Sunday, June 3, 2012

The Ultimate War on Women

Republicans played politics with the abortion issue last week, putting to an unsuccessful vote a law that would have criminalized sex-selection abortions...
Groups opposed to abortion rights are turning charges of a GOP "war on women" against Democrats who are opposed to legislation meant to ban sex-selective abortions.
Democrats hoping to grow a gender gap among female voters tilted toward their party have repeatedly hammered Republicans for engaging in a war on women over issues such as contraception rights.
Now opponents of abortion rights used the phrase ahead of a House vote Thursday imposing fines or imprisonment on doctors who perform abortions they know are motivated in part by the fetus's gender. The bill would also require medical professionals to tell law enforcement if they suspect an abortion has been performed for that reason. (Ultimate War on Women)
I’m torn. This is horrible law, based upon emotionalism and supposition rather than material fact, but I always enjoy it when republicans can hoist democrats on their own petard.

You can kill your unborn baby for any reason in the world except because she’s a girl

The law and the arguments surrounding it leads to a swampy quagmire. Abortion is OK, but not if you do it because the fetus is a female, but you can abort a female fetus as long as you don’t say that is why you’re doing it. 

Doctors must report to law enforcement if they think the abortion is sex-motivated, but only for female fetuses. Under the proposed law, a woman can storm into her nearest abortion mill and demand they rip the paternalistic, woman-subjugating male chauvinist piglet from her belly and she will continue to enjoy the favor of the state.

Whatever happened to Liberty?

We find ourselves in legislatively-created swamplands because there is no logic there, and without logic, it’s all up to the whims of whoever has the power. So we end up with contradictory and capricious laws that inevitably lead to thought crimes where the state of mind of the “criminal” is more important than the damage he has done.  This is not lawmaking.  It is issuing decrees and commands based upon the whims of the rulers.

Politics aside, we should pause to consider that abortion has led to the largest legalized slaughter of women and minorities in human history.

Ultimate War on Women
House Rejects Bill


Ditto Man said...

"He's a failure, and it's time for him to go."

Les Carpenter said...

This is sh*t law and there is no way for a rational person to not recognize the diarrhea flow it will create.

More statism, more police control, and the list will continue to grow...

...and who the hell knows where it will stop.

Teresa said...

If this is one more step at outlawing an unjust, immoral law based on falsehoods which murders innocent unborn babies I am all for it. An immoral law cannot be condoned by society because if it is that society becomes an immoral, Godless society and doesn't deserve the blessings granted by God. I am so sick of ignorant atheist, progressives and whoever else ignoring biology. If your freedom takes away the rights of another human being (whether you can see that human or not) then what you call "freedom" really isn't freedom at all.

Always On Watch said...

There was also a race clause in that bill.

Always On Watch said...

Doctors must report to law enforcement if they think the abortion is sex-motivated, but only for female fetuses. Under the proposed law, a woman can storm into her nearest abortion mill and demand they rip the paternalistic, woman-subjugating male chauvinist piglet from her belly and she will continue to enjoy the favor of the state.




I missed that information somehow! I don't know how except that, right now, I'm on the web catch as catch can. All the doctors' appointments going on in this household -- the annual rush for us.

I fail to understand why it is okay to abort a male fetus but not a female fetus. I thought that women today could have an abortion for ANY reason -- no questions asked.

I admit that I am aghast.

Always On Watch said...


How can this be happening in America?

Anonymous said...

'Mornin,' Kurt.

Surely you meant "I am anti-abortion but also PRO-logic," didn't you?

Not to quibble, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to be misunderstood.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

It is suspicious that this legislation was introduced simultaneously with Lila Rose's latest fake video.

Some more great fringe right film making. Yes, if James O'keefe is the Godard of the right then Rose must be their Agnes Varda.

It's a clever maneuver by the droolers. As soon as a fetus is sexed then the doctor is liable for prosecution. You'll have some mouth breather for Kansas bringing them up on charges and demanding medical records.

But we aren't India. The practice is so prevalent that female births outnumber male.

Meanwhile the fringe right knuckle draggers are fire bombing clinics in Georgia and elsewhere and the whitened sepulchers on the right don't bat an eye.

Enjoy getting kicked in the teeth by Planned Parenthood once again. Should come a time when the fringe right figures out they are better off not poking that wasps nest with a stick.


Always On Watch said...

I guess that I would say that I am mostly anti-abortion.

However, I do not oppose an immediate D&C after forcible rape and forcible incest.

I do have a personal reason for saying part of the above.

My sister-in-law, hardly a vestal virgin but not a whore either, was kidnapped and held at knife point for three days, beaten repeatedly, cut, and brutally raped all the while. Once she escaped -- she was lucky, albeit forever scarred on her face and elsewhere: that vile man, a spree rapist, had raped over 30 women and killed at least three that the authorities knew of -- she immediately had a D&C at the hospital (no "morning-after pill" back then in the 1980s) to terminate any possible pregnancy AND to minimize the chances of venereal disease.

After the police apprehended the man, one of the officers said to my sister-in-law, "Too bad that he didn't resist arrest. Then, there would have been no need for a messy trial." The trial was indeed difficult for my sister-in-law; in those days, the previous sexual behavior of the victim could be brought up at the trial. And it was. Years before, for an extended period of time, she had been a rock groupie for a INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN AND FAMOUS rock band.

The rapist was a policeman's son, BTW. And his dad aided and abetted his son with the full knowledge as to what his son was doing.

She went on to get a conviction and extradition to Florida, where the vile man was electrocuted. She also went on to get married and have two lovely sons -- in a marriage that last over 20 years and would have lasted forever had her husband not taken to the bottle and the crack pipe in the later years of their marriage.

"No regrets!" my sister-in-law announced to the family. Others, unless involved in the trial or members of the immediate family, had no clue what had happened to my sister-in-law. She didn't announce it to the world.

Always On Watch said...

Meanwhile the fringe right knuckle draggers are fire bombing clinics in Georgia and elsewhere and the whitened sepulchers on the right don't bat an eye.

Please cite recent instances -- with links, if possible.

Sam Huntington said...

How is the Rose video fake? Another attempt to cause confusion, fear, and retreat, Duckinsky?

