Abortion- Not Smart

Talking about abortion is always difficult, not because we must grapple with semantics, morals, ideas, ethics, virtues, science, medicine, or anything else of that order. It is difficult to talk about because there is so much wrong with abortion that one struggles to know wear to start, which door to enter, where to grab on, which error and vice to first expose. Now, perhaps some of you are in favor of abortion and don't like what I've just said, but hear my argument if you will; I'm going to keep this one secular. I will gladly read any rebuttal in the comments section.

First, let me not make a moral criticism of abortion, but rather let me propound to you some commonsense reasons for why abortion is bad for society. In the first place, it causes hypocrisy in government. The United States government says that it does not fund abortions with tax payer money, at least at this present moment. Is this true? No, and an emphatic resounding 'no' at that. Companies like McDonald's, Sam Adams, Coca Cola, Swiffer and many more give millions and millions to Planned Parenthood every year so that they can have huge tax write-offs. That means that the tax money they would have had to pay was diverted to an organization whose primary mission is to provide abortions and contraception. Monies owed to the state, taxes, was given to abortions.

How exactly does the government not pay for abortions when such so-called philanthropy is at the expense of the government, a detriment to its total collection? What? Because the money didn't pass from the government's hands the government didn't fund abortions? How can anyone say that when it was the government in the first place who agreed not to collect the monies so that it could be so diverted? The government is financially complicit in abortion. For the government to say that it doesn't fund abortion is a pathetically feeble deceit of the first order.

Are you not convinced? Let's try this with other organizations. What if Smith & Wesson had given one million dollars to the Irish political party Sinn Fein back when they were fund raising in America during the 1970's, during 'The Troubles,' for the IRA. Keep in mind that the IRA is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Let's imagine further that Smith & Wesson got a tax break out of it. Everyone in America and the U.K. would be screaming about how the U.S. government was funding terrorism against the U.K. in Northern Ireland, in the same fashion that the PRC and USSR funded North Korea and North Vietnam.

Or let's imagine that the U.S. government declared that it wasn't attempting to sway the Iraqi economy in any particular direction, that it wasn't interested in imperialism or colonialism. Then, let us imagine further that congress passed a bill which said to all U.S. oil corporations that they would only pay 50% domestic taxes and 75% foreign for 20 years if they established themselves inside Iraqi oil fields. The U.S. government's actions would be irreconcilable with its words. 

This is precisely what we have here: lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. Do you imagine that this sort of behavior is acceptable and good for government? Or do you suppose that such governments are worthy to govern their people? Can such governments be trusted? Perhaps, up until now you've been saying," The government does the same thing with write-offs to religious organizations." You are correct, but the government never said,"We don't give money to religious organizations." What the government says is that there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government. That statement was in direct condemnation of what king Henry VIII did when he established and founded the Church of England with his secular power.

Also, notice that it is a separation of Church and State, not church and State. If the separation of Church and State is to be understood as an absolute as so many like to suggest, how then does the State impose this law upon the religious without dissolving such a separation? The very idea doesn't even make sense. How are they separate when religious interference in politics is limited and prohibited by the state if such restrictions are imposed by the state? It cannot be! This species of separation defies logic, unless such a phenomenon were accidental and mutual, but it is not. The nature of the separation must be otherwise defined. Ergo, as stated, there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government.

So, it isn't the same. What happens with abortion and religious organizations are very dissimilar in substantial ways. There's no need to address or entertain that assertion further. Let's rather look at the fiscal responsibility of abortion. The last time I checked, every American has an estimated monetary value. Some of you might remember the old movie "Boy's Town" with Spencer Tracy. In that movie there is a line that says," That boy is worth $10,000 dollars to the state!" It was said in reference to an orphan played by Mickey Rooney. But that was back during the Great Depression. Everyone back then was estimated to be worth about $10,000 to the state. That means that the mathematical mean of what a person will produce is X amount of dollar from the time they are born to the time they die.

