Tag: abortion

Without Question: The Beginning of Human Life

Roger Mitchell7 Comments

This is a reprint of an article I posted in 2019 on a blog which was dedicated exclusively to the abortion issue. It has been closed and is no longer available, although I have all the articles saved. I am considering restarting this as a Substack in its own right.

Within the abortion debate, one of the most pervasive tactics of the pro-abortion side has been to paint the unborn child in a dehumanizing manner. Consequently, the unborn child became a fetus [i], the embryo became a clump of cells, protoplasm, uterine content, etc. In addition, groups such as Planned Parenthood use the technology of ultrasound, not to show women a true picture of their unborn baby, but to deceive [ii] them into proceeding with a planned abortion. Deception and dissembling have been hallmarks of the abortion lobby from the very beginning. In fact, their tactics resemble those of a State or society which seeks to “dehumanize” its enemies [iii], i.e., especially in the time prior to and amid a war, political conflict, or social reconstruction [iv].

This has led to a considerable amount of confusion regarding the humanity of the unborn embryo or fetus. When does human life start? Is the fetus a human being? If not, when does it become one? These questions are all separate from the ones concerning person-hood, which is not the thrust of this article. In fact, the question of the beginning of human life and the time that life attains person-hood are two separate questions and must be addressed by different methods. Person-hood is a matter of belief, opinion, persuasion, subjectivity, etc., and is susceptible to a wide variety of influences—religious, philosophical, social, financial, etc.

There is only one qualified discipline which can state emphatically (and has hard evidence to back it up) when a new human life begins—embryonic science. This is strictly a scientific matter and science has clearly stated what so many believe or feel to be true.

“…scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte, usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.” –Dianne M. Irving, M.A., Ph.D [v]

In other words, what Dr. Irving has said is that when a sperm cell and an egg cell fuse (conception), a new, unique, individual human being has begun. The sperm and the egg were individual human cells before the fusion, after that, they are something completely different—a live human being which had never existed before. Of this, there can be no doubt. The life of every human begins at conception. This is unassailable, indisputable fact. [Ed. Note: The science is settled.]

Dr. Irving goes on to explain (and goes into intense detail) why a human being comes into existence at conception. She lists and destroys several myths which have been promoted over the years and decades concerning this issue and never equivocates from the main premise–that a human being comes to life at the moment of conception.

“The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin.”—Dianne M. Irving [vi]

From the moment of conception, a human being exists within the womb–zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus—right up to the point of the delivery as a newborn baby. At every stage of development, this is a live human being. Whether he is a person or not doesn’t matter. Whether she has rights or not is irrelevant. He is a human being. She is a human being. As such, abortion is a procedure which literally kills a human being. Abortion has probably killed hundreds of millions of human beings in the 20th century alone.

Every person who is alive today, every person who has ever lived, started out in exactly the same way—as a newly conceived zygote with all the genetic material necessary to become the persons we are today. We should be grateful that our mothers didn’t simply decide to throw us away.

[i] The term “fetus” generates a lot of heat on both sides of the aisle. The pro-abortionists use it almost exclusively and refuse to use the terms unborn baby or child for obvious reasons. The pro-lifers prefer “baby” or “child” and generally avoid using the term fetus, again for obvious reasons. Fetus, though, is simply a Latin word which can have many meanings, however, all of them are related to reproduction and refer to very young, immature offspring. It is medically correct and refers to the stage of human development in the womb from embryo (about 8 weeks) until birth. I do not generally make distinctions between fetus, baby, and child, but use the terms interchangeably.

[ii] https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-abortion-deceptive-ultrasound/

[iii] https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human

[iv] Nazi Germany, for instance, successfully used this tactic against the Jews. Today, political parties attempt to divide the electorate into what are basically enemy camps.

[v] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html  Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D (International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

[vi] Ibid. Section B, Fact 1.

An Abortion Argument: Does a Woman Own her Body?

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

[Note: I wrote this some years ago and published it on another blog which is no longer in service. I will be drawing articles from that occasionally and posting them here. R.M.]

One of the most widely used arguments to defend a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child is that she owns her own body and can do what she wants with it. No one has any authority to impose restrictions on her behavior, so long as she is not harming any other person.

It is not my intention to discuss the personhood of an unborn fetus in this article. Rather, I want to explore the moral and philosophical question of the ownership of the human body—irrespective of sex. Male or female is irrelevant. To whom do I belong? That is the question everyone must answer.

“…how can we defend the mother’s right to kill the fetus?

