William Thien

Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

One of the big debates going on at the state level in many states right now involves the decision to legalize “same-SEX marriage.” One side thinks legalization of “same-SEX marriage” is only fair for those who choose an alternative lifestyle and the other says it is immoral or against religious values. Then of course there are those who really had no opinion on the matter, which is where I resided until something occurred to me.

If you read my essays and observations regularly or have signed up to receive my updates, you will have concluded by now that I am a conservative, more conservative than that political party which often attempts to ally itself with conservative measure but is frequently no more conservative than the other side of the aisle in the comparison of many nowadays. Many conservatives believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal. That is not my sentiment, even though many believe my political or belief system falls within the realm of “true conservatism.”

Instead, I approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” from the same perspective as I approach that of abortion, which I believe as a “true conservative” should be legal. “What?” You inquire? “How can that be, “same-sex marriage” and abortion are not even closely related?” Well, it is not that they are closely related, which as you will see later that they are in a way very closely related, it is that I view “same-SEX marriage” and abortion using the same method I use to view whether or not I believe as a “true conservative” that abortion should be legal, something many in the conservative hall are opposed to with vigor.

I believe that abortion should be legal because a woman can’t raise a child on her own unless she is independently wealthy or has government support, with government support being money from taxpayers, which by default means larger government and more taxes, something to which a “true conservative” is opposed, particularly now when taxes are approaching all time high levels and more people receive government entitlements than ever before.

“OK, so you are for legal abortion because you believe it helps to keep the size of government in check, what’s that have to do with “same-SEX marriage?”” You are asking.

Well, instead of approaching the subject of same-sex marriage from the perspective of whether it is a moral issue, I believe we should apply a certain approach to the subject that merely asks the question, “Will “same-SEX marriage” raise taxes for the taxpayer?” If the legalization of same-sex marriage results in an increase in taxes to the taxpayer, then perhaps it should be reconsidered. But if the legalization of same-sex marriage will result in a decrease in taxes, then perhaps it should be considered. You see, like abortion, you have to examine the behavior. The two, “same-SEX marriage” and abortion are indeed very closely related because they involve the subject of “SEX” and the product of “SEX!” In the case of “same-SEX marriage,” the subject of discussion is the subject of “SEX,” sex by people of the same “SEX!” And if legalization of “same-SEX marriage” results in an increase in taxes to pay for the legalization of a type of sexual activity, or “SEX,” then by the definition of any conservative, not just a “true conservative,” it should probably not be considered for legalization. Just like abortion, which deals with the result of “SEX,” or a fetus, “same-SEX marriage” deals with the subject of “SEX!” And in America we are already dealing with the substantial cost of “SEX” from unwed pregnancies at an alarming rate. Just in 2011 forty-one percent of children born were born to out-of-wedlock mothers who almost all certainly obtained a substantial amount of support from the taxpayer to enable such sexual inequity.

It is by the same method then that I believe we should approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” as that of outlawing abortion, asking the question, how will it affect the burden of taxation upon the taxpayer? If legalization of same-sex marriage increases taxes for the taxpayers, then perhaps it should not be legalized as it is believed that outlawing abortion would increase taxes, substantially.

I think this same method, asking the question, “What burden will it place upon the taxpayer?” should be applied to all such similar circumstances, particularly those involving sexual behaviors. They are consensual behaviors generally and don’t harm anyone until they become issues which affect taxation when then they directly impact the taxpayer. I think the method I discuss here is an excellent way to deal with the political morality play, the political theater and misrepresentation that goes on with such matters of consensual behavior. And though I recognize the biblical origin and position of religious leadership on the matter of “same-SEX marriage,” I don’t think it is as much of a religious matter as it is an economic issue.

Why?

Because it is time American taxpayers should be free from having to pay for others to have sex on a bed made of taxpayers’ dollars.

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

Here is an interesting if not discomforting statistic. Forty-one percent of all children born in 2011 were born to unwed mothers in The United States. That’s nearly half of all children born in 2011! That number signifies big government by definition as single mothers en masse simply cannot all pay for all of the medical expenses associated with bearing a child nor can they afford to pay for the daycare (daycare is expensive) associated with raising a child after they return to work, if in fact they are working. Somebody has to pick up the tab for the result of all of that illicit sex. The cost of so many pregnancies to unwed mothers is a tremendous burden to the taxpayer.

