Idea ideas
As noted in the first post, this blog and website is founded upon a single idea: that pro-life folks ought not be paying for abortion via taxes.
Within this single, simple idea, a variety of strategies may exist - different methods implemented by a variety of folks in a variety of situations. Specific ideas on ways to flesh out the principle idea. The "Strategies" section on the manifesto page talks about some possible strategies, but that section is far from exhaustive.
Last week, a friend suggested a new idea, a new concrete thing to do. Maybe other folks would like to try it. So a new web page was opened for this very purpose. Click on the "ideas" tab on the menu line to see this page, and this first idea.
Maybe you have an idea. A concrete way to live out your opposition to the tax-funded slaughter of the innocents. Please tell us about it. Click on "Contact" for ways to contact us with your idea.
posted by Jerry at
2:26 PM
23 Comments:
TODAY'S PRAYER:
May the True Lord protect Professor Robert P. George of Princeton, and keep him safe from terror and from assassination, so long as Dr. LeRoy Carhart remains safe, terror-free, and unvictimized, AND NOT ONE SECOND LONGER.
AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
Thank you, Counterstrike, for helping me to become acquainted with Robert P. George, an exemplary model of clarity.
Thank you also for this your second illustrative example of dishevelled pro-abortion venom.
Having said that, i must insist that in any future blog comments you address the post topic.
OK, Jerry, your wish is my command.
You won't be PAYING taxes to cover abortions.
You will be ENJOYING A REDUCTION IN YOUR TAXES (or public debt) by having government provide abortions.
Because you WON'T have to pay for the pregnancy-and-childbirth care for indigent women who cannot afford their own abortions. Funding an abortion will SAVE much more than it costs.
How can you claim you're paying for abortions, when the abortions LOWER your taxes? You're not paying the abortion docs; the abortion docs are paying YOU.
Your argument fails on at least two levels:
First, as a cursory look at this blog and website will show, this has never been about the amount of taxes, but about their murderous outcome. Murdering innocent babies is wrong, even if it is financially profitable.
Secondly, to reach your conclusion, one would have to adopt the pessimistic error of presuming that human life is a fiscal liability. The opposite is true: Human beings are a nation's greatest material asset. People are not mere mouths to feed, but can be, if given the opportunity, creative agents of productivity. Indeed, material wealth depends upon human productivity. One current example: Social Security, which is threatened to collapse mostly because a birth dearth is leaving us with too few young workers to support the system. In other words, tax-funded abortion is already leading to demographic problems and an impending fiscal crisis.
Perhaps your sad outlook is premised upon the myth of overpopulation. I invite you to read with intellectual honesty Dr. Jacqueline Kasun's book The War Against Population. Its extensive bibliography will point you toward many other sources which may help correct any erroneous assumptions. Or, a good online site is The Population Research Institute. If you like, you may begin at my other blog and its post entitled War Against Population, which provides links to the above resources.
Sure, human beings create wealth, LATER. Abortions save money NOW (or, a few months from now). If you try to say no, humans are assets, then you are promoting INCREASING THE DEBT (by funding childbirths, rather than abortions) in the hope of reaping the reward (more people, greater productivity) LATER. Isn't that the sort of thing conservatives are supposed to be AGAINST?
You say your blog is about how we shouldn't have to PAY TAXES for abortions, AND you say "this has never been about the amount of taxes"??? What kind of goofery is that? (ANSWER: It's SELF-CONTRADICTORY goofery.)
Anyway, my point is not that we should lower taxes. My point is that you WON'T be PAYING taxes for abortions as your blog says; you'll be BEING PAID, in the form of a tax-cut (or deficit-cut) because of the abortions. So my comment isn't about the AMOUNT of taxes either; it's about WHETHER OR NOT you will be paying them for abortions. You won't.
And my position has NOTHING to do with world-population. It has to do with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS--specifically, the right to decide who gets to live inside your body, and when, AND HOW LONG. I'll explain that in my next comment....
Right-to-lifers have one right answer: fetuses are humans, persons, babies, members of the Human Family, and fully entitled to all the same rights and privileges which other humans enjoy.
But right-to-lifers have the wrong QUESTION. What matters is not WHAT a fetus is, but WHERE it is.
I say, if something is inside my body, then I'm entitled to have it killed, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. Even if it's an INNOCENT person. If you were inside my body, I'd be entitled to kill you. If I were inside your body, you'd be entitled to kill me. In fact, if ALL the people in the WHOLE HUMPING WORLD, including the innocent ones, the pregnant ones, and the unborn ones, were assembled somewhere inside my body, then I'd be entitled to holocaust them. Or, to just kill SOME of them (right-to-lifers!).
That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body". MY body is the body about which I, and no one else, get to decide who gets to live inside it, and when, AND HOW LONG.
Abortion kills a person. Doing an abortion on a woman who doesn't want it is baby-murder. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
If fetuses were as good and morally-pure and innocent as you say, then they would not WANT to live inside another person's body where they were not welcome. A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted. If it could talk, it would say, as it watched the abortion-doc's currette approaching: "It is a far, far better thing I do than I have ever done; it is to a far, far better rest I go than I have ever known."
