Judging A Book

Oh no, it’s that long haired hippie freak and his beard again…

What does your style say about you? Can someone really tell much just by what you wear or what you listen to? What do the various decorations you put on say to the world around you?

I walked into a country western store the other day. Everything in there was country, from the boots to the hats to jeans and the accessories. They even had redneck wine glasses. There was a guy in there with his son and they were both dressed to the hilt with rodeo garb. Needless to say my sandals, t-shirt, and long hair didn’t exactly fit in.

My wife works with a guy covered in tatoos. If you didn’t know him you would probably make an assumption that he has spent a bit of time in prison. Nothing could be further from the truth. He’s a hard worker who loves his kids.

I crossed paths with two guys in Wal-Mart who could have been drug dealers, but the well put together type. They were nothing but cordial when one of them almost ran into me. Definitely not the kind of reaction I would have expected if I had been judging them by their looks.

Even in church you meet some wiley looking characters. I grew up in a fairly well-to-do area where people dress up for church, and our church at “home” is filled with good-looking, tan, well dressed folks. It was a bit of a culture shock attending a mountain church. Mountain people live in a rough area, and they look the part. People come to church in jeans and graphic tees. They have mullets and scruffy unshaven faces. Some of them even smoke (gasp) in the parking lot. Yet they worship with sincerity and love God with all their hearts.

I love all these folks, from the tatooed characters in Wal-Mart to the well dressed folks in my home church. I may feel very conspicuous around many of them, and they may not always know how to talk to me, but every one of them is a person, created in the image of God, and worthy of love.

When we start judging people or expecting people to be just like us we risk alienating those who most need love. Christians stop spreading the Gospel. Imagine if Christ had avoided some of the people we do.

Now, this doesn’t mean we embrace sin. We shouldn’t be “inclusive” for the sake of political correctness or trying to make our church bankrolls bigger. Outright unrepentant sin should not be accepted by any true church.

But judging people by how they look and by their style is something no one should do.

The “Wonderful” World of Kinism

screen-shot-2013-10-23-at-10-12-59-am
Way too obvious to be kinists….

“I’m not a white supremacist, I just believe that whites are superior.”

“It’s just statistics. Blacks aren’t as good as whites by various measures.”

“That person of X race who is good at y? That’s just an outlier.”

“You are putting your family in danger living in a black neighborhood. It’s not a matter of ‘if’ it’s a matter of ‘when’ you or your family will be attacked.”

“Oh, I believe that non-whites can be saved. There will be people of all colors in heaven. But we should not mix them on Earth. It’s not right.”

Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

If cultists weren’t bad enough, Reformed groups on Facebook have also had to endure at times the assault of the wonderful folks known as kinists. You may not have heard of this group, as it’s fairly new in Christian circles. It has roots in the South, where many used it to justify slavery. Since the end of the Civil War it has maintained a steady following, and has even branched out to races other than those of European descent.

So how will you know you’ve run across a kinist and not just a run of the mill racist jerk?

When confronted, the white kinists (they come in all colors) will claim that they are not racists, because “racism” is a concept invented by Cultural Marxists intent on wiping out the white race. “Racism is a word without a definition” they will claim.

When confronted with the actual definition of racism all kinists will claim that they have no antagonism towards people of different races. They even trot out friends of different races, though not close ones, just to prove they can be civil towards them.

They may even claim that true racists are supremacists, but they are not. They believe their race is superior, but everyone believes that: “After all, don’t you know that the Japanese consider themselves superior to all other races? Do you not think that blacks think themselves superior to whites, Mexicans think themselves superior to blacks and so on?”

To them, ones race is just like a football team, you always root for the home team. They aren’t hating anyone, they are just cheering for the survival of their own group. They aren’t harming anyone, they are just keeping their people pure and undefiled from all those other inferior races.

Kinism is a subtle racism. It’s a slightly “cleaner” racism then the straight up Klansmen type. Kinists back up their position with out of context scripture and verbal gymnastics designed to make you look foolish for even beginning to disagree with them. You end up being the person who “doesn’t care about your child’s future”. Beware this menace. Don’t cast your pearls before these swine.

Instead, consider them a harm to the spread of the Gospel. Gently point out that you will not limit your evangelism to your “team” and that spouting off about how superior that “team” is creates unhelpful division within the church.They will likely counter this with some more nonsense out of context Scripture. At this point just walk away, there is little more you can do for them but pray.

