Women's Lib

I must admit, I know very little about the American "Women's Lib" Movement.  I'm sure it has something to do with the misogynist evil male historians leaving it out of survey history textbooks.  Or something.  But the phrase conjures up images of women dawning pants and burning bras, divorcing their husbands and demanding the right to kill their children, giving themselves HPV by having sex with too many partners, and that one chick going under cover as a PlayBoy Bunny.  And that's about it.

I cannot take women today, nor women from 40, 50, 60, 70 years ago, seriously about them being oppressed and enslaved; that they had to free themselves from the chains of an antiquated patriarchal society, and that they are only ever one vote for a Republican away from again being enslaved.  I just don't see that.

Oppressed like how Irish indentured servants in the 17th to 18th Century America and Europe were oppressed?  Enslaved like how the POWs of warring African tribes were sold into slavery to the Arabs, Europeans and Americans?  Chained up like a disobedient dog and beaten into submission with a stick?

Or how about being objectified?  Being so down on your luck, so hopeless and helpless, that you turn to stripping, pornography, or prostitution?  What about being used?  By strangers or someone you love, but who does not reciprocate that love?  What if in your efforts to free yourself, you enslaved your child; made her your property to dispose of in order to compensate for "gender inequality"?

What about being enslaved to a little pill in order to achieve your "freedom"?

Women are less free today than they were in the days when they were considered the property of their husbands.

I personally never experienced anything particularly "liberating" that also coincided with my being a woman.  I've climbed the Alps and dangled my legs off the Cliffs of Moher.  I've street raced down a dark and deserted desert road doing over 100 mph.  I've skinny dipped in the Pacific Ocean at three in the morning.  All very liberating.  But had nothing to do with me being a woman, nor with me being a "liberated woman."

It was not until I started getting a grasp of NFP (Natural Family Planning) that I finally, truly, experienced Women's Lib.

I am convinced that there is nothing more liberating for a woman than for her to know her own body.  If you were to ask me, I could tell you with absolute certainty that at this moment, I am not fertile.  And if you were to consult me again in, say, a week, I could describe my cervical mucus to you and tell you whether I am nearing ovulation or already ovulating.  If you were to ask me on any particular day, I could tell you what my waking temperature was and describe the condition of my cervix and tell you what that reveals about my cycle.  With all of this knowledge, I can tell you that my husband and I have been able to avoid pregnancy while still maintaining a healthy sex life, and without having to put any barriers or restrictions between us.

I had a friend once ask me where her cervix was.  This is a girl who became sexually active years before I did; who has been with six times as many men as I have; who has done so much more "experimenting"; who basically lives for sex.  But she didn't even know how to find her cervix.  She didn't know it was possible to avoid pregnancy without having to pump herself full of hormones.  She was a slave to The Pill.

I find it deplorable that "Women's Lib" meant women becoming slaves to synthetic hormones.  Women are "free" but at risk for blood clots, lung clots, hemorrhages, strokes, heart attacks, breast cancer and ovarian cancer.  Women can have all the sex they want or make themselves orgasm but they do not even know their own bodies.

How ironic.


Suggested reading: New Feminism: The Pill Kills

Just a Quickie

I just felt this excerpt from The Bad Catholic's Guide to Wine, Whiskey and Song by John Zmirak was worthy of a post:

It's a bitter irony that nowadays, the very people who treasure a deep concern for the ecology of the planet and maintain a healthy suspicion of the technological designs of large corporations have embraced the use of a drug produced by pharmaceutical giants which doses a woman's womb with hormones every day--you know, the kind of hormones (the equivalent male hormones are called "steroids" and are deeply illegal.) you don't want in your chicken?  That's exactly why you go to Whole Foods to buy "free-range" in the first place. . . . People who rightly don't want biomedical waste dumped in a wetland will pour it into their bloodstream.  They'll make sure the skin cream they buy wasn't tested on animals--then vote for stem-cell research that aims at cloning human babies to serve as spare parts.

The book itself is immensely clever and highly amusing.  It chronicles The Church's history with regard to alcohol, while offering social and cultural commentary, and providing cocktail and dinner recipes to accompany the prevailing themes addressed.  However, if you have never lived in Steubenville, Ohio or Gaming, Austria, it probably isn't for you.