Counterstrike, you are much more honest than the typical pro-abortionist. You acknowledge that abortion kills a living human being. But then you start getting confused.
On one hand, you insist upon treating this as some sort of spreadsheet analysis of profitability. Of course, you tacitly admit that it's only profitable in the short term. Every good business person invests in things that take time to develop. But the pro-life position does not stand or fall on a question of profitability. You are absolutely correct: abortion involves the killing of a human being. That is, it's murder. By what logic is murder acceptable if it is profitable? By Mafia standards? Murder is simply wrong. Tax-funded murder is doubly wrong.
The majority of abortions are performed against the mother's better instincts. Nationally and world-wide, legalized and state-sponsored abortion have the effect of pressuring mothers to violate their maternal instincts and kill their own. That is to say, most abortions are not freely chosen by the mother.
Is murder really acceptable if the victim resides in 'your' body? Maybe it's OK as well to murder a guest in 'your' house, or a passenger in 'your' car? (You had better warn your guests beforehand.) In any event, how do you justify violence against pro-life activists who are not living 'in' anything of yours? But this, too, misses the point.
The point of this website and blog is this: Murder babies if you will, but don't demand that i partake of that crime by subsidizing it. Don't use the strong arm of the government to make me pay your hit-man.
As for your assumption that the innocent baby would want to die, that's absurd. The wish to die is not moral high ground, and no normal living thing wants to die, least of all at life's very beginning. Martyrdom - the willingness to die for a higher cause - is a far cry from Thanatos, the love of death. Martyrdom is the supreme sacrifice of one who loves life. Thanatos - a longing for death, often suicidal - is a neurotic problem, a malady to be cured, not fed.
The good news is that there is forgiveness for repented sin, and healing. The former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a fine example, as are the countless mothers who have repented of their abortions, and have found forgiveness and solace in the Cross of Christ.
In this sense, God is pro-choice. You, Counterstrike (whatever your true identity), may choose to believe and receive forgiveness and life. Or you may choose to remain in error and death. It's up to you. Please choose carefully.
OK, I'll take 'em one by one.
Dear Jerry, the reason I, as you say, "insist upon treating this as some sort of spreadsheet analysis of profitability" is that YOU have insisted that I address the blog-topic, which is not abortion, but TAXES AND abortion. How do you address a question about taxes and anything without a spreadsheet analysis of profitability? Stupidly, that's how. Without it, you don't know whether you're paying taxes for the thing or getting a tax cut FROM the thing.
The reason I "tacitly admit that it's only profitable in the short term" is that predicting the long-term is very very difficult. For all I know, we could be living under Koranic Sharia Law in the long term. But, if we're gonna invest borrowed money in order to make ourselves richer, say, thirty years from now, I can think of very much better investments than forcing poor women to grow babies they don't want. I discuss some of these investments on MY blog.
Evidently you do not understand my position because you wrongly describe it: "You are absolutely correct: abortion involves the killing of a human being. That is, it's murder."
No. It's not murder. It's justifiable homicide. How many different circumstances can we imagine where homicide would be justifiable, kids?
I also dispute the proposition that unborn babies are innocent. They may be free of culpable INTENTIONS, but the fact is, remaining inside another person's body where you are not welcome is an impermissable violation, whether intentional or unintentional.
Besides, unborn babies are not LITERALLY innocent. "In-nocent" literally means non-harmful. If unborn babies were not harmful we wouldn't have obstetricians.
If unborn babies are innocent, it's only in the same sense in which criminally insane people who attack strangers because of chemical imbalances in their brains are innocent. MORE COMING
Jerry, you're quite amazing, because your next argument unwittingly reveals its own flaw. You wrote: " Maybe it's OK as well to murder a guest in 'your' house, or a passenger in 'your' car? (You had better warn your guests beforehand.)"
There are two reasons the unborn baby is unlike the guest in my house: first, my house is different from my body in many ways, one of which is your presence in my house doesn't mean I have to endure major medical/surgical trauma, but the fetus' presence in my body, does. Secondly, for the unborn baby there IS NO "beforehand".
When we invite someone into our house, he gives up the rights and privileges he was enjoying by being outside it on his own property or on neutral property. We are therefore obligated to return them to him. In contrast, the woman, by conceiving, takes nothing from the unborn baby, because there is nothing to take anything FROM. The short life from conception to abortion is just so much gained for it.
Giving a quarter to charity does not obligate me to also give another quarter. Donating blood does not obligate me to also donate the next transfusion the patient might need. And giving you a short life inside my body does not obligate me to also give you a longer one.
Then you wrote: "As for your assumption that the innocent baby would want to die, that's absurd."
Of course it's absurd. And WHY is it absurd? Because unborn babies are not as good and innocent and morally-pure as fetishists like yourself make them out to be.
You wrote: "The wish to die is not moral high ground...."
Of course it's not, not all by itself. But if you have to choose between dying and doing something worse than dying, then yes, the wish to die IS moral high ground.
STAY TUNED.....
Sorry for length but you asked a lot of questions!