Anyone else dealt with this menace?

Collectivism is Cancer

“Both ‘sides’ sucked.” – Caryn Ann Harlos

There is a cancer that is quite common to man. This cancer has plagued mankind since very shortly after we were removed from the Garden (or crawled out of the cesspool if you so prefer). This cancer goes by many names: communism, racism, nationalism, socialism, culturalism, tribalism, and so on. This cancer is collectivism. 

Google defines collectivism as: “the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.” The nonsense going down in Charlottesville shows us two sides of the same collectivist coin. Both sides insist that their side is superior to the other side. Both sides are willing to resort to violence (aggression) against the other to gain dominance in the debate. 

“Us vs them” is a common theme in collectivism. “We” are superior to “them”, whatever or whomever “they” may be. Collectivists define themselves by their group’s characteristics, whether it be skin color, political ideology, religion, gender, sex, sexual orientation, or any number of easily or not-so-easily identifiable characteristics. 

Here’s a newsflash for all you Collectivists out there: your value as an individual is not determined by your outward or inward characteristics. Your value is not determined by your ideology or your sexuality, your color,  or your political party affiliation. Nothing you control determines your value. 

Collectivism (and its associated -isms) is a plague on this planet. We have forsaken the ideal that man is valuable because of his position in Creation. We have thrown off the concept of individual man made in God’s image and exchanged it with the belief that humanity is nothing more than an evolved super sludge from which some of “us” evolved more fully. 

Your value, dear Collectivists, comes from the One whose image you bear. Until you realize this, you will forever be fighting a pathetic battle against others who bear this same image. 

Of course, what gives the Collectivists most of their power is the belief that some people should have the monopoly of authority over others. The belief that aggression is the best way to keep people ordered and productive is vital to collectivism. The fact that we cling to things like democracy or oligarchy make the “Us” that we belong to very important. If we belong to the wrong collective we may end up on the wrong side of the gun. If an individual fails to identify with the right group (i.e. the one in power) he may find himself rounded up and thrown in prison, or worse. 

How does this relate to Charlottesville? Both sides suck. Both sides need to stop trying to get the upper hand on the other. Both sides need to stop valuing worthless characteristics and start seeing themselves and others as valuable individuals, worthy of dignity, respect, and rights. Both sides need to drop the “us vs them” tribal mentality that is keeping them locked into violent tendencies. 

End the cancer of collectivism. Start treating people like the individuals they are, respect them and love them. See them for what they are: individuals made in the image of God. 

Why I Am [Not] A Conservative [Anymore] Part 2

​Here’s the second part of “Why I Am a Conservative”, if you missed the first part you can find it here:

“Universal health care: what shall I say? It is a falsehood, anyone who lives in a socialist country, even our neighbors to the north, can tell you: universal health care is never universal. Yes, you may be guaranteed a spot on the list for a heart transplant, but you can also be guaranteed that your wealthy neighbor is more equal than you and is higher on that list. Socialism has never worked in the way liberals claim it does, there will always be elites, there will always be upper classes, there will always be powerful people; that is the way things work. The only way socialist governments have been able to assure complete equality is to assure that everyone is equally poor (except the leaders, they need more food, bigger houses, and fatter wallets to be able to rule). [conservatives are actually pretty good at keeping artificial wealth differences in place as well, though they are a bit more discreet about it] The best way to fix health care is to get the lawsuits out of the courts [actually no, people should have the right to sue negligent companies, judges should be sorting out the nonsense from the legitimate cases] , allow drug companies to develop their medicines without harsh outcries from the wacked out liberal animal cruelty people (hey, sewer rats have a far worse life) [here’s an idea, why not let companies make products that people want or need and let people decide on their own whether the benefits of said products outweigh the risks?] and let people have more of their hard earned money so they can afford to go to the doctor. [I. e. “taxation is theft”] 
I have no idea what they mean by “comprehensive family support policy” so I won’t touch that except to say that I believe the church is the best support for any family. [second best, behind extended family] Let the church do its job to help the needy and to help families stay together. Do not devalue marriage by placing “progressive” ideas such as homosexual marriage upon it. [actually, do not devalue marriage by allowing government to define it] Do not disrupt the family by allowing divorce to run rampant because the couple just couldn’t get along. Marriage is a binding contract, one that should not be taken lightly, it should not be as easy as it is to get out of it. [again, we let government define the terms of the marriage contract, why are we surprised that they can so loosely allow the breaking of the contract?] 