Anonymous said...


Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but render unto God the things that are God's."

Sorry to take exception to your opinion, but what you appear to advocate in your heart of hearts is just another form of Statist-Dictatorship only in your case it would have to be called a "Theocracy."

Like most people who hold strong views of any persuasion I think you make the mistake of equating your passionate devotion to doctrine with Eternal, Immutable, Incontrovertible, Inviolable Absolute TRUTH.

It's fine for you to adhere to that -- under the aegis and within the confines of your religious affiliation -- but it is not all right for you -- or anyone else -- to impose your beliefs on the entire nation.

In it's way that is just as evil, if we must use that term, as any attempt Muslims might make to supplant the U.S. Constitution with Sharia, or for filthy, bearded, sweat-soaked, pot-smoking Marxists to destroy our representative republic through the establishment of a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

Whenever we conflate Passion with Principle, we are treading on dangerous ground.

This does not mean that I favor abortion, but, as Mr. Jefferson said, I certainly do favor Liberty over any form of tyranny over the mind of Man.

Authoritarianism in any guise is strictly for the birds.

That's why my name is:

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

"There are only one person who belong inside a woman's vagina -- her husband -- or her lover.

"There is only one person who belongs inside "The Womb" -- a baby.

"Gynecologists are the only legitimate exception.

"Senators and Representatives don't belong in either place. Neither do judges, lawyers -- or members of the clergy."

~ From "The Collected Wisdom of Dick Teyte"

Submitted by FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky's doing a little mouth breathing of his own.

The last firebombing in Georgia took place in 1997.

Here is what he is talking about:

Theft and arson, not firebombing, but if it gets the hooting loonies on the left all stirred up, why let the facts get in the way?

It's still criminality, and we on the right are against that, so just for you Ducky, I will officially state that Western Hero is dead set against bombings, burnings, assaults and murders, regardless of perpetrator or victim.

Silverfiddle said...

AOW: I didn't mean to start an abortion debate. I'm actually throwing rocks at "my side" here by criticizing their lack of logic and reason. This is just the latest example, and it's hardly a phenomenon isolated to the GOP.

Silverfiddle said...


Thank you for the correction!

I am anti-abortion, but I am also pro-logic, and our lawmakers have abandoned logic, the constitution and liberty a long time ago.

Anonymous said...


Sorry to have misquoted my friend Dick Teyte. He would not be pleased.

That first sentence should have read:

"There only one person who belongs inside a woman's vagina -- her husband -- or her lover."

Sorry, Dick! I hope I may be spared the scolding I know I deserve?



Ducky's here said...

You seem surprised, AOW

Maybe the freaks are out there photographing license plates or getting ready to shoot a doctor.

Anonymous said...


You should have been a lawyer. You have a great capacity for making fine distinctions among various facets of every issue and are willing to argue for truth as opposed to a mere passion for winning at all costs.

I mean this as a compliment, despite my inherent dislike and distrust of members of the legal profession.

Very few of us are willing to admit anything that might be interpreted as weakening to our pet "cause," whatever it might be.

I think that shows the subtle-but-vitally-important differences among advocates, devotees, patriots, bigots and fanatics.


~ FT

Anonymous said...

I guess it's OK for federal government to make laws based on morality, if it is YOUR morality the feds are protecting.
What happened to the conservative stance of keeping the feds out of regulating personal choices. What hypocrites.

Teresa said...


If you really were against abortion you wouldn't be for people having the "freedom" to murder unborn babies and consider me to be invoking some type of theocracy on everyone else when I am simply stating the truth about biology and when life begins. You are invoking your murderous thugocracy on thousands of innocent unborn children in the name of freedom. No person has a right to do harm to another human being. Where does this end "I just raped a women because I expressed my freedom to do so, cause I deemed the woman unworthy and a disrespectful whore in her daily happenings"? Where does you nihilistic thinking on freedom end?

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...

OOPS. The final sentence in my last comment should have read "Where does your nihilistic thinking on freedom end?" "Your", not "you".

Unknown said...

Zero is losing the Catholics, Jews, and perhaps some of the women.
Obama already has a lock on the black vote, the homosexual vote, the media vote, the Hollywood vote, the Wall Street Swindlers' vote, the druggies' and drug traffickers' vote. And if the Republicans are dumb enough to make this personal and religious issue of a womans' reproductive rights an issue of federal governmental concern, he's going to corner the womens' vote AGAIN.
But maybe, just maybe, maybe some blacks who still think that this should be a free country once again will turn on him and that my friend would be the final nail in his coffin.

Unknown said...

And lets not forget that Obama has gone way over the top patronizing women and making them feel like second class citizens who need government help all through life.The attack on Ann Romney was a personal assault on ALL stay at home moms everywhere.
And that should have some effect on women.

Les Carpenter said...

The issue is more complex than your simplistic theocratic view of when life begins. Taking your logic to its natural conclusion God murders her own creation because by your view isn't the women's egg life? And every male at one time or the other likes life "sperm" by masturbation.

Unknown said...

Sorry, Rational Nation USA, but us men don't have the right to erode a women's right over her own body either, whether it contains a fetus or not.

Silverfiddle said...

First off, I'm on your side on this one. We don't need more federal legislation on this issue. The law is settled. That is what this post is about.

Now, to your criticisms. You are flat out wrong in characterizing my position. I am being frank because it is my position we are talking about.

Please go read here to see where I am coming from.

The antiabortion argument is a humanistic one, not religious, and no, neither an unfertilized egg not spermatozoa are human life, despite the Monty Python sketch where they sing "Every sperm is sacred."

Les Carpenter said...

Franco, never said they did. In fact I clearly stated my position in the first comment. thay it is sh*t law.

Silver, I was responding to Teresa. you might want to go back and reread my response to her theocratic approach which is clearly that the foolish and bad law is okay based on her perception of morality based solely on a theocratic foundation.

I am fully aware of you stand on the issue and I was NOT characterizing your position. Sorry you missed that.

Silverfiddle said...

Thanks for the clarification, Les!

Teresa said...