Simple. She owns her own body, and the unwanted fetus growing within it is in effect a trespasser or parasite. This may sound harsh, but when the property rights in question are thoroughly analyzed, it is the only possible conclusion that may be reached.”[i]—Walter Block and Roy Whitehead

If I was asked (I wasn’t) to paraphrase and rewrite the above quote, this is the way it would turn out.

“We can defend a woman’s (mothers don’t act that way) right to kill her unborn child because she owns her body and the unwanted fetus is a trespasser and a parasite. Dastardly things, anyway! Besides, property rights are sacrosanct[ii] so we can reach no other conclusion.”

All I can say about this manner of thinking is that it is abominable and despicable. When “property rights” are the only thing in question, then the end justifies the means and any moral rectitude simply flies out the window.

Who am I? Why am I here? What will happen to me when I die? These are questions which have vexed and perplexed philosophers since people started thinking about things other than how to get and keep their next meal. There are probably just about as many answers as there are philosophers. We ought to also be asking one other question: To whom or to what do I belong? This is a valid question and there are only two possible answers: we belong to ourselves or we belong to someone/something outside of and beyond ourselves.

If we conclude that a woman belongs to herself, then she also owns herself, every part of herself, including her body and everything in it, over which she exercises full and complete control. No one and nothing can dictate to her what she may or may not do with her body. If a woman owns her body, then there should be no restraints placed on her, so long as she does not initiate aggression against other people who also own their bodies[iii]. If this is true, then the whole argument about abortion is moot, null, void, and utterly useless, deserving to be scrapped. It is a waste of time, energy, and resources–if this is true!

But, is it? Or is there another way of looking at the question? Michael Rozeff puts it this way[iv].

” 3. Property is what belongs to you. It’s circular to say that a person belongs to himself or owns himself. You only seem to become property when you become a slave, partly or wholly, and belong to someone else. Even in that case, they have property in your body, in the product of your labor, but not in YOU. In other words, to resolve this problem of definition and starting point philosophically or religiously, we need to specify what a human being or person IS. What IS this “I”? What is the BEING that “I” am, and that you are? That BEING exists outside the domain of human notions of property. That’s my unprovable assumption or postulate about life and existence.”

I brought this up to make the point that no one owns themselves. No one owns their own body. No man, no woman, no exceptions. With nothing more than pure logic, I can make my case using a common libertarian argument.

You and your family live in a nice house on a piece of land which you own. You borrowed money to pay for it, scrimped and saved, did without, and worked side jobs to pay the mortgage, eventually receiving the deed free and clear. It is yours. At least that’s what you think.

One day, while in a discussion with your friend, he points out that you really don’t own the property, you only rent it. He explains that if you don’t pay the taxes which the county determines you should, you will find out within the space of a few years who the real owner is. You will be looking for another place to live and all the effort you have put into this property will accrue to someone else’s benefit.

You will lose your property if you don’t pay the declared property tax, but the fact of the matter is, you can live in the house and control the property, even profit from it, without (much) interference from the county–so long as you pay the tax! Libertarians everywhere understand this argument immediately.

In the case of a woman’s (or man’s) body, however, there will come a time when your “property” will be taken away from you. There will be no grace period, no time to pay the back taxes, plus costs, plus interest. There will be no extension. Begging, refusing to consent, getting angry, making deals (Daniel Webster[v], where are you?) will not help. As the rock band Kansas[vi] put it, “…all your money won’t another minute buy.” When the Grim Reaper crooks his finger, you will go, with or without warning. Willing or unwilling, it doesn’t matter. Off you go. You are going to die.

If we grasp the point that we don’t own our real estate because it CAN be taken away from us, then why shouldn’t we also understand that we don’t own our bodies because they WILL be taken away. In fact, ownership of real property is a far more feasible concept than ownership of body because the rules concerning taxation can always be changed for the better. At least it’s theoretically possible to change them. People may someday live in a society in which there are no property taxes. About the end of life, however, there is nothing to do except to understand that it is coming and to prepare for it.

We are conceived, we live, we die. Everything that we accumulate in this world will belong to someone else after our death. “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will leave this life.” (Job 1:21) “We didn’t bring anything into this world, and we won’t take anything with us when we leave.” (1 Timothy 6:7)

If immortality becomes practicable in this world, I will have to eat my words. Until then, they stand. This side of Heaven (or whatever you believe lies on the other side of death), everyone will die. That is an absolute certainty.

Since you are going to die and your body is going to be taken away from you, then you do not own it. If you do not own the body you live in, then it belongs to someone or something else: God, a higher power, the Great Spirit, cosmic truth, weird space aliens who seeded our planet, et al, any one of which might actually have something to say about the way that we are abusing, destroying, and killing those “properties” entrusted, but not belonging, to us.[vii]

Let’s bring Michael Rozeff[viii] back into the conversation.