As for the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, I had to chuckle at this one. Liberals always want to keep the appearance of being the “dignity and worth” philosophy, and they are pretty good at securing rights for women and minorities, but they take these rights too far. Not to sound libertarian [LOL, oh old self, so worried], but I think liberals have violated the rule of “my rights extend as far as your nose”. Liberals have managed to beat bloody the rights of the unborn with their fight for women’s “rights.” Liberals have blackened the eyes of many well qualified whites when they decided that we should give extra value to a person’s skin color (but only if they are a minority). Liberals have broken far too many noses on their fight for “freedom.” I believe every human life is sacred and every human has immense worth and dignity (even my liberal adversaries), that is why I believe in protecting the right to life of the unborn, the elderly, and the disabled. When liberals stop supporting the killing of unborn children and the euthanization of people who are “not living a full life” they can talk to me about this subject, until then I am not going to believe that they think human life is worth something. [I actually still agree with all of that, but I was sounding libertarian LOL] 

Why am I a conservative? I am a conservative because I believe that values and morals do not change [yep], no matter how unpopular they are with the minority of people; I believe people need to work for their food [yep]; I believe health care is the responsibility of doctors, not big government [yep], and that frivolous lawsuits and the resulting insurance bills drive medical practitioners to set their fees sky high [nope, it’s actually the whole “insurance as third party payer” system that makes health care costs so high]; I believe that the family is the most basic unit of human existence and that we shouldn’t tamper with an institution which has worked out fine for thousands of years [yep] without “progressive” tampering (more on this subject later [don’t know what “later meant, I wasn’t blogging then]); and lastly I believe that every human being has worth and dignity and that we need to protect the fundamental right of every individual to be born and to live without fear of being extinguished for a perceived “suffering” or lack of contribution to society [Meh, I agree still, but how often are liberals actually executing people for not contributing? Hyperbole helps no cause.]. This is why I am a conservative, and whether or not the liberals win the courts [which wouldn’t matter in Ancapistan] and win over the Democratic party, I will always be a conservative [LOL] because my values and ideas don’t change with the passing of a breeze, my morals are not thrown out with my belief in equal freedom for all, and my God doesn’t change his mind when society tells Him to. [Preachy much, old self? My values haven’t changed, but I have since dug deeper into their logical conclusions and changed a great many of my views on social and political matters. Having picked apart many of those values I discovered many instances where my morality was not matching up with those values. Consistency is important in the realm of values and morals, and when the two are at odds or are even slightly off-kilter it is important that we act quickly and decisively to bring the two into harmony.]”

I hope you have enjoyed this little exercise as much as I have, go back and read the first part if you missed it. 

Why I Am [Not] A Conservative [Anymore] Part 1

The original article made Ron Paul’s skin crawl…

I was looking through some old writings of mine the other day and ran across this little gem written around 2004 or so. If it wasn’t so polemic it would crack me up. Actually it kinda does. I wrote this awhile before I began my “descent” into anarcho-capitalism and it’s neat to see where I was at the time. I’m sure in another ten years or so I will be just as amused at this blog as I am at this little rough draft. For ease of reading I am breaking it up into two parts. I will give my current day responses in brackets.“Why I am a conservative

Recently I have seen conservatives compared to Fascists and Nazis [this is still quite common]. The comparisons made are between our staunch nationalism and our commitment to tradition and the authority of government [when the shoe fits]. That’s where the real comparisons ended. The rest of the comparisons seemed to be a bit on the misinformed, conspiracy-theory-driven side. Big former CEO’s were put in government offices, therefore we have a government which is tightly bound to corporations (which we all know are corrupt and evil). [oh wait, the government is in bed with corporations, hence lawmaking that is clearly biased towards certain companies and industries] The current administration has put people in place who have lied and cheated their way to the top (repeatedly pointed out by liberals but never proven), we have tried to place “bigoted” judges into federal court, we have tainted the government with religious rightism and hatred [yep, yep, yep and this is every administration]. And all of this from the New York Times.
To top it off I find an article describing the “superiority of liberalism” which includes a list of what liberals are: people who believe values and ideas evolve, that the government needs to help the underprivileged, that universal health care is long overdue, that the nation should have a “comprehensive family support policy”, and people who believe in the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. [this is actually a pretty good definition of modern “liberalism” though they don’t actually believe in human dignity, government supersedes all human dignity] The article went on to describe how America was founded upon liberalism and how George Washington was a liberal [this is true, but not that kind of “liberal “] and how liberals have been victorious in every battle they have ever fought. 