God does not murder. God has the authority and right over all creation, and thus has the right to breathe life as well as take away life. People do not have the right to end life apart from God's authority, and when they pretend to have such a right they are playing God. We are creatures, not the Creator. While God's absolute authority over life and death is not restricted to His personal direct exercise, and thus He can, has, and does delegate His authority to some of His creatures in limited ways and at certain times to lawfully carry out His will in that regard, that is still God's authority, not our own. We have no right over creation, no right of our own to decide who lives and who dies. Only God the Creator has that right. When he exercises that right, it is not murder and cannot rightly be called that.

Les Carpenter said...

Theresa, I'm glad for you in your beliefs and your view of creation. I'm good with it, I really am.

I just don't happen to agree, nor do I allow theocratic beliefs to guide my life and existence.

Further, given the multitude of religions and varying beliefs within the same religion (talking major religions here, and they all claim to be mono theistic) who is to say which religion is "most" correct? The most "right?"

Ever question why God gave free will? If she/he did did was it not expected to be used? Or was it to be used only in one specific way? Which of course must be the way men, who wrote the scriptures (as you know God wrote nothing, other than the 10 commandments)intended for it to be used?

Just curious what your thoughts are as I spent many years considering these very same questions. Having unquestioning faith just doesn't cut it for some.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"He can, has, and does delegate His authority to some of His creatures in limited ways and at certain times to lawfully carry out His will in that regard, that is still God's authority, not our own."

He must delegate like crazy during wartime since thousands of men and women engage in killing thousands of men, women, children, pregnant women, and feti. And then what if one side believes it is fighting for a righteous cause and the other side does as well. Which side gets the delegation from Him to righteously kill thousands of people in his name.

Does He also delegate his authority to the various officials who engage in executing prisoners in the states that allow capital punishment?

"We have no right over creation, no right of our own to decide who lives and who dies."

I'm afraid humans have been deciding who lives and dies ever since the first caveman clubbed his neighbor to death--even popes led armies into battle and slaughtered thousands, but then they were probably delegates carrying out His will.

As far as having "no right over creation" goes, don't humans decide that every time they engage in protected sex? Aren't they deciding not to "create" when they practice responsible birth control?

You've stated a lot of things that are based on one religious sect, but not necessarily believed by other religions, and not at all by nonbelievers.

You do see why we can't legislate based on one's religious beliefs over another's, don't you?

Bunkerville said...

Meanwhile the whole intent is for Obama to divide and conquer. I take it from the comments it is working quite well. Let this rest until after the election.

Always On Watch said...

I was basically cut off from the news at the time of the publication of the link you left -- end-of-school matters and all that.

Of course, I don't live in Georgia.

I don't recall any such recent events here in the Metro area. I'm sure that I would have heard of those -- even in the midst of the rush of the end of the school term.

Hack said...

I can't say I've been following this "legislation" (diarrhea coming straight out of the collective mouth of Congress) but is there a fact based logical argument why only a sex selective abortion of a female would be punishable under the law and not a sex selective abortion of a male?

Anonymous said...

Developing an understanding of the subtle-but-vitally-important differences among advocates, devotees, patriots, bigots and fanatics is necessary if one is to have any hope at all of avoiding psychosis.

It should be useful to examine closely various definitions of the word "bigot" gleaned from myriad online dictionaries and other sources:


one strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

a hypocritical professor of religion

a hypocrite

a superstitious adherent of religion

a fanatic

a person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious or other creed, opinion, practice, or ritual

a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, system of belief, or party organization; an intolerant dogmatist.

a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.

a narrow-minded, prejudiced person

a person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked.

a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals

one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.


French, from Old French


Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God.

Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood.

From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."

We might want to consider too that Self-Righteousness (equating our personal understanding of life and doctrine with absolute truth) falls under the heading of PRIDE, which is listed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

~ FreeThinke

Teresa said...

Thank you for exemplifying self-righteousness FreeThinke. I now know not to be an immoral free thinker who lives in a utopian world of books and principles but doesn't know how to practice those principles in real life as well is detached from humanity and being a civil human being.

If standing up for innocent unborn human leads you to accuse me of being any of the above then you are just a freaktard with absolutely no logic and no brains so go to ....

You and your ilk are the kind of people who would have sat back during a certain German Chancellor's reign and let the Jews simply disappear since they were out of sight and out of mind. Since that is what your ilk think of abortion, the baby is out of sight and out of mind so who the heck cares about innocents being murdered? Its out of sight, out of mind - kind of like see no evil, hear no evil as long as it doesn't interfere with your private lives.

Anonymous said...

Miss Shaw,

Thank you for your astute observations. Very well stated as usual, though I abhor split infinitives ["to righteously kill" Tsk Tsk! Shame on you! ;-]

I would, however, mildly criticize two things you said.

1. "As far as having 'no right over creation' goes, don't humans decide that every time they engage in protected sex? Aren't they deciding not to "create" when they practice responsible birth control?"

I'm sure, Miss Shaw, you realize that a Roman Catholic congregant of this militantly doctrinaire and blazingly dogmatic a mindset would hold the belief that any form of contraception other than abstinence is Mortal Sin.

2. "You do see why we can't legislate based on one's religious beliefs over another's, don't you?"

Surely you weren't serious in asking that question, were you? Everything this person said is highly indicative of the contrary. Her mind is made up. PERIOD!

I have no quarrel with that, UNTIL she wants to impose her personal and doctrinal understanding of Righteousness and Truth on all people, whether they see it her way or not.



PS: I hate to see Kurt's subtler, finer point about the arbitrary absurdity of prohibiting abortion of female fetuses while permitting that of males get lost amid all the Thunder, Fire and Brimstone of the usual Right to Life v. Choice debate. There's always more heat than light in these discussions, and ain't it a shame? - FT

Teresa said...

Stop forcing your immoral secular thuggish beliefs on me. Stop preying on the weak and innocent. You are the ones imposing your screwed up beliefs on me and the rest who believe certain things to be immoral until you perverted minded people twisted the truth around and used a young woman to pass legislation which has allowed the murder of countless innocents. Stay back in that cave of yours and play with yourselves until your hearts desire and screw yourselves up all you want but when you talk about screwing up another human being's life and even claiming to have the freedom or right to murder an innocent human being that does in fact become society's problem and every human being that has any speck of a conscience would recognize that.