“I contend that libertarian theory is too narrow. I make the following statements of where I stand.
1. Property is too narrow a basis to build an entire law and society on. The moral principle of no physical aggression is too narrow a basis. They are good as far as they go, but taken too far, they run into problems by ignoring the non-physical. Libertarianism has an impoverished social theory by this restriction to property and physical aggression. It gains by definiteness, but it loses by restrictiveness. In some cases, as in defamation, it leads to conclusions that go against thousands of years of law and history. “

Rozeff is correct. Libertarianism with a fixated view on property rights will not work. It needs to incorporate what he calls “the non-physical”, which I have no problem referring to as spiritual and moral. When spirituality (the understanding that we are more than just body) enters the picture, it brings with it a sense of morality: what is right and what is wrong. When right and wrong come into play, it becomes evident that a monstrous wrong has been perpetrated on the weakest, most vulnerable members of our society for a long, long time.

Women do NOT own their bodies and they certainly do not own the unborn children who are temporarily residing within them. Any law which allows a woman to kill her unborn child, based on her ownership claims, is simply building a house on shifting sand[ix]. Eventually it will crumble and collapse.

[i] Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45

[ii] It seems to me that, in some quarters, property rights have taken on the attributes of religion, complete with high priests, a “gospel” message, worship services, and dedicated followers who will die before they change their beliefs.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacrosanct

[iii] Excluding unborn children, of course.

[iv] https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/harm-to-the-person/

[v] Just one of the stories I read a long, long time ago and have never forgotten. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_and_Daniel_Webster

[vi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ

[vii] An example of this can be seen in the Holy Bible, Psalms, Chapter 2.

[viii] https://mises.org/profile/michael-s-rozeff

[ix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Wise_and_the_Foolish_Builders

The Suicidal Nature of Abortion

Roger Mitchell5 Comments

January 22, 2026, fifty three years after the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a woman’s “right” to kill her unborn child (abortion) was a constitutional privilege and could not be denied her. For any reason. By anyone, including the father of the child. See Roe v. Wade.

I wrote this article in 20191, almost six years ago, and decided to repost it here as a memorial to all those who have been slaughtered for the sake of convenience and selfishness. You are not forgotten.

Abortion, as it is practiced today, is a suicide machine.2 No apologies to Bruce Springsteen. His politics speak for him.

We are told from the very beginning that humans are part of the animal kingdom, that there’s really no difference at all between humans and chimpanzees or cockroaches, for that matter. We are all a product of evolution, a result of nature constantly weeding out the weak, inefficient, and hapless. Oh, and there is one other matter which distinguishes us—humans know the difference between right and wrong, that is, we understand a moral code, while all the other animals operate from a position of instinct.

What’s really interesting about this is that other animals, operating instinctively, do not deliberately kill their unborn children. Women, on the other hand, who are supposed to have risen to the very top of the pyramid of knowledge and understanding, will and do. Animal mothers will do anything and everything they instinctively know how to do to perpetuate their lineage, yet human mothers will do anything and everything they can, legally or otherwise, to destroy their offspring.

If there is one difference between animals and humans, it is this. Animals struggle to continue their lineage, humans act to destroy theirs.

Evolution, it is said, is a process by which the best of the best pass on their genes and characteristics to ensuing generations, thereby ensuring that the strongest and the most fit of the species survives and prospers. The weaker, less fit ones die out. As a whole, the entire species becomes better and more adapted to its environment. Well, then, consider this.

If the above statement is true, then women who abort their unborn children are not passing on their characteristics to the future generations, instead they’re removing them from the gene pool. This is in contrast to those women who deliver children and raise them up to become productive members of the human race, including the reproduction of children of their own through untold generations.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, over the long run, it is evident that women who abort their children will eventually die out, while those who don’t will continue the species. This leads to the conclusion that women who abort are the weaker members of the species and, since we are only animals anyway, they should and will be weeded out. For the benefit of humanity as a whole, you understand. And you should also understand that this is a tongue-in-cheek comment and is not meant to degrade any woman at all.

Coupled with this is the moral understanding that human beings should not kill each other, that there are negative consequences of these acts, and that humanity suffers when lethal violence is perpetrated against one member of society by another. Any society which practices or condones the widespread killing of its citizens, born or unborn, is participating in the demise of its future, dooming it to extinction.

It appears then, that abortion proponents and women who practice abortions are actually committing suicide, genetically speaking. As time goes on, the proportion of women who choose to give life to their unborn children will grow in relation to those who choose to kill theirs. Eventually, the numbers will become so lopsided that even the politicians will take note of it. Whether the suicidal members of society do or not is a different story. If they are consistent in their evolution and their beliefs, they will remain so to the very end, until they are all gone, when there are no more members of the human race who are willing to destroy their own children for their own selfish ends and survival of the fittest will be proven correct once again.