For more information see BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN.

I have said it before, Down with The F&#k and Suck Economy!

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

Twice now I’ve written on Republicans and how their position against abortion and birth control is diametrically opposed to that of a “True Conservative.”

I concluded that if Republicans were truly for smaller government they would not argue against abortion and birth control because a single woman more often that not is unable to raise a child on her own from birth. Consequently she often falls back on government support which by definition means larger government. Therefor if you make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion or to use birth control then she will have to have the child whether she can afford to raise it on her own or not and the public will end up financing her indiscretions.

I add that I am the only one who has publicly taken that stance on the matter from the very beginning.

I wanted to add that following the Roe v. Wade decision which determined that an abortion should be legal under the right to privacy clause, crime went down significantly over the following years. In other words, the legalization of abortion also had a definite effect on decreasing crime in The United States.

So, if Republicans who claim to be true conservatives want to see smaller government they would not work so hard to see abortion made illegal once again and birth control difficult to obtain. It is as simple as that.

I ask, what person in their right mind would want to increase crime in The United States and increase the size of government making it more expensive? Because that is exactly what will happen if you outlaw abortion again. The Republican position on the matter is untenable.

We see commercials now on television stating the obvious, that “an abortion stops a beating heart.” There are billboards up from time to time showing aborted fetuses. And anti-abortionists seem to think that people, women in particular don’t agonize over their decision to have an abortion. Perhaps the anti-abortion crowd funding would be better spent on teaching teenagers and young adults the risks of having sex, such as GETTING PREGNANT!

Sometimes I wonder. People are going to have sex. When people have sex, women often get pregnant. That’s how that works. Should we outlaw sex?

The Republicans have a lot of positions I agree with but if they maintain their stance as a party against abortion they are not by definition “True Conservatives.”

Because there is just one thing Republicans seem to forget about time and time again about men and women, they forget about human behavior.

Copyright © William Thien 2012

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never give your contact information to anyone.

Several people have approached me today and asked why I was pointing out the fact that Republicans are missing the point on abortion and birth control? It goes against party politics it was suggested to disagree with such a major issue.

My response is this, throughout history mankind has concluded that before societies can take care of matters outside of their own affairs, they must first take care of their own realm, so to speak.

I see this matter as exactly that, a position which is primarily undoing the Republican Party and conservatism in general and which needs to be addressed directly, as it undermines a woman’s individual rights, with individual rights being primary to the foundation of The Republican Party and one of if not “the” primary characteristics of conservatism.

Since women vote, they should be accommodated in such regard as their own bodies. Otherwise, such a position will be to the continued peril of The Republican Party which likes to call itself “conservative,” a sanction which I believe a political party must earn, or at least maintain, and in said case which if examined thoroughly, one would see large increases in the size of government coming from Republican Administrations, which traditionally have claimed to be the harbinger of “small government.” In fact, “I am for smaller government” is a sort of mantra of The Republican Party whether it is contrary to what is actually accomplished.

If Republicans say abortion and birth control are illegal and it results in a large increase in unwed mothers seeking government assistance, which of course consequently drives up taxes, I believe then that Republicans disqualify themselves as “true conservatives” because their positions on birth control and abortion directly increase the size of government, dramatically, which is of course contrary to the policies of true conservatism.

That is all.

Carry on.

Copyright 2012 William Thien

Sign up to receive updates in the upper right hand corner of this page. It is free and safe.

One of my first essays on this site was titled “Abortion and The True Conservative.” I discussed the position of a true conservative and how true conservatives view the subject of abortion. Essentially, since a true conservative believes in smaller government, a true conservative will not stand in the way of a woman who wants to have control over her own body and would let her either choose to have an abortion or to utilize birth control.

Why? Because most women are not able to support a child on their own. If they are not married or have no means to support the new baby and keep themselves fed, they more often than not will need to fall back on some sort of government program (AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC to name a few programs here in the midwest available to unwed mothers) in order to support their new family. That means more government by definition. A true conservative is for less government by definition. The more women unable to support themselves and their children, the more government will be needed to address the circumstances. Prevention of birth control or outlawing abortion means bigger government and is contrary to the position of a “true conservative.” It is as simple as that.