Unknown said...

Democrats are know to be recklessly extravagant, and very big, and wasteful spenders, as proven by Barack and “ our First Lady” and very rarely would you find one that was even reasonably responsible this has been a fact for been for many years. No Republicans aren't perfect, sometimes your going to find one or two will be irresponsible, but mostly have been and have always acted like grownups both fiscally and usually for the most part otherwise.
And another point, the danger of a second Obama term is that he will be a lame duck and do whatever he wants to to promote his progressive agenda and simply ignore Congress all together!
So in case you are one of those who voted for hope and change, lets just hope that by now you realized that you made a mistake, and that we cannot afford another four years of his kind of hope and change.

Teresa said...

Yes, The Lord does give Caeser (the State) the right to carry out capital punishment against those who have committed heinous crimes. There is a big difference between someone who has done serious, grave wrongs and an innocent human being. Nah... But you'll defend the murderers, rapists etc. while defending your so-called right to murder another human being out of pure selfishness.

Jrrmac said...

I believe that if Obama loses , or should I say WHEN HE LOSES, he and his socialist regime will do everything in their power to destroy America even before the new incoming President would take office. that’s what his ultimate goal has been since day one. What really worries me is what will become of our military and intelligence.
So when he loses, and he’s going to lose, its going to be a frightful time for America.

On the women's rights issue, Obama and his ilk claim the Republicans are anti women, now isn't that a big joke considering his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
And remember ladies, if he wins, you lose! So get used to wearing those Burka’s, I can't wait to see you on the beach.

Anonymous said...

Obama certainly doesn’t represent All Americans from his actions. He only represents week minded liberal women and doesn’t display the same respect for women who disagree with him or his ideology.
And how about Obama accepting a Million dollars from that other Clown Bill Maher who has even less respect for women and women’s rights. As soon as I heard Maher make those sexist remarks about Bachmann and Palin, I immediately contacted my cable and canceled my service and told them my reason. When someone attacks any woman as this clown recently did I found it insulting.
But when Rush called Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’ you’d think that the sky was falling.

Z said...

AOW, that's so 'one-off' it's hardly worth talking about.
And who in their right mind approves of anybody bombing clinics? NOBODY.

And Sam's right, of course; the video was absolutely legitimate and the person was fired immediately, to their credit.

SF, what 'material fact' is missing rather than supposition? If this IS going on, and it apparently is (we'd be naive to consider otherwise), it's a good idea to stop it. As you say, we'd like to stop ALL abortion, but that's not going to happen, and frankly, as much as I detest it, we're never going back to that kind of decency again, so...

There IS something amazing and even upsetting about reading articles whose titles are OBAMA OPPOSES LEGISLATION TO BAN SEX SELECTIVE ABORTIONS, don't you think? WHatever the actual details are? Is anyone FOR that?

And have you noticed that the media's painting Romney as having said he wants to stop abortion? I've seen that a lot and he had said HE would prefer that BUT he wants to give it to the states.

I personally don't see why anybody'd rather overturn Roe v Wade and give it to the states to decide. Can anybody explain? Thanks.

Silverfiddle said...

The problem with this law is that it criminalizes a state of mind.

I would like to see Roe v Wade overturned simply because it was poorly decided and invented a constitutional right where none previously existed. I have heard liberal pro-choice lawyers say the same thing.

Everyone is focused on the abortion aspect but just as disturbing to me is the horrible legislation our elected representatives churn out.

Anonymous said...

A few selections from PROVERBS (KJV) that may or may not be pertinent to this discussion depending on your point of view -- and your ability to draw inferences and see parallels.

Pro 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Pro 3:13 Happy [is] the man [who] findeth wisdom, and the man [who] getteth understanding.

Pro 3:34 Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly.

Pro 4:24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

Pro 6: 16-19 These ... things doth the Lord hate ...: a proud look, a lying tongue, ... a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, ... a false witness [who] speaketh lies, ... and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Pro 8:13 The fear of the LORD [is] to hate ... pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Pro 9:13 A foolish woman [is] clamorous: [she is] simple, and knoweth nothing.

Pro 10:8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.

Pro 10:12 Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.

To paraphrase St. Paul: If our thoughts, words and deeds are not motivated by the spirit of charity and tender affection, they aren't worth a tinker's dam.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"A few selections from PROVERBS (KJV) that may or may not be pertinent to this discussion depending on your point of view -- and your ability to draw inferences and see parallels"


Anonymous said...

Burkas on the Beach!

WOW! I love it. This calls for a song:

Burka Baby, please be mine.


I wanna be your Valentine.


Drop that veil and let me in.
We'll be so happy once we start to sin.


Oh, Burka Baby, c'mon drop that veil.
My heart is throbbin' an' I wanna wail

Oh, Burka Baby, c'mon drop that veil.
My heart is throbbin' an' I wanna wail --
With YOO


Only YOO








Oh my! It's so good to see Happy Daze are here again -- at last! Woo Hoo!

Everybody has a laughin' place
A laughin' place to go ho ho.

Take that frown, turn it upside down
And you'll find yours I know ho ho!


Don't worry. Don't hurry. Don't scurry.
Be kind to all that's warm and furry.

~ FreeThinke

Norwegian dude said...


Anonymous said...

It may be sinful to take pleasure in the shame and humiliation of others, but there's something absolutely SOUL SATISFYING about witnessing live performances that provide clear and convincing evidence of the grievous faults and character defects of those who make a career out of being proudly ignorant and militantly disagreeable.

NOW, back to the Matlock Marathon!


~ FT

Anonymous said...

And once again the truth of a long favored adage is proven conclusively:

We learn more about Peter from what he says about Paul than we learn about Paul.

~ FT

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear Free Thinke,

To split or not to split, that is the infinitive option.

In formal writing, I believe, it's frowned upon. This is blog writing where we may be more *cough* liberal *cough.*

I guess I've heard too many "To boldly go" splits.

Plus, doesn't it make prose more edgy?

PS. Whose poetry are you reading these days?

I've just reread for the thousandth time Stevens's the "Final Soliloquy of the Interior Paramour." Gorgeous.

It breaks my heart.


LSP said...

