How Red Herrings Kill Our Children

For the sake of the children, stop with the idiocy! No, I’m not kidding–think of the children! All of this nonsense regarding gun control legislation, the supposedly inconsistent pro-life ethic, and the maligning of self-defense would be laughable were it not so damn pertinent and morbid.

The Error

First off, the charge that the anti-abortion folks are inconsistent in their supposed lack of outrage of murder by guns is nonsensical. Why? Well, foremost, because the corollary to banning guns in order to prevent gun-homicide is to ban the instruments of medicine. The instruments are not THE problem.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. The gun may not be THE problem, but the gun is a lynch pin. Removing the gun from the equation doesn’t solve the existence of suicidal-homicidal sociopaths, but it takes away their capacity for mass murder. (You were thinking that, right?) And you are right. You’d also be right to assert that guns are not as beneficial to society as the medical instruments utilized during infanticide. No argument from me on the validity of these ideas.

What I do object to is the infantile notion that gun control legislation to prevent the continued slaughter of already-born innocents is going to be remotely effective anytime in the next ten years. I’m not saying to not pursue it, but I am objecting to tackling one of the most contentious issues in American politics before doing something to protect our children in the immediate. That is as foolish and reckless as brandishing a handgun in a city park.

The Solution

When I was a student at the University of Cincinnati, I received frequent email notifications about local crime. One of the most frequent events was mugging. Late night, inebriated college kids walking alone make for easy targets. So, every few days, so it seemed, I would read about how a mugger, maybe three, would flash a gun (briefly remove it and then return it to his pocket) and demand some kid’s possessions. In every case, the victim gave up his/her things.

No, I’m not going to take issue with someone turning over her belongings under coercion; I’m not suggesting that they should have risked life or limb to save an cell phone or a laptop. However, I would like to praise the single individual whose response was to pull pepper spray from her pocket and use it on her mugger. That girl got away safely, and the jackass who tried to harm her (caught or not) was in a world of hurt.

Perhaps my point is not obvious, so I’ll state it outright. In the immediate, providing non-lethal force to be used as a defensive mechanism is the best course of action. And I am specifically recommending instruments that temporarily blind assailants. Save for live ammunition, there is not a more effective way to neutralize gun-wielding murderers than to blind them.

The Way Forward

So, why is the conversation not about effective, immediate means to deter this violence? Seriously, why? Realistically, even if a ban on all guns (outside of law enforcement and private security) occurred tomorrow, when would enough guns be confiscated to be reasonably confident that events like those at Sandy Hook would never happen again? Ten years? Fifteen years? Even then, you’d never be able to prevent a cop of member of the armed forces from going off the deep end (and taking a few lives with him)–something that has happened more than once in the last few years.

In the meantime, murderous rampages continue. As for me and my house, we will not waste our breath. First, give some hope of survival for when the rampages occur. Second, address the fact that mental health issues are practically ignored by the government. They are the most stigmatized and disenfranchised people in our world, and services to treat them (without pocketfuls of cash) are few and far between. Finally, only after these more immediate concerns have been addressed, then turn to gun regulations.

True religion (in the 21st Century) before God the Father is this: to care for the mentally ill and fetuses in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world (staining includes following red herrings and acting like an idiot).

BroChoice Defines a People

I’m a fan of my opponents being honest, brutally honest, which is exactly why I was overjoyed, yet equally disgusted, by the new BroChoice campaign.  Define “BroChoice”?  Sure.  BroChoice is the decision to advocate for easy and cheap antepartum infanticide for the express reason that one believes women are more likely to be promiscuous.  That begs the obvious question, with an equally obvious answer, “Who wants more promiscuous women?”  Douchebags who act and think as though women exist primarily to bring them to climax.  Watch:

Oddly enough, BroChoice is kinda a double entendre, atleast in my mind.  First, by being BroChoice, you are ‘choosing your bros,’ that is prioritizing your male acquaintances’ desire for unmitigated sexual satisfaction.  Second–and this is the heart-wrenching fact that the falsely self-identified ‘pro-women’ abortionists would very much like to keep quiet–sex-selective abortions are fairly common, and, by far, innocent little girls are aborted more than little boys.  So, BroChoice also promotes the value of male life over and above female life in another way.  No matter how you look at it, being BroChoice, or whatever other name one wants to give to advocating the bloodshed of babies, means working to make sure women are around as instruments of orgasm–or, in the words of Sarah Silverman, “to blow you.”

