Abortions: Should the father have some say?

People love to go on about how abortion is a women’s issue and it’s solely her choice because it’s her body. There are two fundamental facts that destroy that argument. First, abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a women’s issue. One sperm and egg meet, a human life is formed. That’s a fact of science, not a fact of religion. Second, excluding rape or incest, a woman made her choice once she decided to have sex with a man.

The consequence of the choice is that future decisions, including abortion, need to include the father. After all, it’s his sperm that helped make the baby she’s looking to abort. The law needs to acknowledge abortion as a human rights issue and grant fathers a legal standing in the decision making process. An unborn human child should be afforded the same rights as a born human child.

Many women in today’s society believe that abortion is merely another birth control option. Why? Because sex ed in public schools teaches them that. They give girls condoms and if they end up pregnant anyway, abortion is always discussed as an option. Planned parenthoods, for example, will help a girl get an abortion without her family or the father knowing anything about it. They’re taking advantage of a scared child who doesn’t want to get in trouble. Planned Parenthood workers have been caught on tape telling girls to lie about their age and to say they don’t know who the father is. This isn’t in one area of the country. It’s all over.

There is a double standard in play. A woman has an unconditional right to have an abortion, whether she’s being vain, wants to get even with the father or is trying to hide the fact that she is irresponsible. So, off she goes to the clinic and the poor father has zero say in the matter. It’s her body and she can do with it what she wants. No, sorry. I don’t agree with that. Whether you see it as a baby or a sack of cells, it is not hers exclusively. It took two people to create that life, it should take two people to destroy it. If a father is willing to take complete control of the child and raise it on his own, he should have the legal recourse to take her to court and stop her from getting an abortion. There of course needs to be the legal binding contract that he will pay for the child and after it’s born assume all responsibility for it.

I have seen time and time again the following scenario. A woman gets pregnant and decides she wants to have the baby. The father decides otherwise and makes his feelings known. She has the child, sues him for child support AND WINS. Where is HIS right not to be a parent? Why can the woman number one get an abortion over the father’s objections yet the woman in number two can force the father to pay support for a child he never wanted?

The system needs to change to accommodate BOTH parents. Procedures need be implemented to protect the rights of men who want to be fathers as well as protecting women from men who merely are trying to make their lives miserable by taking advantage of the situation. Legal procedures can establish the future of the child, and make sure that the fathers keep their words. The current system can not go on unchecked. It might be a woman’s body, but when she willingly has sex with a man, she already made her choice.

Are you concerned that governments may use climate change policy to limit your lifestyle choices?

For years there has been a movement spear headed by Al Gore and his following urging the government to pass all sorts of “environmental” laws. They are pushing the government to draft and pass laws that control the behaviour of and limit the choices of Americans. The best part, as was demonstrated on the night the world went dark for an hour, is that Al Gore does NOT practice what he preaches. His Tennessee home was brightly lit with excessive lighting while the rest of the state went dark.

There is a movement to rid the country of incandescent bulbs in favour of the new “green bulb”. That might not be so bad if we replaced them with the green bulbs that are being produced in KY. Instead, we are to use the mercury filled bulbs that are being imported from China. If you think these bulbs are so much better, look at this government drafted guide to handling these bulbs if they break and when they blow. No more tossing the bulb in the trash!!

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf

Parts of the nation have bans on dish detergent. How sad is it when you have to smuggle detergent in from another state. There’s a movement to ban plastic bags from the grocery. For people like me who have secondary uses for the bags after bringing them home, that’s going to be a burden trying to find a substitute.

It seems that the government is encroaching in our lives more and more every day. They uses taxes and laws to control what we can and can’t do. You want to smoke? You have to pay taxes on tobacco. You want to send a letter or a card? The cost of postage stamps keeps going up. Energy costs are rising while simultaneous “cost saving tips” are drummed into our heads to get us to only set our heating and cooling between certain levels. I’m tired of paying through the nose to make the choices I have a right to make.