"Politics aside, we should pause to consider that abortion has led to the largest legalized slaughter of women and minorities in human history."

It will come back to haunt us. Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...


God certainly did not have sex with my ex-wife and create my two children. I did.

That being the case, I'm their creator. So does that mean I have the right to kill them, innocent or not?

Of course the answer is no, which completely destroys whatever ridiculous logic you were trying to use about a creator having the right to destroy its creation, as if the creation is only ever an object in the perception of the creator.

Is your belief in God so antiquated that you still believe God smites people? If you believe that God is infinitely loving, and that God has set a moral standard for us to live by, then why would you say that God has the right to kill us?

If God killed us, for any reason, then he would be breaking the moral standard that he set for man, and do you really think that an all-powerful being is so petty and human in nature? Or do you believe that God is a hypocrite? Jesus, God made flesh to some of you, did not much care for hypocrites. So does that mean God is the ultimate hypocrite, because he smites hypocrites while also being a hypocrite? It's all very silly.

Seeing as how I've done this very circular dance with you before, my guess is that my argument is beyond you, just as FT's argument went way, WAY over your head.

Silverfiddle said...

It is already haunting Europe...

Ducky's here said...

Now this religion happens to prevail,
Until by that religion overthrown -
Because man dare not live with man alone,
But always another fairy tale.

--- The Diwan of Abu'l-Ala

KP said...

Hey Duck, SF and FT, what do your personal libraries look like? I imagine at least three to four walls, floor to ceiling, of shelves stocked with hard back covers; some new some old. Some first editions some of little value other than sentimental. Some dog eared paperbacks. How are we rollin'?

And how is your vinyl collection?
Do you still have a bang and olufson turntable and stylus with some JBL L65 Jubal speakers? How we livin'? Tell me we are livin' large!

Jersey McJones said...

For any of you who just got off work...

In a modern, Western society like our's, sex selection is not a serious issue - it's bullshit politics here.

But in some of the world, women are seen as less valuable than men.

We can see, in Western society, women rising, though not nearly as much as they deserve, to much greater heights than their compatriots around the world.

This proposed ban on sex-selective abortion plays nice for Republican candidates and incumbents, but it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the betterment of the nation.

This great nation in and of itself resolves the sex-selection abortion issue. We don't have that problem here. Let's keep that up. Fuck that stupid bill.


viburnum said...

JMJ: "We don't have that problem here."

And when it's discovered that we do, our overly PC government will dither about interfering in a 'cultural issue'. Which is why we are now seeing young American citizens forced into arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, and honor killings. When we refuse to uphold our own culture for fear of offending anyone, we have to be willing to tolerate whatever comes down the pike.

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

And how is your vinyl collection?

Still alive and well with Phase Linear amp driving a pair of AR 3's.

A lot of my jazz collection is out of print.

Quite a few books. The first edition David Copperfield and the complete works of Frank Norris are valuable.

They are in stacks mixed in with my film library, at least 40% of which is unavailable for down load in North America.

Silverfiddle said...

KP: I wish I had the space for such a setup! But I don't. I have weeded out most of the novels over the years, except for the classics (Huxley, Orwell, Steinbeck, Hemingway, etc).

There's a "Books" tab below the Western Hero banner, where I list some of my favorite books that I own and have read. Here's the link.

I have digitized my entire music collection and set it up on a wireless music server so I can have music anywhere in the house. Sounds fancy but it's not. No commercial equipment from Best Buy. I cobbled it together myself, and my stereo is pretty crappy.

I roll humble but happy.

MathewK said...

I read a comment somewhere that one day they will find the gay gene, then perhaps the pro abortion crowd will come to their senses. I doubt it though, I have a feeling that they will never ever agree to any limits on the slaughter.

Perhaps when the women and gays wake up one day they will.

Anonymous said...

Miss Shaw,

Have you discovered Maxine Kumin yet?

I think you might find her contemporary voice worth listening to, although it hardly compares with the sublime lyricism of Wallace Stevens.

"Purgatory" may be her best known or most popular piece, and especially pertinent to this thread, I should think. I quote it here for your amusement:


And suppose the darlings get to Mantua,
suppose they cheat the crypt, what next? Begin
with him, unshaven. Though not, I grant you, a
displeasing cockerel, there's egg yolk on his chin.
His seedy robe's aflap, he's got the rheum.
Poor dear, the cooking lard has smoked her eye.
Another Montague is in the womb
although the first babe's bottom's not yet dry.
She scrolls a weekly letter to her Nurse
who dares to send a smock through Balthasar,
and once a month, his father posts a purse.
News from Verona? Always news of war.
Such sour years it takes to right this wrong!
The fifth act runs unconscionably long.

~ Maxine Kumin

Ms. Kumin is an unconscionably clever woman, wouldn't you agree?



Anonymous said...


Sorry to disappoint you, but at present I have no library at all worthy of the name.

Having had Fuchs Corneal Dystrophy in both eyes, my vision, even after corneal transplant surgery, is so limited I can't drive long distances anymore, and haven't been able to read traditional print material with any degree of comfort for more than ten years.

I once had a genuine library -- an entire room set aside for the storage and reading of books with floor-to-ceiling bookcases and raised-panel cabinetry at each end. It was probably just the sort of thing you envisioned. That was a great old house, built c. 1830, which I had the ecstasy and the agony of restoring over a ten-year period.

When I sold that house after enjoying it for 23 eventful years, and moved to my present location, I got rid of most of my books. Had to. There was no choice.

No, I do most of my reading -- and listening -- right here on the computer. YouTube may be a thoroughly mixed blessing, but it has turned out to be a magnificent resource for classical music buffs. I enjoy NPR's classical music on my car radio, and still go to the Opera and occasional concerts, if someone really great hits town.

Having started my listening career when stacked 78's were in vogue, I'm not particularly enamored with all the advances in stereo and other more sophisticated listening devices. I don't feel I'm missing all that much. True enjoyment of great music is more mental and spiritual than physical.

I grew up in and around New York City, and had access to The Best for many years, so all those great memories remain, and sustain.

When the memory goes, it's a signal that Departure Time is imminent -- or should be.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Best to you,


Anonymous said...