OK, your next question was "In any event, how do you justify violence against pro-life activists who are not living 'in' anything of yours?"
Aha, that's a totally different question. The answer is, my religion says that right-to-lifism is murder and ALL right-to-lifers are murderers. Just saying "abortion is murder" is, itself, murder. Every time anyone says those three words in any language, they are murdering someone. I believe this more or less the way Catholics believe God is One but also Three--some times it seems not to make much sense, but I know that it is the Truth, and I pray to the Supernatural Entity to deepen my understanding of the fearsome, baffling, mysterious miracles. Since right-to-lifers are murderers, with victims, they must be stopped from murdering. They must convert to pro-choice or be silenced and eliminated. You can't just let someone murder, and murder again, and keep on murdering.
OK now about Bernard Nathanson. Go to the web site of the more-prestigious-than-classy Catholic journal "First Things" and look up an article called "Killing Abortionists: a Symposium" and read what Bernard Nathanson contributed. He clearly and unambiguously writes that we should not kill abortionists, except when they are at work, and then we should. That's pro-terror, pro-murder. He wrote this AFTER two murders and many arsons and bombings had occurred. The Catholic Church, by failing to make him repent publically or refrain from Holy Communion, is creating Herself as a TERRORIST organization. (I hope that when someone kills Father Frank Pavone of PRIESTS FOR LIFE, the righteous executor will wait until the murderer is at work rather than on his way TO work. I am a COUNTERTERRORIST organization.)
Your final paragraph provokes a question rather than an answer: why do you think you know anything at all about anything supernatural? Other than a collection of books written, compiled, translated, printed, and promoted by human beings (many of whom have written some very wacky things), what evidence do you have that a human being rose from the dead and will make it possible for you to do the same if you just believe really really hard? Note: having recited a formal pledge of faith is NOT evidence, even if you believed what you were reciting. I have just as much real evidence for my religious beliefs as you have for yours.
Oops, sorry, I missed a key bit of your post, which shows that you still don't understand.
You wrote: "The point of this website and blog is this: Murder babies if you will, but don't demand that i partake of that crime by subsidizing it. Don't use the strong arm of the government to make me pay your hit-man."
You won't be subsidizing it and you won't be paying the hit-man. You will be receiving a tax-cut (or deficit cut) FROM the hit-man. If you don't want your tax-cut, give it away. Or give it back to the government; it's quite easy to arrange to make your tax HIGHER if you really want to.
Wow, this must be good weed, every time I reread your post I discover something I haven't replied to yet!
You wrote: "That is to say, most abortions are not freely chosen by the mother."
Who forces women to get abortions in USA? Even most of the sob stories one finds on the net about women saying they were "forced", it turns out they were minors and the ones who "forced" them were their parents. Which is as it should be. No way a kid I'm responsible for should be able to add another kid to my payroll without my permission. If necessary I'd strap her down and do her abortion my own self. And in just about all other cases in USA, it turns out that the patient was not FORCED, but CHOSE to yield to some non-coercive form of pressure. Threatening to leave someone is NOT force.
Oops I shouldn't have said "payroll" since you don't like spreadsheets and numbers and things. I mean, total-responsibility (legal and moral) which includes money but also love, quality-time, support, education, discipline, diapers. Family responsibilities, which seem to have less and less to do with "family values".
Should (unemancipated) thirteen-year-olds be allowed to ADOPT babies without the consent of the parent or guardian?
OOPS ERROR
I wrote that Bernard Nathanson wrote his incitement to terror after two right-to-lifist murders had been committed.
Actually there had been three: Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, and Dr. Britton's escort, James Barret. Barret's wife Joan was seriously wounded.
Very sorry.
Counterstrike -
Seven more comments, and you spent over an hour and twenty minutes on them. I'm very impressed with your seriousness.
Don't take my word for it. Bring all this to the Cross and see for yourself. All you need do is sincerely ask forgiveness, and you can have it, and you will no longer have to go to such great lengths to try to justify that which cannot be justified. Jesus gave his life for this very reason. Let go, and come to Him. Forgiveness is much, much better than trying to defend and excuse yourself. Just try it.
Jerry, how about you join MY religion? It's very easy to join. Just stand up, put your hand over your heart and recite: "I confess that right-to-lifism is murder and all right-to-lifers are murderers. I pledge to proclaim this Truth, and to act on it."
You seem to say 'my' alot.
I see no point in following 'your' religion, nor 'mine', nor anyone's personal invention. To be credible, faith must apply to all people universally, regardless of individual subjective personal opinions.
The word 'catholic' means 'universal'. Jesus came for all, and His Church can be home for all.
Jerry, my religion is universal and open to everyone too.
When you have proven yourself by rising from the dead, let me know.
Jerry, no human being has ever risen from the dead.
Finally we come to the root of the matter.
Jesus has truly risen, and offers that risen life to all who follow Him. You have nothing to lose but your confusion, fear, venom - and your pride.
And YOU have nothing to lose except your fetishistic belief in fairy-tales as if they were facts.
Enough.
Prov.26:4,5
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home