On this issue, evolution and morals appear to have collaborated. Abortion is not only morally wrong and detrimental to human relations, but also immensely destructive to the survival of the human species. Those who practice it will be eliminated—one way or another. As an evolutionary practice, abortion leads to death (extinction). As a moral practice, abortion leads to death (extinction). Abortion, quite simply, is suicidal. It is not beneficial nor wise.

“All those who hate me [wisdom], love death.” (Proverbs 8:36)

 

  1. At the time, I was posting to a blog which was dedicated to the abortion issue, but when Covid hit in early 2020, I couldn’t keep up with everything and let this one expire. I have all the articles posted on it and may air them here from time to time. ↩︎
  2. A term used in Bruce Springsteen’s 1975 hit song, “Born to Run”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3t9SfrfDZM ↩︎

Can Moral Obligations be Mandated by Law?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m going to give Donald Trump a little respite and breather in this post and address something more philosophical and germane to human nature.

I hardly ever watch Fox News and if by some chance I do, it is for never more than a moment or two before I quit, usually out of disgust by whatever clap the commentator is waxing eloquent about. Self-determined and proclaimed moralism is not just a religion of the Left, the so-called conservative Right is also shot through with it.

Nevertheless, a few days ago, I sat down with my wife and watched a segment of news, Laura Ingraham’s interview with Holly (last name unknown), as she was recovering from a severe beating she had endured at the hands of an out-of-control mob in Cincinnati, Ohio. The resultant bruises from the blows she had received were still quite visible, although it appeared that she was well on the road to physical healing.

Holly exuded an air of calmness and patience, and I did not notice any display of anger or rage on her part, which might have been justifiable considering everything she had been through. In fact, she openly expressed an interest, not in revenge and punishment, but reconciliation and understanding to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen to another person. This is an admirable stance. I respect her for it and I said something to that effect to my wife when the segment was over.

“I like her. She is already famous and this will benefit her immensely. The black mob and the Cincinnati officials have not done themselves any good, but Holly will become an important, highly sought-after person, perhaps running for political office or accepting an offer to become a TV news personality of her own.”

Or something like that. As I said, it was a few days ago and my memory is not what it used to be.

There was, however, something that Holly said which I disagree with and it has to do with the moral responsibility of the onlookers, many of whom were actively taking videos, but did not call 911 or the legal authorities to intervene to bring the melee to an end. In essence, she said that this practice ought to be illegal and these people punished according to law. Philosophically, I think she is wrong and, on this, I am going to invoke Walter Block, he of “Defending the Undefendable” fame (infamy?) While it is certain that the inactions of the many people who watched Holly take a “beatdown” were reprehensible and morally despicable, they should not be considered criminal and punishable.

“Every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime.”

I have my own differences of opinion with Walter Block, among them his favorable treatment of abortion on demand and his shrill, unwavering support of the nation of Israel, despite the undeniable fact that the ones who suffer the most (unborn babies, already born babies in Gaza) are destroyed outright by people who are more powerful than they are. In these, I find his position on libertarianism and the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) inconsistent and untenable, and I have written numerous times about his position on abortion. See here and here for examples.1 Still, I find his arguments about people who are repugnant and despicable to be compelling and I cannot, to be consistent with my own philosophy, find any good reason to overturn it, at least, legally. There are moral arguments to be made here, but they ought to be presented to those who are the “active sinners” and not against Block, et alia, who only defend their right to live in such a way.

As it relates to Holly and the mob, numerous questions arise.

  1. Did certain people refuse or neglect to call 911?
  2. Was this refusal/inaction morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and/or selfish?
  3. Should people be punished because they are morally reprehensible, thoughtless, and selfish?
  4. If so, what charges should be brought against them? What should be the prescribed punishment? Would these be based on principles of reason and truth or pure emotion, public will, and political pandering?
  5. Could prosecution under the law ever be considered as running afoul of a person’s religious beliefs, i.e., that everything is pre-ordained and to interfere is going against God’s will, therefore, personally detrimental? Does civil “responsibility” ever trump spiritual submission to one’s higher power? If so, what would it look like and where are the limits, if any?
  6. Etc., etc., etc…..ad infinitum.