A sluggish brood mare overweight
Can't admit she resents her sad fate:
Bellies bloat and boobs droop
As babes squall and make poop.
No wonder she's rude and irate!

~ Anne Animus

Submitted by FreeThinke

KP said...

Thanks for your comments guys. I have a nice vinyl collection that starts in the early 60s and runs through the early 80s. Little bit of everything from Steve Miller, CSNY, Les McCann, Montrose, Otis Redding, Marvin Gaye, Mahattan Transfer, Supertramp, Mangione, old Fleetwood Mac likle Bare Trees, Tommy Bolin, Al Green, Cars, Greg Allman, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and plenty of Classical recodings. I am new to country western and that is all digitalized.

I wish I had started collecting books when I was a kid instead basball cards. I don't have the room or the number of books for the kind of collection FT once had, but think that would be a cool.

The film collection is very interesting!

Anonymous said...

Ah, now you've wandered into the realm of predestination and all of that jazz that should have died out with the Puritans (or was it the Calvinists?).

God doesn't decide when we die. It's all random. Do you think God decided that Treyvon Martin should be shot? Or did God decide that the BTK Killer was to go on a serial killing spree?

Please, tell me where my logic falters? God did not create everything. God did not create me, he didn't create you. He didn't create this computer I'm using to point out how ridiculous and archaic your thinking is.

Sure, we can sit here and speculate that there is a God who created existence, but that's about as much as logic can tell us.

But once again, instead of engaging me on a real level, you simply discount me as just another misinformed ignoramus.

There's no ego behind anything I'm saying. All I'm saying is your logic is beyond flawed. Here's an example. Thomas Edison created the light bulb. Does that mean he's also the creator of LED technology? Well, you know the answer to that is no. Sure, Edison's creation was the precursor to LED technology, but he himself certainly did not create it.

So, God may be the precursor to my childrens' existence, but he certainly did not create them.

How do I know this? Because that's why there's a process called reproduction. Life is not created through magic and gorilla dust. It's created through a natural process. By your silly, faulted logic, Henry Bessemer created every freaking skyscraper in existence, and from the grave he is therefore entitled to destroy them all, being their creator that is.

And as for God deciding when we die, God is just, yes? God also apparently imparted to you (somehow) that killing is not just, yes? So why would a just God kill us? Where is the justice in innocent children dying of starvation? What kind of just, loving God would do that? Spoiler alert: He wouldn't; you're just wrong.

And remember, killing is making a choice.

Finntann said...

I can't remember who said it, might have been D.T Suzuki, but:

The more the talk of God, the less both the speaker and listener know.


Anonymous said...

That would depend on who's doing the talking, Finntann -- but I know whatcha mean. ;-)

~ FT

Teresa said...

Here is a quote for the open minded:

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

G.K. Chesterton

Teresa said...


"I just don't happen to agree, nor do I allow theocratic beliefs to guide my life and existence."

What a shame. So how do you decide what is moral and immoral? Is it based on man's law? Or on a feeling?

First I will say that I believe Christ has the ability to save all people but I believe with evidence from Early Church Fathers that Christ founded the Catholic Church and belonging to that Church is the best way to enter the kingdom of heaven. But Catholics must follow the Magisterium and not dissent from Church teaching. People must either choose to live accordance with God's law or when they fail to do so they must repent. The Early Church Fathers writings are evidence enough for which doctrine to follow.

With free will comes responsibility and the need to respect God's law. Ever since Eve used her free will to eat the apple from the Forbidden Tree all of humanity has been subject to original sin. That is one example of the consequences of refusing to the Lord's will. Free will does not mean we can decide what is truth and what is not. Truth is truth. And biology supports the truth that abortion murders an unborn baby.

Anonymous said...


Apparently, you are comfortable living within a narrowly circumscribed, hermitically sealed system of values, thought and belief. Thats fine -- for you -- and other doctrinaire adherents of the Roman Catholic faith. I would never deny your right to choose that path, if in fact you have freely chosen it and not been merely conditioned by a doctrinaire upbringing to accept these ideas blindly without full comprehension of their ramifications.

I am profoundly grateful, however, that I was raised in a Protestant household with a broader understanding of what life might mean, and what our place might be in it.

What I fear and resent in you -- and others like you -- is your assumption of a comprehensive knowledge of The Truth of Being and of your own ultimate and absolute rectitude.

As I said above, there is a great deal more to living a rewarding and fulfilled existence than learning and following a list of rules in order to avoid punishment.

Guilt, shame, humiliation coupled with arrogant self-righteousness is a mighty poor prescription for pleasing God and making optimal use of His blessed Gift of Life.

Your rude, hate-filled, scathingly denunciatory approach to communication with those who do not see things just your way is ample proof of warpage in your own character and of possible mental illness as well.

If I were you, I'd spend much time in my "closet" praying for a spirit blest with Humility, and a greater capacity for the exercise of Charity, Forbearance, Meekness and Tolerance.



Teresa said...

Free Thinke

You did see that I erased two postings? I did that because I realized that I was over the top in my Monday morning crankiness.

I would love to know why you assert that anyone who believes differently than you is intolerant and has a mental disorder? So because I believe in The Truth and you reject it I have a mental disorder? Because I disagree with your opinions you claim I am intolerant.

Definition of intolerant -
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

Sounds like you epitomize the essence of intolerance.

I can tolerate differences in opinions and even differing religious beliefs, as well as those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background but what I cannot tolerate or approve of is the perversion of Truth, turning opinions into fact.

Sorry but I cannot merely believe that it is okay to kill an unborn child all for the sake of privacy, and I cannot believe in homosexual marriage for the sake of equality and fairness when the facts show that homosexual couples and heterosexuals are not equal.

Should homosexuals have certain rights? Yes. Like the right to visit their partner in the hospital, health insurance via partner, and the right to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. Just because I believe in a higher standard of morals than you I am called a bigot, intolerant, and closed-minded by you. You are the epitome of intolerance and closed-mindedness as well as display to a T that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Kevin T. Rice said...


I want to question a possible implication of one of your statements to Teresa:

" I would never deny your right to choose that path, if in fact you have freely chosen it and not been merely conditioned by a doctrinaire upbringing to accept these ideas blindly without full comprehension of their ramifications."