We can contrast this with the debt average. I keep hearing rough numbers about the amount of debt allotted to each American; supposedly it's about $2.5 million and rising. That is to say, if we took the national debt and distributed it equally across every living citizen in the United States, each of us would owe approximately $2.5 million dollars. Now, today each of us is obviously worth more than $10,000 USD, quite a bit more in fact. More like $1.4 million. So, that means you still have $1.1 million hanging over your head if you are an American citizen.

All of that to say, every person born in America alleviates $1.4 dollars of debt. You could also say they generate $1.1 million. Still doesn't change the fact that they alleviate more than they generate. Abortion on the other hand costs money and generates none. Abortion is fiscally irresponsible; it does not have the power to generate wealth, only to stymie growth and progress. Any semblance of wealth is an illusion, comprised of money merely changing hands, insurance monies, and donations. It is a drain on society. The average abortion costs about $300 dollars, but certain procedures which occur less frequently can cost up to $1,000 dollars.

So, let's do some simple math here. I'm gonna be conservative with the constant here; the old general estimate of how many abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade is 50,000,000. Now, it's closer to 60,000,000 if it isn't almost there. So, 50,000,000 it is. And as we stated, the vast majority of abortions cost about $300 bucks. So, $300 bucks it is. Now, understand, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that this is not statistical science here. This equation proves nothing. It's merely an illustration, but a powerful one.

If we multiply 50,000,000 with 300, we get 15,000,000,000. That's $15 billion dollars in debt to kill the unborn. If we multiply 1,400,000 with 50,000,000, we get 60,000,000,000,000. That's $60 Trillion dollars. To put that in perspective for you, the infamous national debt is $14 Trillion, 5 Billion. Abortion has hurt us financially, regardless of what oat bran hippie fear-mongering fanatics might say about over population. Abortion has hurt us badly. And because of abortion this generation not only suffers from old debt, but at some point will face what Europe now faces: more dependents than there are people to depend upon. Enter welfare state. 

We can't say that we'd be better off or worse off debt-wise at the present moment, or at least I'm not qualified to say so. It would probably take a decade, hundreds of people, and lots of money to find out the precise truth of the matter. But it's very probably we'd be in the exact same place we are at right now, financially speaking. Except for one thing: having too few people to support the aging population of 'baby-boomers.' That certainly would not be a problem. Abortion is irresponsible, it exists primarily because of irresponsibility, and creates a culture of irresponsibility. Abortion is bad for the world, plain and simple, even leaving moral arguments aside.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Pauper- On Hypocrisy

There once was a man who lived in the streets of the city and he was a pitiful sight of mange and emaciation. As long as he had been in the city the young boys would come out and mock him; and he was the butt of all their jokes and songs. Whenever they saw him they would pass no occasion to speak evil of him.

Then one night, three drunken men came out and began to tear his clothes and kick his dog, which was his only companion until it laid down and died. And they began to beat the man with the palms of their hands. Now, when the young men saw this from a distance they ran shouting to stop the men from beating this man, though they didn’t know who they were beating. And when the drunken men saw them coming they turned to them and said,” Go away, fools! Or we'll beat you too!” And they all began to fight fiercely over this man. Having pulled him to safety and driven off the drunk men, the young men realized it was the same man who they mocked every single day and threw garbage at and defamed. 

Therefore, who had the greater shame, the drunkards or the young men? There are a lot of Protestant churches who are really involved in missions. They go on thousands of missions trips each year to Central America, South America, Asia, Africa. Often they are simply trying to convert people away from Catholicism. But then fierce persecution of Catholics starts in some foreign country and all of the sudden the Protestants say," Christians are being persecuted! We're being persecuted!" To many Protestants, Catholics aren't Christians until they're martyred or persecuted; they have no scruples about using Catholics this way. The people who do this should be just as aware of their shame as the young men in this parable.  