Now while that list is impressive, and while I would agree to some extent that our forefathers were pretty liberal for their day, I would like to point out the great failures of the liberals and list a few reasons why I do not consider myself one of them:

Values and ideas evolve: Yes, they do, but not always in the right direction. Rather, ideas change, values do not. The values of this nation, regardless of what they in the left want you to believe, are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Our founding fathers, those rabble-rousing revolutionary liberals that they were, were for the majority a devoutly religious crowd [well, more devout than most “liberals “ today anyway]. They did not fight against the values they were raised with, but because of their values. While God was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution you only have to read the journals and prayers of [some of] the signers to know that they felt it unnecessary to put God in there. Everyone would understand the law of the land to be based in these principles [at least in part].

The government needs to help the underprivileged: yes, the government is here to help protect its citizens and give them the freedom and the rights they were endowed with to get ahead in life, but it’s not here to give handouts to those who deem themselves “less fortunate.” [actually no, the government does not “give” rights, and it should definitely not be giving out handouts to anyone]. I believe we [not government, “we” is a general term for parents, churches, well meaning older folks Etc] need to educate those who are behind in life, we need to give the young urban blacks a better message than “you are oppressed, you will never make it anywhere without government help” or worse “go smack up some hoes, do drugs, join a gang, kill cops, and be bigger than everybody.” [I didn’t stereotype much back in the day did I?] Handouts can only go so far. Education, while not as quick to show results, results in permanent change [especially government sponsored education, how else can you create permanent statists?] . The liberals believe we can help the needy by legalizing drugs (decriminalizing the poor drug dealers) [actually this would help a lot of people and make the drug industry less profitable and improve a lot of neighborhoods], giving jobs to less qualified minorities because of past oppression and primarily because of the color of their skin (which puts them into jobs they are not able to handle) [the government doesn’t “give” anyone a private sector job and definitely should not be in the business of telling private industry what to do], and by giving out food and health care to everyone including the illegal immigrant who doesn’t have protection under our constitution [yep, that piece of paper is what gives us rights and human dignity, if you aren’t in the club, we are perfectly within our rights to strip you of both #Sarcasm] . Now, that may sound cruel, but I guarantee you will see results if you educated the poor instead of giving them a blanket to cover their symptoms [this I still agree with]. As for minorities, I believe this country will be color blind once it stops using color as a leg up, once we take the race box off of college and career applications, and once we finally stop discussing racism as if every white person is a KKK member ready to go out and hang every black, Mexican, or Asian that lives within our borders. Racism is a self perpetuating problem, ignore the few insignificant instances of it and you will prevent the large scale retaliations of scores of white people just trying to say “hey, get off our backs!” [it might help white people a bit if they would stop eyeballing with suspicion every brown person with a Spanish accent and begging for a wall]. “

Come back in a couple of days to see the next section, it’s more fun in my opinion. 

TBH, Daddy-Daughter Dates Have Nothing To Do With “The Patriarchy” 

By taking daughters out and treating them kindly you are teaching them to expect men to love, honor, and cherish them. You are teaching them to expect respect from men. This is anti-patriarchy. 

This RC Sproul quote was my first thought when I read the blog post in question.

Since today is Valentine’s Day,  and this story came across my feed recently, this seems an apt topic.  

Sunday morning I was greeted first thing with a blog about daddy-daughter dates. The author of this post has decided that treating your daughter with common decency is symptomatic  of “the patriarchy”. She contends that it is “creepy” to take your daughter out and treat her special. Somehow, in her mind, inspiring your daughter to expect respect from men is encouraging “rape culture”. 

First off, I contend that fathers should treat their daughters special just because their daughters are their daughters. This is a little person who loves you and needs your love in return. You’ve been entrusted with her care and with teaching her to be a decent human being in a big ugly world. Treat her special because she is special. 

Secondly, it’s not wrong or “creepy”  to treat your children with common respect. The author’s contention that pulling your child’s chair out for them,  picking out their outfit,  and basically treating them with kindness and love somehow promotes “rape culture” is ridiculous.