That "IF" is a bit troubling. That suggests to me that if you felt that if Teresa was raised and educated as a Catholic from infancy and accepted the conditioning(?) and doctrines her "doctrinaire(?) upbringing" without questioning, to a degree that YOU would consider to be sufficient or "full", some one or more of "the ramifications", that you might wish to "deny" her "right to choose that path"? If so, what "ramifications" are you talking about? What makes them important enough for their Less-Than-"Full" consideration (in your judgement) to serve as a condition for your denial of someone who disagrees with you his or her right to do so?

Anonymous said...

Kevin, as a private citizen, I'm in no position to deny anyone anything, so your question is moot.

It's difficult to express these things with perfect clarity. No matter how carefully one tries to phrase his observations and opinions it will always be possible for others to misinterpret or see twist words to make them sound entirely different from their original intent.

Teresa, just admitted she has "erased the evidence" that supported my critical opinion, because she realized her comments sounded too extreme. I do not read the threads over and over, so I was unaware that she had in effect retracted some of her remarks.

In a way I'm sorry she did, because by effectively destroying the evidence, instead of apologizing to me and others for her hostile accusatory tone, she may have made ME look like the son-of-a-bitch in the game to those who've come late to the party.

I have a cousin brought up a Roman Catholic whose attitudes are nearly congruent with those of Teresa. The atmosphere he has created around himself is like perpetual winter -- frigid, austere, crippling, withered and threatening.

His first wife, who was a very dear friend of mine, found him so hard to live with she committed suicide, because she knew it was the only way she'd ever be able to get away from him. A terrible tragedy to be sure.

He blames her for what happened -- and has never taken a scintilla of responsibility for the part he played in the drama to this very day -- 37 years after he came home from work one day to find her in the garage behind the wheel of her car dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. The vehicle was still chugging away belching toxic fumes by the time he arrived home. Fortunately, she had taken the six-month-old boy she never wanted to have, who was the product of marital rape, to his grandmother on some pretext before she made her escape.

I still talk to my cousin, and have been friendly with his second wife. We are -- after all - family. However, not once in our lives have I ever been able to have an honest in-depth conversation with him on any topic of significance. He's a rigid -- and as cold -- as an iron rod -- and about as much fun as watching water freeze on a drizzly gray day.

Don't get me wrong. I have known plenty of Catholics -- including several priests and nuns -- who live joyously, and have devoted themselves to healing broken hearts, lifting crushed spirits, and encouraging whatever good may be seen in others. Every one of them is rollicking good sport who knows how to have a good time while putting others at their ease.

The frigid, furious fundamentalists who vainly imagine they know "The Truth," and have, therefore the right to censor, censure and pass judgment on others are a dispiriting, debilitating, deranged discredit to the faith.

What Teresa is wont to call her "crankiness" I see as pathological.

But, who knows, in real life she may be a perfect darling -- just like me. ;-)

~ FreeThinke

Teresa said...

Free Thinke

The combination of my feeling attacked by at least one person and being disrespected because I believe in a certain way and my 6am morning crankiness before going to work on Monday morning was a bad combination which spurred by angry or fiery response. In fact most of my one response minus one sentence I believe was justified because of how badly I was being treated by one or two folks here. The other may have been an okay response in its general content if I hadn't displayed anger in some of my words and tone. I did not delete the comments to make you look like a "son-of-a-bitch" and the comments should still be in your inbox of your email so if anyone calls you an SOB they'll have me to answer to.

Yes, misinterpretations can occur when writing, or other people read your writing.

I am very passionate about my beliefs and while I cannot fathom how any person would be okay with abortion, gay marriage, or forcing Catholic people to violate their consciences by a State using coercion or believe in the false claims that the GOP is waging a war on women I do believe every person has a right to their opinions even if I do believe that they have lost their way. Every person has a right to deny truth. But I choose to live by truths that have been around for centuries and just because doctrine has been around for a long time doesn't mean it is intolerant or outdated.

I am sorry to hear about your cousin and his wife. I don't know the situation so I am not going to judge your cousin or say he caused his wife's suicide. There was probably quite a few reasons or issues behind why she committed suicide. It is always sad when a person feels the only option is to end their own life.

Believe it or not I have struggled quite a bit with the Church, faith, and the powerful within the Church or a Catholic university. I wasn't molested by a priest but lets just say I could believe the reports of the priest sex abuse cover up when I heard the news. I came out a stronger person for dealing with some major stuff while at a Catholic university.


Anonymous said...


I'd much rather love you than dislike you, believe me. I'm sorry I "responded in kind" when I felt offended by your dour Monday morning tone. I too was not fully awake when I took off like a rocket. I should have responded more soberly and more considerately. I hope you will forgive me.

I agree with you completely about resisting government's aggressive insistence that church-related entities violate the dictates of their conscience to accommodate government's stupid, often-evil One-Size-Fits-All mentality.

I certainly respect your ability to rise above what-may-have-been aberrant or inappropriate behavior on the part of a priest, and not let it spoil your relationship either with your church or with almighty God.

I fervently believe in religious freedom for all forms and variations of Christianity, and even for atheists and agnostics. I admit to having grave doubts about the wisdom of encouraging Oriental, African and Middle Eastern and Caribbean pagan religious practices to establish themselves in our midst and gain influence over public policy.

Various sects and branches of Christianity have a hard enough time as it is getting along with one another without adding anomalous, militantly anti-Christian elements into the mix.

The story about my cousin and his first wife is, as you guessed, complicated. It may have sounded as hough I don't are for my cousin. That's untrue. I just feel terribly frustrated that I could never be frank with him about many things I believe and love without alienating him and incurring his wrath and stern disapproval.

He's a very lonely person. I believe it's the excessive pride he takes in his righteous zeal that alienates him from his family and most members of his community. He doesn't know the meaning of the words "tact," "diplomacy," or "compromise," and it has hurt him badly in his personal relationships, and in his professional life as well.

As Our Savior said on the Cross, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

I believe we should follow His example and extend the same unselfish courtesy and forbearance with each other that He did with His tormentors.