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Christian Liberty

In the modern day we have seen both the true and false liberation of women. I say true in that now a much greater dignity and task has been conferred upon womankind, which is their liberty. I say false, because they have become the victims of double tongued serpents. How so? Very simply, if a woman decides to put off marriage and children until the flower of youth withers, she is regarded as shrewd. If she goes and gets an education and pursues all the temporal advantages of business success, she is considered keen and self-sufficient. Finally, if she begins to be promiscuous, she is regarded as an all-powerful and jaded goddess who is above the emotional trappings which affect us mere mortals.

However, say that a young woman has decided to marry and have children, without having gone to college, with no aspirations of a business career. Let us say further that such a woman comes across the path of a so-called liberated woman, or perhaps one of their "emancipators." What do you suppose will happen? Do not speak to me of extraordinary instances, but avail your mind to the common occurrence. Will they not start in with all kinds of false pity, indirectly insulting her? Or the more mean spirited sort, will they not even go so far as to degrade her, putting on airs of superiority, making ostentatious gestures, and so conveniently steering conversation and venue to places the mother and wife cannot come? If they hear of any misfortune in the mother or wife's life, are they not eager to blame her children, brand her husband as a jailer, and amongst each other speak of her stupidity for having chosen such a life?

Or say perchance, there is a woman who has chosen to be a wife and a mother, and she goes out getting an education and making a career. Being surrounded with so-called liberated women, will they not prefer each other to her? Tell me, will they not incessantly propound to her that it is her being a wife and a mother that is the cause of all her troubles? Will they not attempt to exclude her on the pretense that her motherhood and her being a wife are at irreconcilable odds to her so-called professional goals?

Therefore, do they not rather propound to her an ultimatum, which is," Be a stupid animal, a slave, living with no one to care about the things you want." or," Be like us. Take charge. Free yourself. Get what you want." By this ultimatum, do they not say to wives and mothers," You have chosen to be stupid animals, slaves. You chose this; it is your fault." What sort of strange and exceedingly wicked perversity is this! These, their so-called liberators said to begin with," Women are prevented from all sorts of liberties. They are confined to specific social roles, so we are going to liberate womankind!" Yet, which of you can't see the difference between this statement and what actually is, now? I do not intend to paint every woman with the same brush, by no means. However, look at what we have already laid out. Can you not see that it was not want of liberty, but hatred of social roles which drove the multitude to revolt? The majority of women wanting merely liberty, lead on by women who had hatred for wholesome things in their hearts. Now, it seems that the liberty has been granted the hatred still remains. Where is the proof? The proof is in the scorn of motherhood, the hatred of marriage and the fear of both. The proof is in the rolling eyes of "liberated women" at pious mothers and wives who hold their husbands arms. The proof is in the gossip and ostracizing against holy women who have, because of true liberty, chosen to be mothers and wives. The proof is the torrents of implicit, and often explicit, disrespect which are blown against wives and mothers.

So, are women free? It seems they are free to do anything their hearts desire, except to be mothers and wives, especially the sort which stay at home and tend to those things. It has become taboo, even. All of society strives in sneaky and sometimes overt ways to dispossess these mothers and wives of their sacred place. They are the pillar of civilization upon which the whole human race rests, as I have often said, but the world tries to convince us," Kick out the pillar, the building will not fall." So, they strip them of their glory and honor, trying to make women like men and men like women; always doing and teaching what is perverted and abominable.

Still, as much as is written here concerning the fairer sex, I do not mean to make you think about womankind and their plights. Rather, I mean to communicate with you concerning another woman and her liberty, the Bride of Christ and Christian liberty. Part of the error of the secular feminist movement, and in truth it is the same error of the humanist movement, is that they demand liberty and give it no purpose. Liberty to do what, exactly? Whatever one wishes? That is not liberty! That is the most horrific and terrible tyranny of the senses and passions, which leads mankind away from all virtue, morality, and ethic. Liberty without a reason is the greatest of deceptions, the worst of lies. Knowing this, God has given us liberty for a reason.