Please, stop insisting that a man holding the door for you is “rape”. You’ve destroyed all the meaning of that word and have disrespected every woman who has actually been raped. Rape culture is promoted mostly by teaching little girls that all men are creeps. Set their standards low and they will settle for any sleeze that tells them he loves them. After all, if all men are creeps, why waste time trying to get a good one?  

When a father takes his daughter out and treats her with respect, he’s not teaching her that she is unequal to men. He is teaching her what real love looks like from a man. Real love respects others and treats them not just as equals but, in many respects,  as superiors. Shouldn’t this be desired by modern feminists? Shouldn’t they want this?  

Why do modern feminists insist that equality is a zero-sum game and that we can’t treat people with kindness and also see them as equals? Not only do I open doors for women, I also open doors for men. Is it because I think they are weak, or below me, or not equal? No, it is because I respect them and I like to treat other people with kindness and love. 

Do these women think that men treat other men like dirt and therefore the only way to be equal with men is to be treated like dirt?  Instead of teaching men to stop treating their daughters with special love and care shouldn’t we instead call men to treat other men (and women) with respect?

Must men treat women like dirt in order to be considered up to date with modern feminist equality standards?

She also says that mother son dates aren’t a thing. Personally,  I hope women do take their sons out on dates. Parenting requires one-on-one time with your child. When you have 5 kids like we do it’s darn near impossible to get one-on-one time with each one. Being intentional about getting that time is to be commended. 

Thanks to Freud and the sexual Revolution, our culture is convinced that our sexuality is what defines us as people. Therefore, according to our culture, even showing affection to your kids is somehow sexual. This is just plain stupid. It is not sexual to show affection to your children. If it is every good parent should be in jail. (And if it does in fact become sexual, you deserve worse than jail.) 

It is perverted to suggest that somehow taking your daughter out for dinner, pulling her chair out, opening doors for her,  and calling her beautiful and a princess is somehow sexual. To claim such doesn’t just betray the insecurities of the author, it strongly condemns modern culture with its ridiculous sexual mores. 

Purity balls….

I’ll  give her that purity balls are a little creepy and weird.  Those actually do create a weird sexual tension between fathers and daughters. Yes, you should abstain from sexual activity until you are married, but pledging your purity to your father is a little awkward and kind of creepy. 

But taking your child out one-on-one for special time together is healthy, natural, and should be normal. 

Should we take our daughters out one on on? Yes. Should we also take our sons out one on one? Yes. Should we treat them with dignity and kindness and do kind things for them? Yes. This is teaching them common courtesy and how to treat others like human beings.  It is not teaching them to lay down and accept demeaning treatment.

It has been shown that girls often marry men like their fathers. They learn how men should treat women from how their father treats them and more importantly, their mother. Girls who are abused or watch their mothers be abused often pursue men who abuse. Is this what we want our daughters to do? 
Why do modern feminists want men to continue to marry jerks? Is it because they want to validate their idea that all men are jerks and that all men are part of “the patriarchy”? 

I’m not saying it’s patriarchy, but it’s patriarchy. Actually it isn’t…

Daddy-daughter dating is not patriarchy. Patriarchy is insisting that your daughter or your wife is less than you and that she does not deserve your respect. Patriarchy says that because of her sex she does not deserve honor. As a woman, she deserves nothing but to be under you as a slave or servant. 

Patriarchy views females as less than males. It does not honor them by opening doors, calling them wonderful names, or treating them with respect and dignity. Patriarchy puts women under men’s thumbs. By taking daughters out and treating them kindly, you are teaching them to expect men to love, honor, and cherish them. You are teaching them to expect respect from men. This is anti-patriarchy. 

I suggest to these feminists that if they want to end “the patriarchy” they should call on men to start treating their daughters with kindness and honor. They should encourage them to put their daughters on a pedestal and treat them as individuals worthy of great respect. This will teach their daughters to expect their husbands and all men to respect them and treat them with dignity. 

If daughters are treated like dirt by their father they will learn to accept that treatment by all men. They will continue to support the patriarchy by giving themselves to patriarchal jerk men. Let’s instead encourage them to expect more from men. 

End the patriarchy, and while we are at it, end third and fourth-wave feminism.

“Equality” and the “A Word” 

“Should individuals be denied their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are different looking than you?”

There is not much to say about the Women’s March that hasn’t already been said, good or bad. Most of what I have seen from both sides has been vulgar and not worth listening to. I’ll get to that another post. 
What I will say now is that I completely agree with treating women with respect and honor and as equal to men in rights and protection under the law. I fully support the right of people to protest and speak out against abuse and aggression. I have no problem with speaking truth to power and making sure the underrepresented are represented properly in law and culture. 

