My Dream Party's Political Platform
We all have fantasies about what we'd like our favorite political personality to say. I'm no different. So, since this is my blog, I'm going to outline my dream party's political platform. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I'm enjoying putting it down on paper.
1. Domestic Policy: Leave people the hell alone. Stay out of their lives, stay out of their ways, keep government's hands off their property.
2. Protecting the Poor: This is the land of freedom. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail. It isn't government's job to enable the poor to remain poor, or the rich to remain rich, or any permutation or combination of those possibilities. See Domestic Policy, above. So let the poor choose: starve, or work. If some bleeding hearts out there think this is inhumane, maybe they could point to the Constitution and show us where it permits the Federal Government to be a charity clearing house, or to take from one person and give to another. Nothing prevents concerned neighbors, communities, families, or bleeding hearts from banding together and volunteering their personal resources to help the poor. But it isn't government's job.
3. Energy: Our country and our economy runs on energy. So cheapest is best, all other things roughly equal. For now and the foreseeable future, cheapest is nuclear. Next is coal. Then oil. Then anything else. Nothing has to be especially polluting, given today's technologies. So we're for nukes, coal and oil. We're also for a robust and energetic research program to see what other sources can be harnessed to produce even cheaper energy, such as fusion, tidal, geothermal, wind, etc. But it's gotta be cheaper, or at least not more expensive.
4. Offshore Drilling: Why drill offshore, when there's lots of oil right under our Red White and Blue dirt? Drilling on land has less chance to pollute, and is easier to clean up if an accident happens. No miles of shoreline are damaged, only a few acres of dirt. So we're for offshore drilling if there is no oil under our dirt, otherwise we should drill right here.
5. Foreign Policy: Our Number One export is freedom. Freedom everywhere is in our national best interest. So our foreign policy priority is first to protect our citizens and national interests at home and abroad, which means expanding the export of freedom. Otherwise, we don't meddle.
6. The Iraq War: See Foreign Policy, above.
7. The War on Terror: See Foreign Policy, above.
8. National Defense: We're the only superpower. We have at least a 25-year warfighting technology lead on the rest of the world. We're in favor of increasing that to a 50-year lead. Why? See Foreign Policy, above.
9. Taxes: They're too high. We're in favor of a flat tax rate, which 100% of American will pay. There will be no exemptions, no breaks for the poor. We want everyone to be sorely interested in taxes; today, close to half our citizens pay no income taxes, so they're in favor of tax increases to pay for increased benefits to them. This will change under our administration. Businesses pay too many taxes; we mean to cut them at least in half to help stimulate more innovation, more entrepreneurism, more exports.
10. Entitlement Programs: Aside for veterans and certain first responders, there will be no federally-funded entitlement programs. This will save our national budget well over a trillion dollars annually.
11. Abortion: We don't know when human life begins, and neither does anyone else. So our position is that any unborn has the same rights to life as anyone who can read this platform.
12. Racism: Policies or programs that benefit or punish people differently at least partly because of skin color or declared race, is racism. Therefore ALL government policies, laws and programs that do that will be revoked.
Do you have other suggestions for this Dream Party Political Platform? Send them to the Ostrich Killer, and maybe we'll add them to this list. Now, back to that coffee pot . . .
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
THE ABORTION ISSUE SIMPLIFIED
Well, fellow ostrich hunters, you knew this topic would have to come up, didn't you? After all, it's an election year and some will try to capture the female vote by shouting 'Woman's Right to Choose.' You hear it every day, it seems.
But it begs the question of 'What would the child choose?' Of course, that's an easy question to answer. All you have to do is ask yourself if you'd like to be aborted right now. Your answer is obviously 'NO!' And why? Because even the most pathetic existence is better than death. With life there is hope. Not so, death. Death is pretty permanent.
Right there almost a quarter of you stopped reading because you say 'it's not a child, it's a fetus.'
Let's explore that, and if you're still reading maybe you'll think that 'it's not a child' concept over a bit more. Ready?
When do the products of conception become a human? I'm not talking about what some legislator might say, or what this or that statute might dictate, or what some court might have ruled. I'm talking about biologically. You know. From a purely scientific point of view, when does that mass of cells in the woman's body become a human, the type of animal that it is against the laws of every country to kill?
Well, maybe DNA testing will tell us. - - Oh. Wait. The DNA of even the very earliest of undifferentiated cells in the woman's belly is 100% human.