Why? It is human nature. Birth control is a way to insure that unwanted pregnancies don’t end up on the public dole. And when unwanted pregnancies don’t end up on the public dole, government stays smaller and less expensive, which means lower taxes. Again, the matter is quite simple.

If you tell a woman she can not have an abortion, if you outlaw abortion, it is only ethical, if you are taking the position that abortion is “murder,” it is only ethical then that you will have to provide a means to support her and the child which you have forced her to have. Would you have her living in the streets with the child? The same goes if you outlaw birth control.

Now, those Republicans who call themselves “conservatives” in my opinion are doing no one any favors by siding with faith only on the matter. It is merely a feint to obtain more votes from “the religious right,” whose heart may be in “the right” place, but how often have good intentions led to disastrous consequences, in this case massive populations of people born and raised on a system which essentially enslaves the middle classes to the tax system needed to perpetuate such sexual behavior? Is it not more of a crime to enslave entire classes of people to a burdensome system of taxes to pay for such sexual behavior than it is to allow birth control? Do I even need to even ask?

Furthermore, if we examine the residual math of the circumstances, it is much less expensive to society in terms of taxes to allow birth control and abortion than it is to outlaw them both and have massive tax expenditures to pay for what is most likely a sexual indiscretion, or worse, a decided attempt to raise a family on the public dollar. So the math is quite clear. It is just that nobody has been doing the math. That’s all. It has been policy entirely through emotion, taxing, costly, economically stifling policy.

No, those Republicans who are siding with the anti-birth control crowd and the anti-abortion crowd are not doing the Republican party or conservatives any favors and are in fact driving the female vote away from the party to more liberal positions which believe abortion should be legal and birth control should be allowed. Because like a wedge, what your teacher taught you was a “simple machine,” such anti-abortion positions and anti-birth control values are driving the female vote away from The Republican Party which is telling them they should not be able to decide what they can do with their own bodies.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the biggest mistakes The Republicans or conservatives in general can make, particularly at a time like this.

The Republican Party can no longer call themselves “conservatives” in name or definition while holding such nonsensical positions which are contrary to conservatism and that dramatically increase the size of government.

Copyright © William Thien 2012

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Men and women are not equal.

I believe there is a natural order amongst the sexes and I believe that if society strays too far from the path of that natural order the consequences for society can be negative, substantially negative.

I’m not talking about which sex is better, men or women, who is the faster runner or who can lift the most weight, I’m talking about a distribution of responsibilities within the family or at work for example to mature, rational adults who want to be productive members of society and not social burdens.

I believe much like a factory, when certain employees complete certain tasks while other employees complete other tasks, the tasks at hand can be completed far more efficiently and with much less cost and effort, leaving more time to produce more products, work on improvements to the way things are done, or simply take a break.

You might say, who views their family as a factory? What kind of analogy is that? OK. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps viewing the members of a family as employees in a factory is a bit withdrawn emotionally from the matter. Factories are not living things, you might say, and nothing like a home.

OK. OK. Calm down. Let’s try this. The other night I was watching some of those beautifully filmed nature shows that air on Sunday night. The narrator was talking about a variety of animals and their courtship rituals. Some were very elaborate, some rather blunt. In one scene, the narrator talked about a land development that had changed the path of a waterway slightly, causing the male of a species of amphibian to have to change route of travel. This in turn increased the deaths in the males of the amphibian as they were now run over crossing the street which resulted in fewer couples of the species, which resulted in fewer offspring and consequently caused a crash in the population of the animal in that area. In other areas, the animal was doing fine but under observation. Later the narrator discussed a completely different problem of the same nature causing the female of the species to change its habits thereby making it impossible to rear its young. Population crash. I believe these last two examples of nature offer much better analogies rather than the factory because they incorporate a viewpoint of the struggle of living mechanisms rather than the analogy of the family as a factory. Though it can be stated that in their sexual roles, men and women have completely different responsibilities and also illustrate completely different behaviors to achieve a common goal, evidence again that there is indeed a natural order. There is in fact more obvious evidence that there is a natural order in the sexual roles of men and women than there is of any biblical explanation of human sexual behavior.