More importantly, this argument falls into the philosophical arena known as “positive” law, which basically seeks to make people good by virtue of legislation. I am strongly opposed to the notion as I understand that only God can make people good and that only through the personal acceptance of Jesus Christ and the life-altering influence of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin, repentance, and change for the better cannot be legislated nor made mandatory, ordered, and enforced, it must be voluntary and freely sought. The first sentence in the description of positive law in Wikipedia (yes, I am citing Wikipedia) describes it quite well and flows with my own version.

“Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

In our relevant case, Holly would like to see a government mandated ordinance which obliges and specifies an action, such action being that people who see someone being beaten would be compelled by law to make an attempt to correct the situation in some way. Whether this means getting physically involved as Holly did or simply dialing 911 and alerting the officials while maintaining a safe distance really does not matter. The important thing to remember is that action MUST be taken under threat of punishment, i.e., “You will DO good, dammit, whether you want to or not. It is The Law. Doing nothing is not allowed. After all, your brother’s (sister’s) life, health, and well-being are at stake.”2

With all due respect to Holly and the millions of like-minded people around the world, whether to become involved or not is a moral issue, one to be decided solely within the conscience of an individual who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is not, ought not be, a legal issue with sanctions imposed for lack of activity in the event of a traumatic event. To attempt to make it a legal matter would only open up a subjectively interpreted can of worms and do nothing at all to change human behavior.3 “Love your neighbor as you love yourself…” is the operative phrase here which carries the thought of personal self-sacrifice on behalf of your neighbor, even at the risk of your own life and Holly’s action showed this explicitly. However, this is not the same as loving your neighbor under compulsion because you are afraid of the trouble that a disinterested third party might inflict on you if you don’t. The two are worlds apart.

What is really astounding to me are the vast numbers of people (finger-pointing is not necessary, you know them) who are willing to castigate and condemn the bystanders in Cincinnati, yet who do or say absolutely nothing to stop the aggressive actions of the Israeli State against the impoverished, helpless population of Gaza. Where is the outcry from those who think that ‘There outta be a law’? Why do we laud and support Holly in her drive to make human inaction illegal, yet criminalize human action (anti-semitic speech, BDS, street protests, etc.) when it infringes on our own pet issues? The only answer I can come up with is that people are, generally speaking, driven by emotion, but recoil at the thought of applying consistency of thought and action, i.e., reason and repentance, to their own daily lives. The fact that the current situation in Gaza is shot through with religious overtones does nothing to alleviate the situation and, in my opinion, actually makes it more difficult to resolve through rational discourse. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Only it doesn’t. The beatdowns continue, and will, until morally upright people from all walks of life stop expecting someone else to solve these problems via brute force and become actively involved in them personally, abandoning the idea that man-made laws can overcome and correct the evil-ridden apathy which afflicts human nature.

  1. BC (Before Covid), I was writing essays and articles on abortion, an issue about which I have strongly held beliefs. For instance, I would have no problem at all with prosecuting the “doctors and nurses” who perform them, charging them with first-degree murder and punishing them severely if convicted. I am ambivalent about bringing such charges against women who abort for various reasons which are too numerous and complex to mention here. You can access the postings here. When Covid hit, I made the decision to focus on that as I believed it was the greater and more pressing threat to our lives and liberties. Now that Covid is receding into the rearview mirror (not necessarily over), I may again pick up the thread to preserve innocent, unborn human life. ↩︎
  2. This brings to mind the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed numerous times and raped as she lay dying in New York City in 1964. At the time, the New York Times claimed that 37 people had witnessed the incident from their apartment windows but did nothing to stop it with the exception of one man who shouted, “Leave that girl alone!”, but did not go to her aid. The Times assertion has since been debunked and it is not known how many (few) people actually witnessed the crime, but the story stuck and still resonates today. The incident resembles what is known as the Bystander Effect and was a strong impetus to the development of the 911 system we have today. ↩︎
  3. Given the prevalence of mobile smart phones today, it would be possible for a zealous prosecutor to geo-locate every single phone which was in the vicinity at the time, identify who owned the phone, and charge them with the crime of “not calling 911 in an emergency”. Untold numbers of people could have their lives turned upside down and wrecked under such a scenario, especially if the prosecutor was prone to using these instances as stepping-stones to higher office, which many are prone to do. ↩︎

Thou Shalt Not Murder, except by Majority Vote

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

I’m looking at the early returns of the 2024 election. It appears that the state of Montana has gone decisively Republican and conservative, at least in the higher offices, most of which have been decided by wide margins. Some localized races have bucked the trend, ensuring that there will be plenty of contention in days to come. Donald Trump pulled out (estimated) an astounding victory of nearly 60%, with the Senate seat, both House seats, the Governor, and all state-wide offices running neck-and-neck with him.