Okay. Well how about the 'soul'? When does that collection of otherwise unremarkable cells get a soul? - - No one knows. For that matter, no one has ever pointed conclusively to a soul. It's a matter of faith (or lack of it) that the soul exists or doesn't. So that argument is pointless, lacking tangible evidence either way.
So those who are 'for a woman's right to choose' come up with other benchmarks: it isn't human until month number x, where x is a variable between 3 and 6, depending on who is talking. Obviously this means that the number is a matter of philosophy, not science. A scientist might say something like 'it's all human but statistically not viable until month number y'.
Not viable? That is code for 'if the fetus were thrust into the world outside its mother's womb, it would die.' Logical, right? But what's logical about saying that since it would die, it's okay to abort (kill) it?
So ask a hundred people - scientists, doctors, philosophers, politicians, mothers, sluts - when human life begins, and you're likely to get dozens of different answers.
Bottom line: no one knows, unless you accept the simple results of DNA testing.
If no one knows, then no one knows when a murder is being committed by an abortion. No one wants to think of themselves as a murder, much less actually commit one on purpose. But when is it safe to abort, the confused woman might ask, if we don't know when human life begins?
Exactly.
If the woman doesn't actually know when the child within her becomes a human being, doesn't she run the risk of being wrong about when it's safe to abort? She might be right, she might be wrong.
But she has no way of knowing which, even after the fact (unless you count the psychic damage she'll suffer the rest of her life.) So, from a purely logical perspective, the only civilized thing to do is refuse to take the chance of being wrong. Put another way, if the woman might err, should't she err on the side of life?
Doesn't that make sense?
Once again your favorite Ostrich Killer has clarified and resolved what many others consider a difficult issue. You're welcome.
Well, fellow ostrich hunters, you knew this topic would have to come up, didn't you? After all, it's an election year and some will try to capture the female vote by shouting 'Woman's Right to Choose.' You hear it every day, it seems.
But it begs the question of 'What would the child choose?' Of course, that's an easy question to answer. All you have to do is ask yourself if you'd like to be aborted right now. Your answer is obviously 'NO!' And why? Because even the most pathetic existence is better than death. With life there is hope. Not so, death. Death is pretty permanent.
Right there almost a quarter of you stopped reading because you say 'it's not a child, it's a fetus.'
Let's explore that, and if you're still reading maybe you'll think that 'it's not a child' concept over a bit more. Ready?
When do the products of conception become a human? I'm not talking about what some legislator might say, or what this or that statute might dictate, or what some court might have ruled. I'm talking about biologically. You know. From a purely scientific point of view, when does that mass of cells in the woman's body become a human, the type of animal that it is against the laws of every country to kill?
Well, maybe DNA testing will tell us. - - Oh. Wait. The DNA of even the very earliest of undifferentiated cells in the woman's belly is 100% human.
Okay. Well how about the 'soul'? When does that collection of otherwise unremarkable cells get a soul? - - No one knows. For that matter, no one has ever pointed conclusively to a soul. It's a matter of faith (or lack of it) that the soul exists or doesn't. So that argument is pointless, lacking tangible evidence either way.
So those who are 'for a woman's right to choose' come up with other benchmarks: it isn't human until month number x, where x is a variable between 3 and 6, depending on who is talking. Obviously this means that the number is a matter of philosophy, not science. A scientist might say something like 'it's all human but statistically not viable until month number y'.
Not viable? That is code for 'if the fetus were thrust into the world outside its mother's womb, it would die.' Logical, right? But what's logical about saying that since it would die, it's okay to abort (kill) it?
So ask a hundred people - scientists, doctors, philosophers, politicians, mothers, sluts - when human life begins, and you're likely to get dozens of different answers.
Bottom line: no one knows, unless you accept the simple results of DNA testing.
If no one knows, then no one knows when a murder is being committed by an abortion. No one wants to think of themselves as a murder, much less actually commit one on purpose. But when is it safe to abort, the confused woman might ask, if we don't know when human life begins?
Exactly.
If the woman doesn't actually know when the child within her becomes a human being, doesn't she run the risk of being wrong about when it's safe to abort? She might be right, she might be wrong.
But she has no way of knowing which, even after the fact (unless you count the psychic damage she'll suffer the rest of her life.) So, from a purely logical perspective, the only civilized thing to do is refuse to take the chance of being wrong. Put another way, if the woman might err, should't she err on the side of life?
Doesn't that make sense?
Once again your favorite Ostrich Killer has clarified and resolved what many others consider a difficult issue. You're welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)