Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Bernie Babies

I happened upon a Q & A with Bernie Sanders at Liberty University. In the video he takes the untenable position that disallowing mothers to kill their preborn children is to intrude upon women.

Thankfully, the person who posted the exchange was kind enough to dialogue with me.

Her words are bold and italicized.


“The law of the land says that the government does not have the right to force women to carry their child(ren) to term and give birth to the child(ren). That is a reality.”

How could government "force" a mother to carry her baby? Does government coerce women to become pregnant? Isn't a mother carrying her child due to a "force" of nature—the law of cause and effect, if you will?

The notion that "If moms cannot legally kill their pre or partially born babies, then government is forcing them to have children," is tortured logic, in my mind.

To disallow moms to murder their babies is not tantamount to forcing women to have children.

Yes, “abortion upon demand” is the law of the land. However, please know: What is legal is not at all the same thing as what is moral.

“It is easy for people to tell women that they should have a child that they are not prepared to have, without being willing to truly help that woman and her child beyond that. . . . it is often the same crowd who is screaming that women must keep their children that then bitch about them being a burden on the system and utilizing the very assistance that enabled them to choose life for their child.”

It’s true that many conservatives who oppose abortion also oppose cradle to grave welfare. You think this is an inconsistency on their part. (I don't think it is. "Pro-life" doesn’t mean "pro-welfare.")

But what of the blatant inconsistency within the progressive pro-abortion position?

A) If a baby girl has not fully traversed her mother's birth canal we have a moral obligation to ensure that she may be killed by her mom.

B) If the same baby girl has fully traversed her mother's birth canal we have a moral obligation to ensure that she is well cared for by society.

What sort of twisted logic is this? Is there some kind of essential transformation in the baby girl once she traverses the birth canal? Is the birth canal some kind of magical portal?

In other words, how can it be moral to kill the baby girl but immoral to not care for her—just because she's had a change in "geography"?

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Land Of The Free?

Kim Davis. She’s being called herohypocritemartyrhereticpetty local tyrant. (And this only includes what Christians are saying!) Needless to say, she’s the flash point of a particular battle in the unceasing culture war ravaging America.

Naturally, folks view her struggle through various lenses. Some (Davis herself) envision this as a religious liberty issue. Others frame it as an example of judicial tyranny. Relatedly, some see it as a matter of States’ rights. And then there are those who view it through a civil rights prism.

I suppose each of these perspectives has at least a modicum of applicability.

But I would like to consider it from a different angle; perhaps observe it in the light of a social justice issue of which relatively few speak.

Let me begin with a question. Agree or disagree with Davis: Why should she be locked behind bars?

The knee-jerk reaction from those who oppose her—for whatever reason—is, “Well, she should go to jail because she broke the law!

It’s debatable whether she’s broken the law. She’s certainly never been charged with any crime. But don’t get sidetracked…

I want to know why she should be caged like an animal for refusing to issue marriage licenses.

Why do we so quickly and casually cage non-violent human beings?

Friends, the “Land of the Free” has the largest prison population in the world. We put more citizens behind bars than China or Russia or Iran. According to various reports, the U.S. has only about 5% of the world’s population but a whopping 25% of the world’s prisoners. In fact, since 1970, our prison population has risen 700%.

Now why is this?

I’m sure there are a number of factors. But I think a primary impetus for increased incarceration is MONEY.

You see, caging human beings is big business. Many prisons are privately owned.

Between 2000 and 2010 the number of inmates serving sentences in private prisons doubled. Today, the $5 billion industry houses close to 20 percent of federal prisoners and about 7 percent of state prisoners . . .

Privately owned prisons are a 5 billion dollar industry. Let that sink in. 

Kim Davis should never have been caged. I’m thinking the same is true for lots of others.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Why Do Cops Have Guns?

Below is a friendly Facebook conversation (a most rare phenomenon!) I had with a social justice warrior. His words are bold and italicized.


“Most cops need their guns taken away. No more chasing. No more shooting. This does not make society safer.”

Most cops? This is wildly inaccurate. Study after study disputes your thesis. In fact, only around 5 percent of police officers will ever fire their weapons at a human being. (See here, here, here, and here.)

“If they hardly ever use guns, then most of them don't need guns. Point proven.”

Point proven? (You must have a different understanding of the word "proven" than most us.)

You seem to think that the purpose for policemen carrying guns is to shoot people. But why think this? Did it ever occur to you that police officers carry guns primarily as tools of deterrence?

Using your silly logic we should remove all oxygen masks and flotation devices from airplanes because "they are hardly ever used."

“The deterrence you speak of is a common and yet unprovable assumption.

Here you go again with the concept of “proof.”

Outside of mathematics “proof” is an awfully high (some would argue unreachable) standard. But the idea that armed police officers are a deterrent to crime seems to me more than mere “assumption.” I think it’s a very logical, reasonable idea.

“It is just as probable that the presence of guns leads to more fleeing and thus more shootings.”

Why should one think this is “just as probable”?

What is more likely: that people flee police because they don’t want to be arrested or because they think they can outrun bullets? It seems much more probable to me that folks think “If I stay put I’ll go to jail,” than “If I stay put I’ll be riddled with bullets.”

“Your links prove . . . that the vast majority of police guns are unused and unnecessary.

No. The stats prove no such thing.

As my analogy of the oxygen masks and flotation devices demonstrates: “unused” is not at all the same thing as “unnecessary.”

Once again, you’re reading into the stats what isn’t there. You're assuming (with no evidence) that unused guns are not a deterrent. 

Your desire to disarm police puts me in mind of Chesterton's famous words, "Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask yourself, 'Why was it put there in the first place?'"