ilk who have sex with women are comparable to men who engage in bestiality. They have sex with creatures they perceive to be subhuman, over whom they believe they have intellectual and physical dominion, because it is more comfortable and convenient for their insecure egos. To these men, women are human-like, but are primarily vessels for propagation of a man’s DNA. Therefore, when faced with a situation in which the subhuman creature does not yield and succumb to this caveman’s expectations or desires, these primitive men may resort to threats, extortion, and/or violence to get their way in the name of “morality.”

It’s not that these men respect “life” in general. These same men are not using extortion, violence, and laws to prevent people from killing goats or pigs for food, or hunting bears and elephants for sport, all of which have more mental capacity and consciousness than many early stage fetuses. They are not bombing in vitro fertilization clinics to protest the countless fertilized eggs idly sitting around, or even being destroyed in medical laboratories.

Rather, the highly selective concern for “life” is limited to clumps of cells that reside in women’s bodies, and their insistence on using violence, force, and threats in furtherance of propagation of that “life” is limited to coercing women into spreading genes. Disingenuously, the only time such a clump of cells matters, is when the burden, inconvenience, or threat to life and limb must be borne by a human woman. This convenient concern for otherwise indistinguishable cells is without any ostensible or reasonable basis compared to concern for the lives of lions, tigers, baboons, or zygotes in petri dishes, and can only be explained by misogyny.

These men believe that just as a pig or cow on a farm has no inherent right to determine the terms or circumstances of reproduction, neither do women. It is the farmer who has the right to decide whether and when to increase the size of his stock for the good of the herd, and it is men and/or society who have the right to tell women whether and when to reproduce for the collective good of the (human) farm.

Certainly, if one does choose to have sex with such a base man of this mentality, resulting in pregnancy, abortions can be procured in secret, but why even accord such a disgusting person the privilege to begin with? There is no reason on earth to ever fuck someone who first and foremost, does not even recognize a woman’s fundamental humanity and right to self-determination.

Thus, unless one is completely comfortable with fucking a man who fucks donkeys and sheep, one should be just as uneasy as fucking a man who is against abortion. Because to that kind of man, you are the donkey.

Texas Abortion Laws Force Abortion Clinics to Close, Liberals and Conservatives Both to Blame

By definition, freedom is the is the power to determine action without restraint; alternatively, it is the exemption from external control, interference, or regulation. The definition itself is straightforward, yet its application in politics is anything but. Conservatives want to protect people with oppressive laws and militaristic police from “the illegals,” “the terrorists,” the Muslims, drugs, and other various bogeymen, but feign a concern for “freedom” when it comes to economic issues. Liberals might not be quite as rabid about immigrants, Muslims, or drugs, but want to protect people nanny-state style, with equally burdensome laws from banning cigarettes/sodas/fatty foods, to forcing people to buy health insurance, while paying lip service to social freedoms.

In other words, everyone wants to pick and choose the freedoms they support, which is ultimately an untenable position.

Conservatives, who cheer on laws regulating sodomy, gay marriage, drugs, among other things that are no one else’s damn business, should not be surprised (yet for some reason, always are) when they find the government has inflated to an unmanageable size, and has continually extended its reaches into healthcare, private businesses, and other aspects of peoples’ private lives.

Liberals, who cheer on high rates of taxation, ostensibly for the purpose of the “greater good” and “general welfare,” should not be surprised (yet for some reason, always are), when they find their taxes have been spent on endless war, the most bloated military on the face of the planet, militarized police, and a growing police state.

The most recent example would be the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on a Texas law, which severely restricts abortion clinics. One key provision of the law requires that physicians performing abortions have hospital admitting privileges. This aspect of the law was upheld by the 5th Circuit last week (see here). This undoubtedly will limit access and availability of abortions across Texas. But wait, there’s more!

Another provision of the law, already in effect, mandates that abortions be performed in facilities equivalent to an ambulatory surgical center (see here and here). This has resulted in the closing of about half of the abortion clinics across the state of Texas, which should be unsurprising (see here).

Obviously, one motivation for the law was to limit abortions. However, that was not the stated intent. Lauren Bean, of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, explained, “This decision is a vindication of the careful deliberation by the Texas Legislature to craft a law to protect the health and safety of Texas women” (see here). Sound familiar, liberals?