But even more significantly to come out of these observations of nature is the belief that many naturalists hold. In fact, it is the foundational belief of environmentalism today. It is quite elegant in its simplicity and even more importantly, it holds true under scientific observation. Here it is essentially in its simplest form. “If you mess with the nature, there will be negative consequences.” We have all heard that statement in some context or another. The consequences of messing with nature can be observed in such things as polluted drinking water, polluted air, problems with food containing poisons drawn up from the soil, all of them the result of lack of understanding of and the manipulation of our environment.

And I believe an analogy can be made to things such as polluted drinking water and air to a natural order amongst the sexes and such things as crime committed by juveniles who don’t have both parents at home or an increase in taxes. In fact since the sexual revolution in the 1960′s when the roles of men and women in The USA were redefined both by law and the media crime has increased in some areas thousands of percentiles as more women raise their children on their own or have children out-of-wedlock. The tax burden to simply police these areas is enormous much less to provide the partial families with social services. I don’t need to enumerate all the costs. Anyone that is reading this knows the costs unless they have been living on another planet.

Some of you may be old enough to remember the female football players that entered into The NFL for a couple of years during the height of the sexual revolution. “Don’t stay in the house” the feminists chanted, go play football, work construction. That didn’t last long, of course. Why? Because they were not designed for it by “nature.” Not by men. The fact that women are not as good at football as men has nothing to do with any societal restriction by men on the activities of women. No. And don’t even try to suggest that (this was one of the techniques of the feminist movement, to suggest that women in The USA were repressed by men as a whole). The fact that women are not as good at football has nothing to do with men. Women are not as good at football as men due to their “nature” and physical build. Men have nothing to do with that. It has to do with a “natural order.” And to the contrary, men are no good at bearing children. In fact, I’ve not heard of one case of a man bearing a child. Why? There is that natural order thing again, and again it has nothing to do with men.

I remember watching a news show during the height of the feminist movement in the 1960′s. The newscaster was interviewing a doctor who (and I’m glad I don’t have this guy as a doctor) suggested that men and women are identical, except for a few very minor differences. He had a chart with diagrams of the male and female bodies and some charts about similarities. In the time of about one minute the newscaster, a woman, and the good doctor, concluded that aside from a few very minor differences in body composition, body fat content for example, that men and women were equal, exactly equal. “Well, there you have it,” the female newscaster concluded. “Men and women are exactly alike in every way.” This was the viewpoint taken by all media networks from that point on and the federal government as well in the course of dealing with cases of discrimination on the job. Men and women from about that point on were considered equal on the job, both physically and mentally. And in most cases they are. But in many, as in the female NFL player or the man giving birth, we see they are not. The good doctor was lying to the female newscaster. Or he was an imbecile. Or he was no doctor at all. Or maybe the media has a vested interest in erasing the differences between the sexes as I’ve demonstrated in my previous posting titled “Who is Really behind the Sexual Revolution? What it is…”

Some of you may be laughing at my choice of examples, but I’ve chosen them for a reason. They are the most extreme examples, women playing football and men bearing children, and indicate what society seems to be trying to do today with “equality,” and that is to disregard nature, a natural order. And that is OK. Because we are men. We are not animals. We can rationalize our way through life. But the word “rational” means acting with “reason.”

And when I look at my wallet, I see it’s not working, we are not acting with reason as a society because I keep paying for so many things, women having children out-of-wedlock for example, in the form of taxes to which I do not benefit. Because my taxes are going up and up. And much if not most of it has to do with addressing “irrational” or violent human nature, the result of tinkering with a “natural order,” to which of course I believe I have clearly demonstrated there is a natural order. And if someone is not happy with their nature, I don’t think I should have to pay for it.

It’s one thing to work for equality. It’s an entirely different thing to disregard the truth entirely, that men and women are completely different and society works best when both bring their differences together to achieve a common goal.

Men and women are not equal. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that’s the best thing about it. Once we realize that again as a society, things will get better…and much less expensive, for everyone, men and women both.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Sign up to receive updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.

Did you ever drive by an abortion clinic during an anti-abortion protest? Were the protestors displaying large pickets with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses on them? Were the protestors shouting at cars as the cars passed by? That’s usually how such protests go off around here, like a witch hunt. It’s meant to be shocking, to drive you away from the idea of having an abortion if you are pregnant or know someone who is, and it’s meant to gather the support of others in the movement to ban abortion. But as the dictionary defines a subterfuge as a deceptive stratagem or device, I believe that is what the pro-life movement is to the conservative.