What I find ironic is that CI-128, a ballot initiative which would enshrine the “right” to an abortion into the State Constitution, also passed by a wide margin, virtually identical with Trump’s drubbing of Kamala Harris in the state.

This tells me one of three things:

  1. There are a lot of hypocrites in the Republican/Conservative side of the Big Tent, which means the moral condition of the country will simply tend to worse and worse. But, then, this was already a given and has manifested itself in the past in myriad ways.
  2. This election was not about a “return to morality and Christian values”, but was probably more a judgment about the state of the economy, that is, money, and the voter’s own personal bankroll. If this is true, then America still has a long way to fall before it crashes hard.
  3. The voters of Montana have shifted from a position of welcoming and soliciting government intervention into their lives to one of telling the “rulers” to butt out. Not necessarily bad, in my opinion, but unfortunately, the weakest, most vulnerable persons among us will pay the price with their lives, all because we refuse to control ourselves.

“Thou shalt not murder, except by majority vote.” History will record the repercussions of this decision.

Power, the Abuse of Power, and Weakness

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

Consider the abortion issue.

For my entire life, I have been opposed to the idea that a woman can decide to “terminate her pregnancy” and end the life of the unborn child within her womb, simply because she wants to. I have always thought that unjust, murderous, selfish, callous, etc., and many other words which could be used to describe the attitude. However, I have just read something which resonates and throws a different light on the subject, something which has opened my understanding to a deeper level, not just on the abortion topic, but anything which is wrong and imposed by force on those weaker members of society.

In his introduction to Karl Ludwig von Haller’s book, Restoration of Political Science, Jack Vien makes an astounding argument, as seen here.

“One is ordinarily, even by nature, ruthless with a defeated rival or challenger, someone who is “weak” only in that he could conceivably have won the fight but wasn’t quite up to the challenge or shouldn’t have issued it in the first place. But it is an altogether different story where the disparity between weak and strong is great enough for the overwhelming superiority of the strong to be incontrovertibly evident to all, and uncontested, or incapable of being contested, by the weak. Here the natural human want is to abstain from harming the weak, and to help them if they need help, to the exact extent that they are weak, and acknowledge it.” — Introduction, page xxxiii.

When I first read this, my immediate thought was that the only problem here is that an unborn child cannot acknowledge that they are weak and need help. Being unable to speak for themselves, they literally have no one to speak for them and, as a consequence, are considered unworthy of attention, support, or protection. They are, therefore, prime targets of those who are more powerful and who do not hesitate to exercise that power, especially as it serves their needs. Who gives a damn about a four-month old child anyway? And, since we live in a world in which no one can say or do anything which someone else might find “offensive”, it is not possible to call things as they really are–a love fest with murderous depravity.

Vien isn’t done. Just a few paragraphs later, he has this to add.

“Conversely, cruelty towards the weak is personally disgraceful, not because of any slave morality that exalts weakness over strength, but precisely because it is a sign of weakness. Cruelty suggests that one has sunk beneath one’s own proper rank in a hierarchy of strength to that of one’s inferiors.” – ibid, xxxiii

Cruelty. Cruelty toward another human being. Cruelty toward other human beings who are less powerful than you are. Vien says that this is not a mark of power, but one of weakness. You are cruel because you are weak. You want to be seen as strong (even though you are weak) and so you lash out at those whom you have power over. Power to hurt, to harm, to destroy. This is as true in the abortion realm as it is anywhere else. Many women are persuaded to get abortions because they have been told (and believed) that it would validate their own personal power. In reality, though, the only power these women have is to kill their unborn child who is powerless to resist the cruel onslaught.

Contrast this with the message of the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

“Those who would be greatest (have the most power) among you, must be the servant (most loving, most giving, most humble) of all.” — Matthew 23:11

It is easy to walk into a Planned Parenthood facility (I do not call it a clinic), get on a table, spread your legs, allow the “professional” to do his dirty work, and walk out two hours later thinking quite highly of yourself. Yet, all you have proven is that you are willing to take advantage of someone who is weaker than yourself and who had no chance of even putting up a miniscule argument in her own defense.

Yet, Christ commands us to be compassionate towards others, even those who practice evil. If we can understand that women choose to abort out of a misplaced desire for power, then we can recognize that they are weak, mistaken, deluded, and therefore, are worthy of our compassion. This does not mean that we approve or endorse their action, but that we realize they have been driven to it by a deep lack within their souls, something which compels them to perform an abhorrent act in order to make them feel good about themselves. This is the place where Christians who profess the love of Christ should reach out and say, “I understand, let me walk through this dark time with you.”