Which is why I support the rights of the unborn.

So much has been said mocking the women marching around the world. So much bile has been spewed from their opponents, someone has to stand up and actually pick on a principle not just on people. 

These women are people, and people don’t deserve abuse. As opponents to their ideals,  we don’t need to make jokes about their weight. We don’t have to make sandwich jokes. We don’t have to mock their poorly spelled signs. We should be better than that. We should be mature enough to hit where it counts: right in the hypocrisy. 

They claim to be marching for equal rights. But are they? 

Access to abortion is not a “right”, it is a privilege. A right is something every human being is created with. A privilege is something bestowed by elites upon those they have power over. The privilege of abortion is only given to women, by lawmakers interested in keeping women voters in lock step. 

Men have no such privilege. This is hardly equality. These women are not honestly concerned with equality, they are interested in keeping their privilege. The politicians who grant them the privilege are not concerned about equality either, they just want votes.  

Abortion is not just a privilege that women have that men do not, it is a privilege they have over very very young people. I will refrain from using emotionally charged words like “baby” and I will simply call them what they are: people, persons, individuals. 

Far too many of these women are claiming they should have the privilege of murdering a specific group of individuals simply based on the age of those individuals. 

I have heard the arguments before: persons in the womb have no self-awareness. Neither does a sleeping person, or a person in a coma. We do not murder the comatose or sleeping and justify it by saying “they weren’t self aware so it was okay.” Why do we do this with pre-born people? Do we even know how self-aware they are? 

“Oh, but they aren’t really alive.” So you mean to tell me that two living cells came together and started multiplying into some sort of undead/unliving vampiric lump of tissue? This is what you consider a person before they escape the trappings of the womb? 

“Oh, but they aren’t people.” By all objective standards,  a fetus is an individual with unique human DNA and as they grow, miniature human organs. There is nothing unhuman about a person before they are born. They simply don’t look like adults. 

“Oh, but they are trespassing in the womb.” No. You put them there. You made a choice to create the circumstances where this person is now dependent on you for sustenance until they self-evict from the womb. 

Let’s say you owned a dock, opened it to the public, and kept it in disrepair. Let’s say someone fell off the dock and into the water. You have the ability to save them but you don’t. Instead you let them drown. Are you morally culpable?

Let’s say you actually pushed them into the water, then sat there and watched them drown. In both instances you would be culpable for murder, one count involuntary, the other voluntary. By your actions you put those people in positions of dependence on you. 

When a women places herself in a situation where she might get pregnant, by having sex, she is creating a circumstance where another person can come into existence. The individual who takes up residence inside of her was placed there by her actions. This is not trespass. This individual should not be punished for her actions. 

Yes, less than 1% to 3% (depending on who you ask) of abortions are performed on rape victims. Rape is a crime, it is a violation of the NAP, it is abhorrent and disgusting. There is a great amount of pain and vulnerability involved in rape, more than I, as a man,  could ever understand. 

I do not claim that women who have been raped are in any way culpable for their rape. I don’t care what she is wearing, I don’t even really care if she was drunk. She is a victim and is not morally culpable or responsible for the life that is within her.

However, the person in the womb is not responsible for the rape either. The death penalty should not be carried out on an innocent party.

In the case of a woman pregnant by rape, the rapist is the party responsible for the individual in the womb. The rapist should be made to pay all medical expenses, the cost of the delivery, and the entire cost of adopting the child out. They should pay further restitution to the rape victim and the child up to a limit determined by a judge. 

“But it’s my body, my choice.” Yes, you have ownership of your body, but they too, have ownership of theirs. You do not have the right to treat them as property for your disposal any more than a man should have the right to treat women as property at his disposal.

If you feel that somehow your age gives you some sort of privilege over the unborn, you are no better the chauvinist pigs who feel their sex gives them privilege over women. 

Those who support the privilege of murdering the inconvenient are no better morally speaking than those who supported keeping slavery legal. 

Slavery supporters in this nation used color as an excuse to deny rights to an entire class of individuals. Those who support keeping abortion legal use age and dependency as an excuse to deny rights to an entire class of individuals.

Women of the marches tell me this: should individuals be denied their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are different looking than you? 

If your answer is yes, than you are no better than the creeps you protest against.