"Abortion on Demand & Without Apology&quo...

Many in America today passionately support a right to abortion, even after five months into the pregnancy. Perhaps we should all join in and protect this right.

But let’s not be incoherent in our logic and values.

The central premise is that a person’s human value—whether or not an unborn child has rights or deserves to live—is dependent upon the will of the mother. Thus, if she determines that the child is a blessing, we will celebrate, congratulate and support in every way. If, however, she decides the child is a significant obstacle to her plans and desires, we will refer to it as a fetus, treat it as one might treat a tumor, and remind the mother woman that her own strength and independence are what is most important in life.

Our laws should also reflect this premise.

Why base legality on an arbitrary timeline? At minimum, abortion should be allowed up to the final days of a pregnancy. We should also be open to some reasonable grace period after birth, during which the mother can decide whether to keep the child alive. She could also give the child up for adoption—though current trends suggest abortion would be chosen around 90 percent of the time. As the child is the complete property of the mother, the father should have no say in this choice, and should indeed have no legal right or obligation toward either mother or child.

The more profound change must occur in our culture.

Without rights or obligations, men ought to be seen more as sexual objects, only occasionally needed for child-bearing in case a woman should decide that motherhood is something she wants to explore. But even in such a case, it is not necessary to engage in a long-term relationship, since modern science frees the electing mother from such an arcane dependency. This is certainly not to say that relationships are wrong. A tolerant society should always value the choices people make, and two adults ought to enjoy the freedom to establish a traditional family environment. That is what makes America great.

We have already made great strides in breaking down oppressive expectations about what constitutes a “normal” or “healthy” family environment. This is great news on our path toward a free and equal society.

Every year, over one million babies are killed fetuses are removed, without unnecessary pressure on women to demonstrate health risks or other reasons. Aside from safe and legal, abortion is becoming more available and affordable than ever before—especially with governments picking up the tab. This has resulted in tens of millions of American women who are more free today. They are free to engage their sexual pleasures without being tied to one partner, free to pursue the careers they want, and free from all of the curses of motherhood. Instead of worrying about personal sacrifices or taking care of other people, more women—and men—can now focus on themselves. At least until they decide they are ready to settle down.

Like those before us who fought to end the oppressive abomination of slavery and prejudice that devalued human beings to the level of animals, we should all join the fight for the freedom to abort an unwanted child, so we can become a more prosperous, virtuous and just society.

A valedictorian in a Texas high school had his microphone cut off after mentioning God, and the constitutional right of students to speak about their faith.

In april, I wrote about the subtle indoctrination of secular education, through which children are tacitly trained to think of faith as a private matter that should not be discussed in a public forum. The complete absence of references to God or biblical themes suggests that these are not mainstream ideas, and that the default view of an educated person is an atheistic one. Indeed, as the Anti-Defamation League says on its website, “public schools may not teach religion, although religion in a secular context is permitted… in a neutral, objective, balanced and factual manner”—as if these words are incongruent with faith.

As an instrument of government, the public education system has fallen to the mistaken—though widely assumed—belief that it must be strictly separated from religion, which in America is synonymous with Christianity. Thus, time after time after time, stories surface of teachers and administrators purging their classrooms of anything that can be labelled a “Christian” point of view. At universities it’s far worse.

So again, we have a student at the top of his class, who decides he wants to thank God in his commencement address—something not especially uncommon. While schools generally discourage students around the nation from such content, there are probably many more occasions in which school officials let it slide than we ever hear about. Nevertheless, this one was born for headlines.

Apparently, school officials reviewed and disapproved of valedictorian Remington Reimer’s original draft, featuring religious remarks. He turned in a second clean version to their satisfaction and received warning that his microphone would be cut if he deviated, so when he decided to include this threat in his actual speech that is precisely what happened.

The school district maintains that they followed policy, but the details of their statement show just how well discrimination can be disguised within the patchwork of policy:

The District has reviewed the rules and policy regarding graduation speech, and it has been determined that policy was followed at the Joshua High School 2013 Graduation Ceremony. The valedictorian, salutatorian, and class historian speeches were reviewed in advance by the campus staff, prior to the graduation ceremony. Student speakers were told that if their speeches deviated from the prior-reviewed material, the microphone would be turned off, regardless of content. When one student’s speech deviated from the prior-reviewed speech, the microphone was turned off, pursuant to District policy and procedure.

We are supposed to acknowledge the fair treatment of all speakers and walk away from this story thinking that someone just took it too personally—another overly offended family with a lot of facebook friends.

But the term “prior-reviewed” hides the fact that the speech also had to be prior-approved. By not approving the original speech, then relying on a policy that gives them permission to cut off a microphone if a student deviates, the district set up a game in which they could not lose. Effectively, they gave the student an ultimatum: say what we want you to say, or you’ll be silenced and held against school policy.

The student handbook may not say there is a policy against discussing faith, but by placing complete power over expression in the hands of people who believe faith should not be discussed, the outcome is the same.

Likewise, it may not be a policy of our government to discriminate against Christians, but its persistent squeezing out of “religious” dialogue from the public square has the same result.

I would like to hear an answer to this question: Do the rights of women to decide on the birth of their children supersede the rights of U.S. citizens to own guns? Or to put it in Piers Morgan’s words, does the “right of a child not to be blown away” also imply a child’s right not to have its spinal cord severed with scissors as part of a late-term abortion procedure? I’ll get back to that in a second.

Morgan’s charge is nonsense. Of course children—and all people—have a right not to be murdered. We have homicide laws for that very reason. He uses this to suggest that people should not have guns, or at least certain arbitrary categories of guns. This same logic would say that prohibition should be reinstated because people have a right not to be a victim of drunk driving. For that matter, we should ban cars, which killed over 32,000 people in 2011.

The media has been all over this gun issue, to the point of suggesting that photos of the dead Sandy Hook victims should be released in order to stir the nation to tighten gun regulations. But when it comes to the equally disturbing practice of abortion, there is no talk of releasing photos, or even discussing the victims of people like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who gets paid to “flip the body of the baby over and snip its neck with a pair of scissors to ensure ‘fetal demise.'”

Conservative blog site HotAir has a good take on the story here.

Gosnell is facing a minimum 20 years in prison, and possibly the death penalty. That’s the good news, because his estimated 100 victims did have a right to life—regardless of the parent—and he took it. The bad news is that the media has brushed the story under the rug. If you’ve heard of it before now, it was likely from a conservative source.

The tacit message from those in the media, who are overwhelmingly liberal, is that either the public already agrees with their skewed views of justice, or certain injustices are not worth discussing because they harm the agenda. Likely, it’s both. They believe that the majority is behind them, and certain types of injustice warrant discussion because they fuel the fire of “progress” against those cantankerous old world conservatives.

We are supposed to take immediate action against second amendment liberties because we care about children, but at the same time ignore the infanticide happening right in front of us in the name of individual liberty. There is neither logical nor moral consistency in this argument, unless the goal is not really justice, but ideology.

This shouldn’t be a political issue—indeed, the video below shows that many see this as a form of intentional racial oppression, though I would disagree with that characterization. That blacks are the overwhelming majority of abortion victims is a matter less of design than the realities of extremely high pregnancy rates among blacks. This 20-minute video, produced by the 3801 Lancaster Project, tells the story up to the point of Gosnell’s arrest. The trial has been going for months, with many gruesome new details surfacing. And though clinics like this are operating all over the country, all the media wants to talk about is Sandy Hook and guns.