Cruelty happens because a person is weak, not because he is cruel. Cruelty is the symptom. The cause which creates the symptom is something entirely different. We need to understand that difference and figure out a way to expose it to the Light of Truth, which is love shown in the deepest pockets of darkness.

God Does Not Forget

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

For context, you should read this article first.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/11/08/abortion-not-trump-is-the-gops-albatross/

So…if we paid attention to the “advice” which Matthew Boose (author of the article) dispenses, the only reason why Donald Trump is rolling over the opposition in the Republican Party primaries and (probably) in the general election, is that he is willing to compromise his stance on the issue of abortion. According to Boose, the people want legal access to the “right” to kill their unborn children and will not be denied, therefore, it behooves the Republican Party to stop being stupid about this issue and give them what they demand. Otherwise, when November comes and the mail-in ballots are counted, well, surprise, surprise! The Democrats will have emerged victorious yet again. All because America cannot shake its commitment to its assault on the youngest and most vulnerable among us and the politicians who desire to “lead” ought to be aware of that and act correspondingly.

Whatever happened to principle and standing firm on what you believe to be true, regardless of the cost? The indiscretions, mistakes, and sins of Martin Luther King, Jr., should not distract nor discount from the truth that he stated as seen in the comment above. But, then, he was only repeating what he had heard about someone else who lived and died two thousand years earlier, in part due to an intransigent, determined, and dedicated refusal to compromise with the evil so rampant in Judea at that time.

Abortions on demand have been legal across the entire United States since the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, handed down January 22nd, 1973. That ended with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 when the issue was kicked back to the individual states and, much to the dismay of the left side of democracy, many of the states started putting real restrictions on the practice. Note that it took more than forty-nine years of massive blood-letting before the Supreme Court recognized that it had misread the Constitution and changed its course.

But, then, what are we to expect from a people who believe that they are God and try to act like it?

Today, and until the end of this election cycle, it is not likely that Donald Trump will say anything about abortion on demand and, if he does, it will be some mealy-mouth squealing about not interfering in a woman’s personal health care. If he does, you can bet your bottom dollar that he will not be forthright and thunderously call for an immediate end to the slaughter. If he defied the “political wisdom” and made such a ringing declaration, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Matthew Boose’s of the world would instantly jump on him roughshod and call him out as a destructive force in the Republican Party. Not that they do not already see him that way, but as the pre-eminent standard-bearer of the conservative Right, he has them in a fix and there is not much they can do about it.

Abortion on demand, widespread throughout society, is suicidal. It literally kills the future. If there is one legitimate reason why America needs to import millions upon millions of young, military-age men from foreign countries, it is because we have killed our own, in the womb, before they were ever born. Social Security, soon to be Social Insecurity, is going to run out of money within the next ten years, partly because we have destroyed at least 60 million potential workers and payees into the system. Oh, yes, actions have consequences. This one is catching up fast and America is being destroyed before our eyes.

What will the Republicans do this year? What will Trump do? My expectation is that they and he will do nothing to rock the boat. In the interest of gaining power, there will be nothing said nor done which will alienate any potential support, particularly on such a divisive topic. After all, winning is everything, right? And if we have to throw a few sacrificial lambs into the maw of Moloch, well, it is better that they go quietly and without too much fuss. The important thing is not to speak the truth and stand firmly for it, but to beat the Democrats and get Joe Biden out of the White House.

All’s well that ends well, right? But America is not ending well and our fixation on keeping abortion legal is part of our collective, mortal sickness.

We may be able to ignore the carnage and drown out the cries through our noisy, busy lives, but God does not forget. God does not forget.

The True Nature of Politics

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

Hypocrisy in political life is not uncommon. In fact, most people pander to it in one form or another. Both Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals are united in one thing—their shameless inconsistency whenever pet issues are brought up and their support for “righteous” or “virtuous” government whenever it is convenient. See Jacob Hornberger or Laurence Vance for examples of this. See my own articles here and here.

Let’s look at a few issues hotly debated today—abortion, drugs, immigration, and guns. Should these be controlled and regulated by the Feds or by the various states? Sadly, both factions believe that one or the other should hold the controlling reins, depending on what is at stake and the popular political opinion on that specific issue.

For the purposes of this article, Democrats will include anyone who is generally left of center, liberal, and/or progressive. Republicans will include anyone who is generally right of center and conservative. Keep in mind that these are only generalizations on a large scale and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint(s) of any single individual.

Democrats are in favor of the federal government controlling the abortion issue. Roe v. Wade cannot be tampered with or weakened in any way. Any state law which attempts to circumvent it must immediately be stopped. The federal blessing of abortion on demand must be maintained at all costs, no matter what.