The thing that angers me the most is how Al Gore, the schools, and the media are scaring the hell out of our children over “Global Warming”. Children are TERRIFIED that they either won’t grow up or if they do they will be alone because their families will be dead. British, Canadian, and even American scientists are among the outspoken who have been saying for some time that Global Warming is a farce and that we are in fact moving into another ice age. ANY changes to the climate will not be apparent for thousands of years. Yet starting at a young age, our children are being brainwashed by the Government that it knows best how they should live in order to protect the earth.

I support recycling and cutting down on unnecessary waste. conserving electricity, not wasting paper to save trees. But the government needs to stop taking advantage of the alleged “Global Climate Crisis” to make money and brainwash the people.

Is the death penalty just or unjust?

The death penalty is not only just, but practical. Since the bleeding heart do-gooders have been getting their way, the crime rate in America has skyrocketed. The perception that human life is valuable has fallen by the wayside as pro choice activists brainwash the youth of America into thinking that Abortion is a women’s issue when it is in fact a human rights issue.

It seems that there are a lot more people in the media, in Hollywood, and in our school systems who are making more and more excuses for bad behaviour rather then punishing it. More and more criminals are being made to look like victims themselves rather then the monsters they are. As a result, countless groups have popped up all over that are anti capital punishment. It doesn’t matter what these monsters do because it’s not their fault. It was their upbringing, their childhood experiences, the company they keep, the victim’s fault. Everyone else is to blame but them.

The death penalty used to serve two main purposes. It was used as a deterrent and it brought a sense of justice and closure to the victim’s families. Now it seems to be another political tool in the tool box, to be used when they think it will help their chances of winning.

Let’s take a practical look at the prison systems today. For starters, the punishments rarely seem to fit the crime. In the case of murderers, they are often far to lenient. Someone who takes the life of another is sentenced to prison where he gets three nutritious meals a day, can exercise and do weight training, often has telly and internet, can have visitors come to see them, has the best healthcare around at no cost to them (because they’re not paying taxes while they’re in jail not working), has free education (high school and college/vocational) and (because he’s a murderer) is typically left alone. Do you know the cost of all these “benefits”? Gone are the days of people losing their rights while they were serving their sentences. Now they practically have more rights then the people who behave.

The shift from “Prisons” and “Penitentiaries” to “Correctional Facilities” has cost the tax payers a ton of money. Sadly, most of the offenders soon become repeat offenders, often evolving into more violent and dangerous individuals. A good many of the more “minor” offenders are often given early release due to over crowding. If the death sentences were carried out a little quicker and the states that didn’t have the death penalty adopted it, it would certainly help to clear out the prisons some.

It sounds absolutely harsh but it’s the logical conclusion. Why pay to support a vile, violent criminal who isn’t the least bit remorseful for the lives (s)he’s destroyed be supported by the tax payers for the rest of his/her natural born days? The only life these people see as valuable is their own. If there is overwhelming forensic evidence that says without a doubt that this person committed first degree murder, they should be sentenced to death and that sentence should be carried out in a more reasonable time. Twenty years on death row is unacceptable.

It’s utterly disgusting to see these people fighting so hard to preserve their own lives when they often didn’t just murder, but raped and or tortured their victims. Ted Bundy did unspeakable things to his victims, as did the Green River Killer. yet when it came to them, all of a sudden life had value.

I think we need to start bringing back the old forms of punishment a bit. Prison shouldn’t be a vacation. When you’re in prison, you lose your rights. You cannot vote, you do not get cable or the internet, you do not get free higher education, you do not get rushed to the hospital over a splinter. (True story as told to me by my cousin, a prison guard. They’d rather risk the expense of an ambulance trip to the emergency room then be sued in a frivolous lawsuit that the criminal will probably win.)

People who callously take the lives of others should pay with their own lives. They should not be allowed to live while their victims are dead and their victim’s families are broken. More over, I don’t think the tax payers should be supporting these criminals indefinitely! That money can go toward something useful like education and children’s programmes. Perhaps the money saved by executing 1st degree murders can be used to prevent another youth from ending up in the criminal justice system.