Would an Abortion Save a Life?

Over at Vimeo, somebody claimed:

“This is what romney/ryan would have given us:
* Heartbreaking: “The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed that a woman in the midst of a miscarriage was refused an abortion and died in an Irish hospital after suffering from blood poisoning.”

To which a pro-life person ought to reply:

Foremost: yes, that is heartbreaking and awful.

First, Romney didn’t receive my vote, and I believe he should’ve received 0 votes.
Second, your idea is pure speculation, undeniably, and totally unlikely.

There is nothing morally illicit about taking necessary medical action to save the life of a pregnant woman that endangers the life of her unborn child. Direct abortion and the incidental, unintended killing of an unborn baby are two vastly different things, and the latter is permissible.

Did you know that to be the teaching of the Catholic Church?

We Shouldn’t Sound Like Christians

If you think abortion isn’t murder because a fetus isn’t a person, then no man has ever fathered a child.

Look at an Embryology textbook, genius!


You know what the difference is between a fetus and a child, don’t you?
Location! (10 seconds before birth, you were a fetus.)

If a fetus isn’t a person because of its location, where do I need to put you to make you non-human?


We speak to children in a way that makes sense to them.  Why wouldn’t we speak to pro-abort folks in a way that makes sense to them?

We should sound like intelligent human beings who know with scientific certainty what it is we’re talking about.

Consumerism and the Consequences of IVF

In my experience, most people have never considered the range of consequences of IVF (in vitro fertilization).  For this reason, many who are aware of the Catholic Church’s moral opposition to IVF find the objection to be strange, and, almost as a consequence, decide that it must be an unjust objection.  So, here’s the one line, if nothing else, people ought to remember: The foremost reason why IVF is immoral is that it invariably leads to the conception of numerous lives who will be killed.  Each instance of IVF always involves the fertilization of many eggs.  All but a few of those resultant human lives–‘human’ by virtue of their DNA and ‘lives’ because they satisfy the biological definition–will be terminated.

It’s also worth noting that many people who receive IVF “treatments” conceive multiple children and then choose to destroy a baby or two because the couple only wanted a single child.  This means that abortion is often a result of IVF, and, as if it wasn’t already apparent, human lives are treated as a commodity.  Slavery, which does the same, atleast entails life.–Yes, I am saying that every person with proper mental competency who deliberately participates in abortions is doing something worse, far worse, than enslaving people.

Given all of that, here are a few facts worth considering, regardless of one’s recognition of the inherent evil of IVF [emphasis my own]:

An Australian study, published in the journal, Fertility and Sterility found that women who went through the IVF procedure around their 24th birthday were found to have a 56% greater chance of developing breast cancer than those in the same age group who went through treatments without IVF.

The findings were based on data from 21,025 women between the ages of 20 and 40 who went through fertility treatment at the hospitals of Western Australia between 1983 and 2002.

These are only the latest of many studies that have revealed dangers involved with ART. “Assisted conception carries a slightly increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes,” said a press release published early June by England’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

The statement noted that in developed countries, up to 4% of all children are born after ART.

The use of ART is often associated with multiple babies, but the RCOG warned “even singleton pregnancies carry a heightened risk of hypertensive disease, diabetes, prematurity, low birth weight and a higher perinatal mortality even after taking into account age, parity or fetal sex.

“In addition, recent studies have shown a link between children born from ART and increased congenital malformation rates,” the press release added.

And that’s just the beginning; there’s more (via ZENIT).