I believe that the pro-life movement has a negative effect to the conservative upon fifty percent of the voting body, the female vote, and may in fact drive a substantial portion of the female vote away from the conservative side of politics, that side of politics wherein resides the pro-life movement in the first place.

The predominant view out of the feminist movement regarding abortion is that since it is a woman’s body, it is her right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I don’t agree entirely with this perspective in that I believe it is chauvinistic because it removes the father from the equation, but it is to this day the prevailing point of view on the matter.

So, if there is a political movement such as the pro-life movement now telling the woman that she should have no choice in the matter, it will be in her nature to question that sentiment. And who can blame her? It is her body. And even though I disagree with that feminist perspective on abortion, that it is only her choice that matters and the father plays no part, one would be ignorant to disregard what the net effect of something such as the pro-life movement would be to the psyche of a newly pregnant woman who was not expecting the pregnancy nor can support it.

It is human nature to want more choices, not fewer. And the pro-life movement tells the woman she has no choice but to have the baby. Naturally the woman will gravitate towards the political ideology that refrains from restricting feminine discretion in the matter.

In other words, like a simple machine, a wedge in this case, the Pro-Life movement has the potential net effect of driving the entire female vote to the liberal side of things over one issue.

That, to me, seems like a political subterfuge. And though that may not be what it is, that is exactly what it does. And you know what they say about that.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.

Were someone to consider the very definition most commonly used of a “Conservative,” one thinks of small, efficient government, fewer social programs, and a freer citizenry that is less encumbered by useless and intrusive laws meant more to control social behavior for the benefit of a certain portion of society rather than the general freedom of the individual.

But there are some elements of many conservative platforms that would seem to defy directly any true definition of a conservative.

One of the most obvious to me is that of abortion. It is my belief that a true conservative would not ban abortion. From the point of view of a true conservative, the matter of abortion has nothing to do with the ‘Right to Life’ movement or any other similar group. The matter of abortion is simply a matter of social economics and taxation.

“How can that be,” you might ask? “What does abortion have to do with taxes?”

It may not be so obvious on the surface. Permit me to explain.

Many abortions are had by women that are single and in no way could afford to pay for the birth of a child nor support it early on. Few women can work at a job through the birth of a child and return to work soon after. There are some that can, and there are those that would insist that because of those few, we should set our law due to their maternal strength. But I tell you that would be unwise.

Most women know that they cannot carry a child to labor and rear it as well without the support of a husband, father, partner, or family. Many, though, disregard such common sense and insist, some repeatedly, to have children out-of-wedlock and consequently, almost as many fall back on the state for economic and medical support. But just as importantly, it is not the cost of rearing the child and the cost of the medical procedure involved with insuring that the child is born healthy, the cost of administering the programs which the pregnant and unwed woman must utilize is enormous. Those social workers and other government employees, whether they work directly for the government or for some subsidized social services agency, do not for the most part make $10.00 an hour. Many start at $40,000 a year with full benefits here in this state. Many earn much more than that.

Now, when I say “state,” we all know what I am talking about. You and I. Our taxes. Our earnings. Because we all know that without our taxes, there would be no “State.”

You might say, “I know where you are going with this. Oh, how cruel of you to leave a woman financially stranded with a child.”

To the contrary, I say, “How disrespectful of our fellow citizens to strap them with the weight of your sexual indiscretion. They are already working laboriously to provide for their own children. Why should they have to pay for the rearing of other children without their own consent and through no fault of their own?” They should not.

Given the current socialist/communist government system that pervades our country, I do not see such social laws changing in the near future. But, we can lessen the burden on the family that is already struggling to support its own children, struggling to feed them, cloth them, send them to school.

We can do this by keeping abortion legal. Because once that child is born, chances are that the child will utilize some form(s) of social program, free medical care, free school lunches, free breakfast, free books, free ride to school, you name it, for the rest of their adolescent life. Because their mother was unwed, statistically, there is a greater chance that the child will become involved in crime later on in life. Essentially, children that are born under the aforementioned circumstances become lifetime wards of the state.

And that IS expensive. No true conservative would go for that.

Copyright © William Thien 2010

Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35 other followers