William Thien

Posts Tagged ‘abortion

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.

In listening to a recent on-air discussion about benefits obtained by an out-of-wedlock mother where I reside, it was revealed that she receives $46,000 in benefits if she has one child, benefits including Rent Assistance, Food Stamps (The Quest Card where I reside), Medicaid, Child Care benefits, Women Infants & Children (AKA (WIC), financial payments for food for children), and a number of other benefits, all made available at one time during a visit with a social worker. All she has to do is get pregnant. No wonder forty-one percent (yeah, that’s right, 41%) of the children born in 2011 were born to single mothers. It’s almost lucrative. She doesn’t have to do anything except have sex!

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.

There is “The Economy” and then there are economies within economies. One of the economies within the economy is what I call “The Fuck and Suck Economy.” It is the economy that rewards people for illicit sexual behavior. Let’s read about it together.

Repeat after me. Down with the woman having children out of wedlock and enslaving us all with more taxes to let the children suckle at the public tit so she can get a government check. Down with the bitch of a man who fathered the children and wandered away. Down with the feminist that says such behavior is OK in order to perpetuate the false image that women can always be independent.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Down with the landlord who profits thoroughly from the situation by receiving a government rent assistance check. Down with the communist who believes such behavior is acceptable and down with the social worker who campaigns for the candidate that perpetuates the behavior in order to get re-elected.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Down with the media that fertilizes such behavior in order to boost its ratings and its circulation. Down with the corporation that profits from the arrangement and walks away without paying taxes. Down with the government worker that serves such an arrangement and does not speak out against it.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Down with the Right to Lifer who says a woman can’t have an abortion but will not pay to raise the spawn of an illicit night. Down with the woman who can’t keep her legs together when she knows she can’t afford to raise a child on her own. Down with the liberal that says such behavior must be protected, and down with the God that prohibits birth control and leaves the child in the street.

Down with the Fuck and Suck Economy.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Copyright © William Thien 2011, 2012

Much of the debate recently concerning birth control and religious organizations may in fact lead the formation of a position to attack the ultimate issue of abortion due to abortion’s single issue value during elections. Liberal politicians fear the issue of abortion like no other and some wholly religious conservatives may have decided that to go about seeing abortion made illegal again requires logical preparation, so to speak.

Another issue which could throw the election is that of entitlements. I heard recently that there are now more people in The United States receiving some form of government disbursement than there are paying into the system of disbursements. In other words, there are more people getting a “government check” than there are paying into the system giving the money away. That is of course financially untenable and it is not just a “Tea Party” issue. Everyone I mentioned the statistic to said they were not surprised and wanted to know when “somebody” was going to do something about it. When I said “somebody” isn’t going to do anything about it because it is the promise of the government check that “somebody” uses to get themselves re-elected, whomever and wherever that somebody governs in The United States, the general response was of course what was to be expected.

Another single issue which hasn’t received any debate is that of a national medical marijuana law, yet there was a story on network news yesterday about how doctors have been manipulated by drug companies to essentially “push” painkillers to the extent that it is believed many more people are addicted to painkillers today than would be were they prescribed under normal circumstances. Not much coverage on the benefits of medical marijuana vs. chemical painkillers, but what do you expect from the news syndicates who receive huge suns of money from drug companies. Perhaps if medical marijuana advocates want to see a national law on the matter they should start paying off the media as well with massive campaigns.

What do you think is the next big single issue?

Copyright © William Thien 2011
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!

There is “The Economy” and then there are economies within economies. One of the economies within the economy is what I call “The Fuck and Suck Economy.” It is the economy that rewards people for illicit sexual behavior. Let’s read about it together.

Repeat after me. Down with the woman having children out of wedlock and enslaving us all with more taxes to let the children suckle at the public tit so she can get a government check. Down with the bitch of a man who fathered the children and wandered away. Down with the feminist that says such behavior is OK in order to perpetuate the false image that women can always be independent.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Down with the landlord who profits thoroughly from the situation by receiving a government rent assistance check. Down with the communist who believes such behavior is acceptable and down with the social worker who campaigns for the candidate that perpetuates the behavior in order to get re-elected.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Down with the media that fertilizes such behavior in order to boost its ratings and its circulation. Down with the corporation that profits from the arrangement and walks away without paying taxes. Down with the government worker that serves such an arrangement and does not speak out against it.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Down with the Right to Lifer who says a woman can’t have an abortion but will not pay to raise the spawn of an illicit night. Down with the woman who can’t keep her legs together when she knows she can’t afford to raise a child on her own. Down with the liberal that says such behavior must be protected, and down with the God that prohibits birth control and leaves the child in the street.

Down with the Fuck and Suck Economy.

Down with them. Down with them all.

Copyright © William Thien 2011

Since the 1960′s something has been happening continuously to the relationship between men and women in America called The Sexual Revolution. It involves frequent, fluid changes, often legal changes to the way men and women address and deal with each other at home, in the work place, in public. The sexual revolution is an offshoot, a facet perhaps of the feminist movement.

But is the Sexual Revolution good or bad for women, for America? And is it really a revolution at all?

Well, for the most part, though I will answer that question to some extent later, that is not why I am talking to you today. I merely want to examine the Sexual Revolution for what it is, not for what we are told it is by say, the corporate media, for example.

Many people think it is the women of America that are the principal players in the feminist movement. It stands to reason, does it not? Feminist movement and women. Feminine, female, feminist movement. It is so darned obvious. Why…it has to be the women behind the feminist movement and The Sexual Revolution, who else could it be?

I am here to tell you that I think it is something different. Yes, women want to improve their lives. And who can blame them?