Should DNA paternity testing be mandatory?

This is like a tricky essay question. There is ample information to sustain either argument but you have to be able to look at the big picture and see the potential disaster that lies ahead. The short answer is I feel It would be counter productive and costly, not to mention a violation of privacy. Who you have sex with is your business unless your a child (making it your parents and the DAs business) or married (making it your spouses and probably they’re divorce solicitor’s business).

Imagine the cost to test multiple suspects if the woman is “unsure who the father is but has a pretty good idea”. We’ve all heard of those women who find themselves in the unlucky position of having two or more viable candidates and having to figure out how to handle the situation tactfully. And what if the woman was a victim of rape and didn’t know her attacker? Believe it or not there are women who become pregnant after a rape and keep the baby.

I am against mandatory testing because I see the bigger picture of where this will inevitably lead. Aside from it being a privacy issue, once the government has that DNA sample, they’re never going to let it go. There are multitudes of different ways that information can be misused. Supposing there is a very good reason a woman does not want the father of her child to know he has a child? A survivor of domestic abuse who got away before she found out she was pregnant is probably not going to want her abuser to be able to use that child to control and hurt her.

I am against the government having anymore control over my life then they already have. If they have your DNA on file, they will know if you’re predisposed to have any health conditions and can use that information to control the health care industry. The government is already looking to socialize health care. With DNA testing, they can charge or tax certain people more because their genes say they may have a predisposition to heart disease or diabetes.

How would we like it if in the future the government use the DNA information to limit who can have children and who can’t? How would we like it if they started doing the sorts of experiments Hitler’s people once did to come up with a supreme race of human? It sounds far fetched but Hitler already did such experiments once. Another Hitler type who comes along will have all this DNA information that the former didn’t have access too? History has show that under the right conditions, people can be duped into doing all sorts of things they wouldn’t normally do.

The government already tells us where we can and can’t smoke and then taxes the hell out of smokers to get them to quit because THEY want them to. They tell us what kind of light bulbs we should buy and what kinds of cars we should drive. They preach at us to be tolerant of the views they approve of and criticize anything that conflicts with their agenda. They don’t want to represent us, they want to dominate us.

Mandatory paternity testing sounds great on the surface, but we need to look at the long term precedent that will be set. We cannot willingly hand over our rights because we are too focused on the small picture. Paternity is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the concerned parties and if need be their solicitors. The government needs to mind their own business.

Is the US government responding appropriately to the swine flu outbreak?

The government is in no way responding appropriately to the swine flu outbreak. Between Joe Biden saying that he wouldn't be in any crowded places and Janet Naploitano REFUSING to allow Border Control Officers to wear masks because they may "look intimidating" it's pretty clear that the administration is not on the same page, or even in the same book. They need to get their act together and send out a strong, consistant, honest message about what's really going on. They also need to put the politics and image management aside and put the citizens of out country first. After all, isn't that what they take an oath to do?

This out break has brought to mind the immigration problems that have been, for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. The bottom line is simple—Immigration laws exist to protect the citizens of America. Part of the immigration process is a health screening. If an immigrant has a disease, such as swine flu, they would be quarantined and treated. This helps to prevents the disease from being brought into our country and spread to our citizens. In the late 1800s and early 1900s when immigrants flocked to the US, they were required to apply for citizenship, have a health screening, learn English, and pass a citizenship test.

Those who were found to be unhealthy were quarantined, or in extreme cases, refused entry and sent back to where ever they came from. That was back in the days when the government was still more concerned with the welfare of its citizens then its image in the eyes of foreign leaders.

While I don’t want to see people, especially children, get sick and possibly die, I do hope this opens the eyes of the extreme leftists who think we should have completely open borders with no restrictions whatsoever. Maybe they will now see the potential, unintended danger of letting illegal aliens from ANY country run unchecked in America.