In many ways ALL of us are blind about many things. I feel it would be best always to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously I'm not always very good at being true to my beliefs. Like you it's very difficult for me to understand why others don't see certain things as I do.

Well, I certainly don't know it all -- or even very much, so my feelings may no be justified.

I'm sorry I lost my temper with you. I hope we may be better friends in future. In truth we share many of the same political convictions, and even though I call myself "FreeThinke" I am, indeed, a Christian.

Take care.

~ FT

Teresa said...

Free Thinke

I am sorry for losing my cool and hope that you will also forgive me.

I also hope that we can be better friends in the future.


Anonymous said...

Good morning, Teresa,

Thank you. I look forward to knowing you better and learning to appreciate who you really are.

Blogging has a way of bringing out the worst in too many of us -- probably because of the anonymity factor. I say many things here I would never dream of saying in "polite society."

In many ways I long for the kind of small-town America that still existed when I was young. Everyone knew each, had to face each other -- at town meetings, at church, in school, and in the stores, etc. You took out a mortgage with your local bank back then, bought and sold property through a realtor everyone had known for years, had a nice local hospital where your parents and their friends volunteered.

Today, we are too far removed from one another. The personal element is all-but-lost in our most important transactions. We forget, sometimes, that those we communicate with at long distance are people just like us.

Anyway, though we may still disagree from time to time, I'm sure we may become friends in the future.

Take care,

~ FT

Kevin T. Rice said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin T. Rice said...

"Kevin, as a private citizen, I'm in no position to deny anyone anything, so your question is moot."

That answer is every bit as troubling as the statement that provoked the question and reveals what it seeks to conceal. Therefore it is obviously not moot, your lack of political power (and recent softening toward Teresa) notwithstanding. We are engaged in dialogue here and it is in the interest of those exchanging words and ideas with you to know that if you had the power to suppress Catholics you consider too "rigid", you might consider doing so. It presents a more balanced picture of you than your chosen handle would suggest.

FreeThinke said...

It's funny, Kevin. I fully recognize that the suppression of tyrannical impulses in others would, itself, be tyrannical -- one of the many paradoxes that comprise the very nature of Existence.

I have always disliked bullies and overbearing personalities in general. I hate to see people making others feel uncomfortable, unhappy, fearful, crippled by doubt, shame and anxiety when it may not be strictly warranted.

I have explained my views in rather too much detail already, so I'll spare you further explication.

I responded very negatively to a TONE I perceived in Teresa's earlier commentary. I have already apologized for mistaking that specific tone for the true Teresa. I was most gratified when she admitted she had gone farther than she really wanted to, and accepted that as sufficient apology.

Am I correct in thinking that you are Teresa's husband? I couldn't help but notice she mentioned having a husband named Kevin. I hope I was correct in putting two and two together?

I find it both amusing -- and not a little frightening -- to see how easy it is for people to misunderstand one another. I had to chuckle at being called a liberal, since I am -- and always have been -- one of a very small number of what-are-now-called "Paleo-Conservatives."

I'm certain, however, that like the Founding Fathers I have no interest in micro-managing the personal behavior of others as long as they are able to perform well at work and maintain financial and emotional independence.

The cousin I have discussed at some length is a great believer in Authoritarianism. I've never been able to get him to understand that fear-based, shame-based, guilt-based obedience to Authority without understanding is just bad in a Theocracy as it is in a Socialist Workers Paradise. Both are the same dreadful creature in different robes.

I've always felt the adage should read:

The love of POWER is the root of all evil.

I'm very much in favor of discipline and giving guidance according to one's lights, but discipline must be SELF-DISCIPLINE before it as any real value.

Slavery -- even if it be bondage to a worthy doctrine or ideology -- is still slavery. Or so I believe.

~ FreeThinke

Kevin T. Rice said...


Yes, Teresa is my beautiful wife. I told Teresa when she posted her earlier comments that I thought they were needlessly harsh, but she listened the way spouses typically listen to spouses.

I like your re-write of the adage about the love of money (it comes from scripture, btw). I think that the love of money is already the love of a certain kind of power because that is all that money is - the power to acquire the goods and services offered in freedom by others through a common medium of value exchange.

You were generous enough to make it clear where you are coming from, so I will respond in kind. I have a different perspective on tyranny and slavery, and I will share it here because I can bring it back to the topic thread, and I shall do so before the closing of this comment.

Putting it as simply and briefly as I can, tyranny is using coercion to impose one's will on one or more others who should normatively be free of such coercive influence. Slavery is the unnatural and unjust subjugation of a person to another person. Persons should, by nature, be sui juris to the degree nature allows. Therefore, apart from the natural relations of parent and child, only heinous criminal behavior or victory in a just war should justly bring about the subjugation of one person to another.

I do not believe the acceptance of the truth as such is slavey. Clinging to the truth is not slavery but a necessary (though not in itself sufficient) condition of freedom. When it comes to abortion, the truth is out there somewhere. The logical space is filled up. There is no excluded middle. Some doctrine being promoted out there by its advocates is true, and its contrary is false. The clinging to that doctrine - the true one - is not slavery, and the vigorous rhetorical defense of it is not tyranny, nor is it the expression of a tyrannical impulse. Tyranny is about the arbitrary will of a tyrant and is distinct from the use of lawful means to bring about conformity to justice and/or objective truth.

Either the child in the womb is a living human being or she is not. There is a doctrine that says she is, and one that denies that. One of these doctrines is true. The other is false.

Either the child in the womb is a person - a being with rights that every other person including her mother must, in moral truth if not in current legal fact, respect, or she is not. There is no logical middle ground to be found between these positions.

IF the child is a human being


IF being a person is of the very nature of human beings, rather than being a state of development or an artificial socially conferred status subject to government approval


the child in the womb has the right to live.

If the child in the womb is not a human being, or if he or she is human in a trivial sense but not a person, then the child in the womb is not a bearer of rights, and has no right to life. At the point, the right of the woman, as a person, to her bodily autonomy, is the only morally relevant consideration.

So it depends on the metaphysical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus - the objective truth about him or her.

If the baby is a human person, demanding that others respect her right to live is not tyrannical, no matter how loudly and harshly one may choose to voice that demand. Those who deny her that right are the ones supporting tyranny and slavery.