But the so-called feminist movement is not what it once was, not what it is. No, ladies and gentlemen, I believe the feminist movement has been hijacked as part of a larger corporate business plan meant to sell more products and undermine the American workforce and women, and men for that matter who do not recognize it for what it is, are just the unwitting dupes. Your own champions of the feminist movement of earlier years, the Gloria Steinem’s and the like don’t even know what is happening or may even be key players in what I describe here.

Before the sexual revolution, before Gloria Steinem and the feminist movement of the sixties and seventies, the American labor force consisted of mainly men, except during times of war when women happily manned the production lines to perpetuate the war effort. Before The Sexual Revolution there was less competition for every job. But with The Sexual Revolution and the migration of the woman out of the house and into the work force there were suddenly twice the number of applicants for every job. Corporate America could do nothing but accept the Sexual Revolution with open arms, to fall in love with The Sexual Revolution, in fact it may have even been part of a larger plan. Why? Now corporate America could offer lower wages.

Hold it. What do you mean they could offer lower wages?

What I am saying is that now there were double the applicants for every job with not just men looking for that job but both men and now women, too. More competition for jobs and the wage rate goes down. People get paid less. It is a fact of economics. Now corporate America doesn’t have to pay its workers as much.

A parallel can be seen in the fact that employers like to hire illegal aliens. With more people competing for the same jobs those people will accept less pay and perhaps no benefits to obtain those jobs. That is also a fact.

The presence of illegal aliens in America, because they will work for less, also drives down the cost of labor. Employers, the more unscrupulous ones in particular, like hiring illegal aliens for that very fact, even if they know it undermines the work force and their buying power and will eventually put America out of business. Because America’s own workers won’t have jobs and won’t be able to afford to make purchases of products manufactured by the illegal aliens. It’s a short-term business plan, that one is.

But let’s examine who else benefits from having more employees, or the newly arrived women, in the work force. Automakers. Now that all of those women want to go to work, they are going to need cars. Again, there is corporate America. Before the Sexual Revolution most families had only one car. Now they have two, sometimes three. So the Sexual Revolution is good for automakers. And really, that’s good. It’s good that automakers sell more cars, good for business anyway. And what is good for business is good for everyone for the most part. More workers needing cars means more cars need to be made which probably means more workers will be needed. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. Though, read on.

And if there are more cars on the road, well those cars are going to need what? That’s right, gasoline. And who makes gasoline? Oil companies. And oil companies epitomize corporate America.

The list of those corporations that benefit from The Sexual Revolution is myriad. I merely offer two of the most obvious and omit the others for the sake of expediency here.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with corporate America. And there is nothing wrong with the Sexual Revolution and the feminist movement. I for one think many of the resultant changes to the lifestyles of women make them more attractive and easier to have a conversation with. Before the Sexual Revolution many women would not have entered into a conversation about a variety of subjects and would have simply demurred on the matter so as to adhere to what at the time was considered socially attractive, acceptable behavior. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with their perspective on the matter nowadays, just that I have another perspective to consider.

You might ask again, then, why ask the question “Who is behind the Sexual Revolution?” And what do you mean by the statement in the title of this post “What it is…”?  It was something people used to say to each other during the beginning of the sixties and throughout the seventies. It was a sort of greeting. But in this case, I say it as a question, because as you will see, what it is is usually what it does. And I believe The Sexual Revolution does something entirely different than what it says it does.

My answer is that even though many beneficial things have come to society from the advent of The Sexual Revolution, we must examine it for what it really is, who is really behind it and who benefits from it so that everyone benefits from it to some extent and not just particular segments of our society, so as not to move into something that we cannot back out of.

I believe we must ask the question who is behind The Sexual Revolution because I believe that it has created many demands on society that may not be in society’s best interest in the long run and may outweigh the actual benefits of The Sexual Revolution in the first place, substantially outweigh them. It has created demands on natural resources and changes to our tax situation that have resulted in many burdening new social programs meant to accommodate the “independent woman,” a woman who arrived as a result of the sexual revolution and who perhaps wants to have a child out-of-wedlock but can’t afford to pay for it herself and needs to fall back on public assistance, helping to raise the average federal tax rate of a family of four in 1952 from 2 percent in federal taxes to currently and frequently closer to twenty or thirty or more percent, a substantial, economy stifling burden.

Yet, even with the benefits brought forth by The Sexual Revolution and all of the wonderful changes to society, the negatives may in fact tremendously outweigh the benefits both in terms of dollars and also in terms of resources, in terms of pollution (more cars on the roads means more pollution. And cars are the major contributing factor to pollution in America), and that list goes on and on as well. Again, for the sake of expediency I won’t enumerate them.

But finally and most importantly to the women of The Sexual Revolution, I would not even ask the question. “who is behind The Sexual Revolution” had I not seen polls recently asking women if they would return to a more domestic lifestyle as perhaps housewives, again? Most answered they would not because their female peers would lose faith in them in that they accepted a so-called lesser role than they had taken before, as if there was something wrong with being a housewife.

And it’s that attitude, that of her peers who will think less of her if she returns to a lifestyle in the home, it is that attitude that tells me that even though The Sexual Revolution has brought us many great things, it has in fact not given today’s woman more freedom but less, it has shackled her mind. Because what once was a social movement designed to give a woman more power to choose what she does with her own life has in fact taken away one of her most significant choices, to take care of her own family, to do what she may very well need to do for herself and her own family by acting in their best interest.

The Sexual Revolution has in fact brought fewer choices to today’s woman, not more. And you have to ask yourself…why?

And you have to ask, ”has The Sexual Revolution really been a revolution at all?”

Because what it is…is usually what it does, and The Sexual Revolution is definitely not “What it is.”

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

June 2013
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930