France has limited entry to their country, especially air planes that are coming from countries with infected people. Our government won't even close the border down to keep unnecessary traffic from passing through. Why? Because the MEXICAN government relies on our commerce. Last time I checked, Mexico wasn't one of the 50 United States or it's possessions. So why are we putting their welfare before our own?

Janet Napolitano has gone as far as to prohibit border agents from wearing protective masks because it makes them look intimidating. Intimidating to WHO?? The Mexican Army is wearing masks and are managing not to intimidate the people. So they should get sick and bring it home to their families and friends because the masks don't coordinate with their uniforms? That would be akin to firefighters not wearing oxygen masks because they might scare any little children who might be in a burning building. It defies common sense and shows us how little the government cares about the safety and welfare of it's citizens.

It seems that this administration has been more concerned with what the world thinks of them then what the people of their own country thinks of them. They've changed the name from "Swine Flu" to "H1N1 Flu". Like we're a better class of people because we have "H1N1" instead of "Swine Flu".

The government hasn't done anything constructive to remedy the situation. The media, especially Fox News, has done a far better job of keeping people informed on the state of the illness then the administration. Kudos to the local governments for taking the needed actions such as closing schools and setting up special healthcare facilities as not to create new cases.

I hope this outbreak is a real wake up call for the powers that be. Someone in Obama's cabinet is suspected of having the flu. Maybe after they see first hand, up close how bad the illness is, they’ll stop being so superficial. Maybe after all these “sanctuary cities get flooded with new cases that are spread by the undocumented, illegal immigrants and the still-open borders, they’ll wise up and appreciate the laws a little more. It’s terrible that things are in the state they’re in because personal politics, appearance, and superficial decisions are prevailing.

Many thoughts and prayers go out to those affected by the flu, wherever they may be.

Should those who have committed crimes be allowed to benefit from their publications?

For years, people have been producing movies and writing books about some of the most heinous crimes in history. It’s standard practice that if someone writes a book about your story, you get compensated. Seems fair, right?

But what if you’re the one who COMMITTED the crime? Should you be compensated? Most people say no. Absolutely not. I say, if they are leaving behind a family who has nothing to do with their criminal activities, the proceeds should be given to them. It’s a tricky call as there are so many factors to consider. Sometimes it’s easy to rule out the family knowing. Sometimes not so much. It’s usually a safe bet that children don’t take part in their parents crimes, but when it comes to spouses, people constantly ask “how could (s)he NOT know (s)he was doing ______? They’re married/living together!!” Like that somehow means you know your spouse’s every move. If that was the case there would be fewer affairs going on because they’d be caught as soon as the thought entered their head.

As an example, let’s it’s many years ago and Bill Clinton murdered Jennifer Flowers and Monica Luinski and Hillary was a home maker who had no idea he did it until he was arrested a few years after the fact. If a book is written about Clinton’s life leading up to the murders and he is the central focus, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the proceeds go to support his wife and child he is no longer supporting. To be fair, a percentage can go to the victim’s families, but we should remember that Hillary and Chelsea would be victims too, not just Jennifer and Monica.

It should be stipulated that none of the proceeds can go directly to Bill at anytime or indirectly via a “gift” from his wife. As another example, had Scott Peterson’s son had lived, any proceeds from books or movies should go in trust toward his care and education.

If the book focuses on the crime itself, then the victims should be the recipients of the larger portion of revenues from the book or film. Divy it up among them and, if applicable, leave a small percentage to go toward the care of uninvolved spouses and children of the criminal. There are so many cases where a parent and/or spouse commits a crime and the children’s support is gone.

I don’t think the actual criminal should get anything other then jail time and/or the death penalty if it’s warranted. Their families that are left behind have already suffered because of what their spouse/parent did and shouldn’t be continually punished. The damage that is done often scars them for life. They shouldn’t have to shoulder a financial burden along with the stigma of being the spouse/child of THAT ONE who killed….raped….robbed….etc.

Often these crimes leave far more victims then the ones who were attacked directly and people tend to forget that.