Democrats are also in favor of the federal government controlling, regulating, restricting, and/or outlawing and prohibiting guns. In fact, as time brings more mass shootings, the calls for the Feds to “do something” only grow louder. For them, this issue, like abortion, is much too important to be left to the states.

However, when it comes to drugs and immigration, Democrats are usually quite vocal about wresting these issues away from the Feds and allowing the states full control over them. Quite often, liberal-leaning states find themselves at odds with Fed policy on these.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to favor smaller, more local government when the issue is abortion (Roe v. Wade must be overturned) or guns (the ultimate state’s rights issue), but are in a hurry to grant the Feds a huge amount of power when the conversation turns to drugs (outlaw them all, especially the harder ones like heroin, cocaine, and meth).

For Republicans, immigration also comes under the purview of Federal control, not so much because it is Constitutionally mandated to the Feds, but because the states, especially the liberal ones, simply can’t be trusted to do what is “right” about the limitless hordes pouring across “our” borders.

There are countless others which could be compared in the same way, but I think I have made my point. Both factions adamantly favor federal control over some issues, while vigorously supporting state control over others. The only difference is which side of the political divide one stands on.

Killing and the Question, Part 2

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

To add to the article I posted yesterday, if you are interested in researching the issue of mass shootings, why they happen, what we can learn from them, and what we can do in the future to prevent them, then check out the following links. Zero Hedge, Lew Rockwell, James Howard Kunstler, Michael Rozeff, Warren Farrel, WND.

Each one of these authors is level-headed and reasonable. You will not find any hysterics here nor any sense of trying to whip the public up into a froth emotionally. Some arguments I agree with wholeheartedly, about some I have my doubts, but I will consider all of them. As should you.

Feminists For Life have a saying that “Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.” If this is true in the case of abortion on demand, then a paraphrased version of it would also be true. Mass shootings are a reflection that we have not met the needs of young men. As a society and a culture, we should consider that both these are linked in one inextricable way—both situations exhibit a callous disregard for innocent human life.

We have to figure out a way to meet the needs of both pregnant women and young men. Our world’s survival depends on it.

Killing and the Question

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Within the space of one week, there have been three mass shootings (see here, here, and here) across the United States which have killed more than 30 people and left many more wounded. Shootings like these are a shock to our system, which relies on trust and cooperation in order to function. After all, if you can’t go to a Garlic Festival or a Walmart without worrying about being shot, then there is no place which is safe.

Many people will be clamoring to strengthen and rewrite existing gun laws, with the professed intention of bringing this irrational violence to an end. Will this work? If history is any guide, probably not. Anyway, the argument over guns is a strawman which will have little or no effect on the violence which is playing out in our country and around the world.

People are killed in mass shootings, aggressive wars, the deliberate driving of trucks or delivery vans into crowds at an outdoor cafe, stabbings, gang warfare, police brutality, drug related murders, and abortion on demand, which killed over 600, 000 innocent unborn children last year in the US alone. All of these (and more) have one thing in common–the complete and utter lack of respect and honor for human life.

Jacob Hornberger has attempted to identify a cause of the violence we are learning to live with. His theory is that the war mentality America has inculcated in her citizens over the years is coming home to roost.

“I believe that America’s forever wars, sanctions, embargoes, and assassinations overseas are triggering some sort of mechanism within the minds of people who are bit off kilter mentally, which is causing them to wreak the same sort of violent and deadly mayhem here at home that the U.S. government, specifically the Pentagon and the CIA, is wreaking in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.”

Hornberger may be right, but he doesn’t go far enough.

Violence and the use of deadly force is as American as apple pie. It is endemic in our culture. It has been part of America from the very beginning. For those who are doing the slaughtering, human life is worthless. The sanctity of human life means nothing. It spans the spectrum of society from the streets of Chicago to the killing rooms of Planned Parenthood to the callous attitude of Madeline Albright, who, when asked about 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of crippling sanctions imposed by then-president Bill Clinton, responded that she thought the price was worth it. Throw in video games, psychotropic drugs, the Hollywood effect, and many other contributing factors and it’s no surprise that we are seeing individuals randomly acting this way.

The killing (in whatever form it takes) will not stop unless and until we grasp the concept that human life is precious, priceless, and not to be held in contempt. Human life, from the very beginning to the very end, must become something which is esteemed and valued. The lack of respect for it is a primary cause of all killings and, if we are ever going to bring this senseless violence to an end, we must absorb and live the understanding that human life is too valuable to simply destroy.

It won’t do any good to pass more laws or to increase the penalties. Giving the government more power will not help. This is a heart attitude and must be changed there, at the individual level, within the conscience of what is right and what is wrong. It has to begin with me. It has to begin with you.