Pro-Choice and Pro-Life

Let me state, at the outset, that I am pro-choice.

We human beings share an inherent right to exercise dominion over our bodies, and to make choices derived of this right. In America we impose limits on this right of bodily dominion. We have laws prohibiting suicide, prohibiting the use of illicit drugs, and controlling other means of ingestion such as smoking and drinking alcohol. We entrust parents to exercise benevolent dominion over the bodies of their young children; we allow the state considerable dominion over those in our armed forces; and we incarcerate criminals, reserving the death penalty for those who commit the most heinous of crimes. Also in America, we allow extreme violence, even dismemberment, against the body of a human being that has yet to be born and thus remains inside the body of its mother.

Let me also state, for the record, that I am pro-life.

The right to life is the most basic of human rights, a foundation upon which all others rest, and its infringement should occur only in the most extreme circumstances. Our society condones, for instance, application of the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes (as mentioned above), the taking of another life in self-defense, as well as the taking of life as an act of war. Each of these examples implies, indeed mandates, a level of compliance and lack of innocence on the part of the victim. In contrast, it must be recognized that taking the life of an unborn human being mandates the victim’s non-compliance and utter innocence.

Efforts to infringe upon a person’s life or bodily dominion must be approached with great caution and reason. The central issue regarding abortion, then, is really one of addressing how society should balance these two rights – bodily dominion and sanctity of life – which appear, at times, to conflict.

In the case of an unborn child, innocent life is in the balance, and a proper course manifest.


America … Land of the Free?


In the nineteen-eighties, it was hard for many Americans to imagine a more inflammatory or controversial form of expression than to burn or otherwise publicly denigrate the American flag. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, and clearly established, a constitutional right to do so. Such offensive forms of expression must be protected, the reasoning went, despite the sensibilities of those who cherish America’s flag and consider its denigration pure and shameless effrontery. Otherwise – and this is key – America would cease to exist as the “land of the free.”

Nowadays, we have Yale and Mizzou, twin lands of collegiate repression, where student radicals cry foul over the purported offenses of others while they brazenly brandish an offensiveness of their own. We have Democrat legislators who want to criminalize challenges to the liberal orthodoxy on ‘climate change.’ And we have a President of the United States who refuses to take the threat of ISIS seriously, while he has politicized everything from the IRS to the Justice Department to America’s national security.

If the U.S. Constitution demands tolerance for denigrating America’s flag, or for sacrilege against Jesus Christ, does it not also require tolerance of a cartoonist who would satirize the Prophet of Islam? Can Americans  practice such tolerance — free of government intervention or terrorist reprisal?

If Americans lose their freedom to express themselves, then America as we’ve known it will cease to exist, and become just another U.N. member state. At some point, the world would miss us.

You Want Liberal Bias? … I’ll Give You Liberal Bias!


President Obama looked like a clueless rube earlier this week, when he claimed that mass shootings (such as occur in the U.S. all too frequently), simply do not occur in other countries. He said this during a press conference in Paris, of all places, where a horrific mass shooting had occurred only days earlier.

You may have missed the liberal media (a.k.a. ‘mainstream media’) outrage over Mr. Obama’s blatantly incongruous comment … because there wasn’t any. They save their outrage for Republicans, such as Donald Trump, when he claims there were celebrations prompted by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

And the liberal media scoff at the notion of their own liberal bias, telling us the perception of such bias is merely a matter of one’s perspective. So, is it just my perspective? Or is anyone else weary of liberal journalists pretending they aren’t liberals who show favoritism toward other liberals?

And while we’re on the subject, is anyone else sick and tired of late-night comedians who assume that because they make us laugh, we agree with their left-wing politics? Of Bill Maher stacking his studio audience with those who applaud hurtful, bigoted, left-wing propaganda? Of seeing conservative politicians regularly maligned in ‘mainstream’ TV interviews, while liberal politicians are not subjected to such treatment?

Of rock stars lecturing us from their stages about political issues, as though we really care what self-absorbed, overpaid singers and guitarists have to say about politics? Of seeing our tax dollars fund National Public Radio’s relentless parade of left-wing orthodoxy? Of a popular culture dominated overwhelmingly by those who support bigger government, higher taxes and less liberty, and who exhibit little to no tolerance for opposing points of view?

Or of conservative politicians who refuse to challenge liberal journalists, comedians, movie stars, rock stars and radio hosts on what, from my perspective, are blatant liberal biases. Conservatives do risk upsetting those who are already out to destroy them. Given the circumstances, a risk worth taking.