When one exchanges a few verbs and nouns, it becomes clear that this law, designed for “protecting the health and safety” of Texas women, is really identical to the countless other laws, regulations, and restrictions in existence in every other area of healthcare.

The law requires that every abortion (which is a surgical procedure) be performed in a facility licensed as an ambulatory surgical clinic. Every doctor performing an abortion should also have hospital admitting privileges. Arguably, the law sounds reasonable on its face. Why shouldn’t a doctor performing a surgical procedure do so in a licensed ambulatory surgical center (which isn’t even a full-fledged surgical facility)? And why shouldn’t such a doctor have hospital admitting privileges for performing surgery? Surely, this will be a reasonable form of quality control and protect women from “dangerous” abortions. In fact, it’s very similar to any of the following laws:

  • Every prescription for medication X must be written by a licensed physician
  • Every procedure X must be performed by a provider licensed to do X
  • Every procedure X must be performed at a hospital licensed to provide X
  • Every medication X must be purchased only at dispensary/facility with permissible licenses to do so
  • Every device X for disease Y must be tested by the FDA under A,B,C requirements before being made available to any member of the public

I doubt most liberals have a real problem with any of the above, because certainly, those laws were passed to “protect” the idiot populace from greedy doctors, Big Pharma, scheming hospitals, and other horrible capitalists, and are completely justified. In the absence of those regulations, doctors will be colluding with Big Pharma to prescribe cyanide for profit, and hospitals will be killing patients, because, profits and stuff!

It would behoove liberals to acknowledge that for the most part, protecting people from their own choices does far more harm than good. Just as Texas’ recent abortion laws are designed to “protect” women from from a host of imagined dangers, but severely limit access to abortion, and indisputably increase the costs thereof, so do the the myriad of healthcare regulations already in place similarly decrease access, and increase prices in every other field of healthcare.

Abortion clinics are closing their doors across Texas, which will create monumental obstacles for women seeking needed services. Conservatives are certainly to blame, but liberals are not entirely blameless either. After all, they usually support all kinds of government regulations and interventions in a wide range of other healthcare issues. This particular intervention and restriction upon abortion is just one of many logical consequences of such support.

I’m not about to limit my beef to liberals, though. Stay tuned for the inevitable circumstance wherein conservatives find that their love of big government similarly has come back to bite them in the ass.

Helicopter Parenting, Entitlement Culture, and the Police State

A few weeks ago, these signs started showing up everywhere in my neighborhood:

shareBearPic3

This is in addition to the cones, flags, and other portable signs that appear frequently cautioning drivers of children about, whether there are actually children about or not. For the record, many a time, I have driven by signs and flags demanding “SLOW!” speeds when there was no child in sight. Roads are no longer recognized as primarily serving the purpose of automobile passage; they are now considered by modern, entitled suburbanites to be playgrounds catering to the whims of their children and their particular leisure needs, to supplement the many existing parks, playgrounds, and natural reserves nearby.

One can imagine the idiocy (and eyesore) if everyone took this approach with signs, but for different classes of people who needed special protection – “Drive Like Your Grandparents Live Here” – “Drive Like Your Blind Brother Lives Here” – “Drive Like Your Cats Live Here” – “Drive Like Your Father Who Suffers From Dementia Lives Here” – or ultimately, better yet, don’t drive at all, because that of course would be the surest way to prevent pedestrians from being injured.

The unsightly red plastic signs lining the blocks of the neighborhood were not enough. Within a couple of weeks, these started showing up:

shareBearPic7

Undoubtedly, next, police officers will be stationed at every block to harass motorists who dare go over 10 miles an hour, in the event that some parent might fail to monitor their child, who might then run unexpectedly in the road, might get hit, and might get hurt. When suburbanites reach the level of insanity such that they believe motorists should bend over backwards for errant, unsupervised children, and essentially be forced to drive around speed counters, ugly signs, and cones, as if navigating obstacle courses were a natural matter of daily driving, there is something seriously wrong.

There is in fact no speeding problem in this neighborhood. To my knowledge, there has not been a single instance of a child being injured, much less killed, by a speeding vehicle. Yet, neighbors glare as drivers “speed” by at a mere 15 or 20 miles an hour, even when children are nowhere close to crossing the road, and are playing safely in their yards.