What is that reason? Listen to the words of Zechariah," This was the oath He swore to our father Abraham:

    To set us free from the hands of our enemies,

    free to worship Him without fear,

    holy and righteous in His sight

    all the days of our life."

We were made free to worship Him without fear and to be holy. What does this tell you about Christian liberty, then? It says to us that we are no longer beholden to death, we do not owe a debt here to this sin and a debt there to that sin, but we have been emancipated. We now possess the ability to worship without fear of death. Before, there was no possibility that we should be holy, justified, and righteous. Now, we are made free and can be, because of our liberty, something which we could never be before, which is holy and righteous in His sight, forever.

So what, then? What point do I bring to you? That many do not know what sort of liberty it is which they have. They think," I am free to do this and that. I may wear this with that. I may eat whatever I wish. I may drink this and say this, and go here or there." This is true, but this is only what pertains to sensible things and truly, they are not even the most blessed things which pertain to sensible things! This error comes from littleness of soul, hardness of heart, and dullness of mind. These poor siblings of ours stop here and realize no more than these things which pertain to food, clothing, speech, and the body. However, which is better, that is, more blessed?     

You are free to eat what you wish, by God's allowance, this is your liberty. Does this mean that it is your liberty to offend God by eating too much or breaking His fasts? By no means! Only you have the freedom to do so, and incur judgment on yourselves. You are free to dress in garments of any material, according to the customs of whatever nations you live in. However, does this mean that you are at liberty to don impious apparel covered in blasphemies, or be clad in such fashions as are offensive to God? Are you at liberty to dress in such a way that makes your fellow human being stumble at you, or in such a way that is irreverent at the Mass, or all places? God forbid it! Only, know that you have the freedom to do such things and incur judgment on yourselves.

Some of you are saying," This is not true liberty, as it is delimited." Hypocrites! How can you say this? In your own countries where you govern yourselves as you please, is your own liberty not delimited as you call it? What sort of boundaries are these, which make your civil liberties delimited? Are they not such limits that prevent a person from infringing upon the rights of his neighbor, nor upon the rights of the collective? Will you whinge and cry because you can not go murder without consequence? Will you say that you are shackled because you can not steal? Will you say that you are oppressed because you can not rape? Will you say that you say you are slaves because you may not perjure the courts of your own country? Shame on you, hypocrite, for such reasoning. You have liberty in your own countries, of the sort which is good for you and for all and to such an extent that you consider yourselves, often enough, the freest of men. So it is with God, you are free and He has liberated you, but you do not have the liberty to trespass and offend God. Is there any legitimate government in the heavens or on earth that can truly give men the liberty to do evil, so that it is no longer evil? No, and throughout history wherever there has been such a government, it has been destroyed by it's own citizens.

So, now that we have talked generally about what we may not do, let us talk about what we may do. Now, as stated previously, unfortunately, many Christians merely view their liberty as a temporal emancipation from the Law of Moses and neglect the incorporeal aspects of that. Yet, I have no desire, right now, to talk to you about the inside of the cup, that is, incorporeal things. I desire to talk to you about the damage being done to the inside of the cup, because of the outside of the cup, through presumption.

For some strange reason, Christians look at someone who is cleaning the outside of the cup and assume the worst about them. They show how little they know, because Christ lauded the pharisees for cleaning the outside of the cup, which is bodily purity according to the Law of Moses, but rebuked them for neglecting the heart of the Law, which is the purity of the soul. Christ says to them that they had done well, but that they should not have neglected the inside of the cup. Christ does not even so much as say that they should have cleaned the inside of the cup instead of the outside. Only, he says to them that all things are clean to those who clean the inside of the cup, speaking the truth to them, but more importantly speaking of future things to come of which we in the Kingdom of Heaven have the benefit of.

Does this mean that men have the power to make holy that which can not be sanctified? Then they should not be practicing what can not be sanctified. 

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~