For the record, there is no problem with children playing in the streets. The problem is the idea that children have no obligation to watch for cars as cars do for children, and the attitude that children should be free to roam in whatever dangerous situations they wish, while motorists who should rightly have access to streets are viewed as unilaterally responsible for their safety. This kind of approach may be a grave annoyance to drivers, but it can be deadly for children.

There was a time when parents believed the safety of their children was almost exclusively their responsibility, and that of their children (depending on their age). Now, for whatever reason, people feel they have the right to foist the responsibility for the safety of their children on complete strangers, whom they expect to be inconvenienced, or shamed, for doing nothing more than making use of roads to drive to their homes.

These attitudes are not only irritating for those inconvenienced; it seems self-evident that such coddling would not be conducive to raising independent, self-sufficient, or responsible children. Even worse, people of this philosophy refuse to limit their ill-conceived child-rearing coddling to their own lives, and insist that everyone participate, or meet strong-armed enforcement.

Thus, it is not surprising that the United States is increasingly a police state, in which peoples’ lives are ever the more regulated and controlled, all in the name of “safety.” Parents are not infrequently subject to violent punishment for deviation from stringent laws prescribing “security” and “order.” If you want to be a nanny-state sanctioned helicopter parent whose children will be forever be dependent and incompetent, you are free to do so and will find that society encourages your methods. However, if you would like your children to exercise some independence or self-reliance, or alternatively, you for other reasons fall short of the stringent dictates of the state’s child-rearing policies, you should surely fear for your fate.

Recently, Debra Harrell of North Augusta, South Carolina was jailed after she left her nine-year-old daughter at a park for several hours. Ms. Harrell is an employee of McDonald’s. For most of the summer, her daughter played on a laptop at McDonald’s while her mother worked (making use of free wi-fi offered by the fast food chain). When the laptop was unfortunately stolen from their home, her daughter asked to play at the park while her mother worked instead. Ms. Harrell provided her daughter with a cell phone, and allowed her to play at a park. On the third day of this short-lived arrangement, adults who had seen her daughter alone at the park called the police. Ms. Harrell was arrested (more here).

Not so long ago, another father from Pennsylvania, Govindaraj Narayanasamy, similarly faced legal consequences when he was charged with child endangerment for leaving his 6 and 9-year-old children at a local park while he went to Walmart and LA Fitness. He returned between 90-120 minutes later, but a woman had noticed the children by themselves and called the police (more here).

Of course, not all parents who are punished by the state are glowing examples of responsible parenthood. In June of this year, Eileen DiNino, a Pennsylvania mother of seven, died in jail while serving a two-day sentence for her children’s truancy from school. She had incurred substantial fines for her children’s absences from school, and served the sentence as a result. Her children may have had a wayward mother before, but now they have no mother at all (more here). Such stories are not uncommon. Another mother in California, Lorraine Cuevas, was sentenced to 180 days in jail for similar violations in 2012.

In another instance in 2012, a mother from Arkansas was charged with a misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a minor, after she made her child walk 4.5 miles to school as punishment.

In another egregious incident in 2012, William Reddie of northern Michigan found himself in trouble with the police and Child Protective Services over an allegation that the scent of marijuana was detected at his home. Police alerted CPS, and Mr. Reddie became agitated when CPS attempted to take his son (more here). This escalated into police shooting and killing Mr. Reddie. It should be apparent to sensible people that a father who smokes marijuana is better than a dead father, and a mother who tolerates truancies is better than a dead mother; but sensible people can be few and far between these days.

No matter how minor of the offense of the parent, the general public seems comfortable with police intervention, jail, and violence as the “solution.” Ironically, when police abusebeat, taser, throw flashbang grenades at babies, and/or kill children, they are viewed as heroes, and in those circumstances, the blame still falls on parents who were not in compliance with state regulations and various nonsensical draconian measures.

Everywhere in the U.S., people are embracing the idea that children have no obligation to learn how to navigate dangers, and that the responsibility for their safety falls not solely on their parents, but on total strangers, and that anyone not in compliance with nanny-state parenting styles should have to answer to the police, through violent mechanisms of arrest and/or criminal charges.

This seems particularly absurd in the United States, where violent crime has been on the decline for five years; total crime has been on the decline since 1990, and violence experienced by children has also declined.