On Love

*WARNING: It's pretty sappy*

     From the moment I first held my daughter, I thought to myself that this strange little creature is all too often misnamed a "Bundle of Joy."  Exhausted from forty weeks of pregnancy and nine hours of labor, lying on hospital linens soaked with my blood, a bag filled with my urine hanging off the side of my bed for the world to see, fresh stitches holding my vag together, and a dull pain in my back from where a long needle was stuck, I looked down at my child--my flesh and blood--with her misshapen head from having to be vacuumed out of the birth canal; her gray and shriveled hands and feet, still curled at her wrists and ankles from nine months in a cramped space; and her generic baby facial features, and felt no joy.  Relief that she was finally out, yes.  Excited that I was a little closer to having my body to myself again, yes.  But when I looked down at my daughter, I did not see a "Bundle of Joy" and I did not feel an ounce of personal joy.  No, it was love that I saw and felt.  Pure, unadulterated love.

     This was not a Bundle of Joy I held in my arms.  There is nothing joyous about the high-pitched scream of a newborn baby at two o'clock in the morning.  Absolutely nothing joyous about projectile defecation.  There is nothing joyful about having your nipples rubbed raw by a needy, dependent creature that cannot even hold up its own head.  Still, almost twenty months later, I find no joy in my bossy and spoiled toddler's temper tantrums.  There is no joy in having the responsibility of another's life in your hands; knowing that how they turn out as a person relies solely on you; having to make personal sacrifices and forgo your wants and desires for those of another.
     It is love that carries a mother through the many and varying trials of parenthood.  Love that brought a woman to share her body with her child for nine months, and even more if she breastfeeds.  Love that keeps her awake through a three in the morning diaper change and feeding.  Love that props up her sore and weary arms as she comforts her crying child.  It is all love and it is all for love.
     But why is it that such a tiny person requires so much love?  Well, because that tiny person IS love.  My baby is the physical manifestation of my husband and my love for one another.  When we "made love" we made Elsie Maria.  My husband and I love each other so deeply that our love spilled over, and had to manifest itself in the form of a third person.  Our Love, screaming for attention.  Our Love, making smelly messes in overpriced diapers.  Our Love, smashing peas into her hair.  Our Love, scribbling on the walls with crayon.  Our Love, driving me crazy with her incessant whining.  Our Love, learning to use the potty.  Our Love, splashing in the bath.  Our Love, climbing into bed with us at one in the morning.  Our Love, giving us hugs and kisses.  Our Bundle of Love, asleep in my arms after a long day of temper tantrums because she did not get whatever it was that she wanted.

      Whether conceived by two caring people in love, or through an act of selfishness or lust; whether it was because of the failure of contraceptives, or the disgusting crime of rape; whether naturally or in a petri dish: we, as persons, are love.  If you are alive and reading this, know that it is because someone somewhere along the way loved and wanted that love manifested--even if it were unconsciously.  This should not be taken lightly, especially in today's culture where unborn children are reduced to the property of the mother, disposable at her whim, and only given value and worth subjectively and selectively.
     It takes love to make it into the world today.  If you were unplanned, you were still loved enough to be penned into your mother's schedule.  If you were given up for adoption, your biological mother's love still prompted her to carry you for nine grueling months and then give you away that you might have a better life, a better chance, and more love.  If you are the product of rape, your mother still recognized you as an unrepeatable human being, innocent of the wrong that was done to her, and given a chance at life and love.  If you started your life in a petri dish, robbed of being conceived by the act of love between two persons, it was still only through love that brought you into this world.  No matter if it is the parents' love, the mother's love, or only God's love: we, as persons, are love.  But the human dignity inherent in us demand that we be the love of all three: mother, father, God; that we may love and be loved.

  
     

Dear Deputy DA James Hill:

Pray tell, when did it become legal to drive a car without auto insurance?  You see, sir, I have been robbed by my auto insurance company.  I have been operating under this silly misconception that I was required, by law, to purchase automobile insurance if I wished to operate a motor vehicle in the great state of California.  Thus, I have been throwing money at this ravaging insurance company, who has unapologetically taken full advantage of my naivety.  If only I had known that I could drive a car without car insurance, cause a horrific accident, take someone’s life, tear apart a family, cause so much pain and sorrow that one cannot even coherently express—and still go on living my life as if nothing ever happened.  If only I had known that I could drive a car without car insurance, I could have been putting an extra $200 a month toward my student loans; or upgraded my cable to include the movie channels; maybe I could have been putting that money aside to someday buy a house.

Do you happen to know what Shapri Rene Brown was doing with the money that she was not spending on car insurance?  I hear through the grapevine that she was not spending it on keeping herself and her children in an apartment.  She was not spending it on the merchandise that she was arrested for shoplifting.  She could not have been spending all the money she was saving from not having car insurance at the Mexican meat market, could she?  Was she spending it all on her prescription for Norco?

Are we on the same page now?

Kevin Edward Medina was my big brother.

He was a handsome young man with dark, curly hair and green eyes.  He was always a good student throughout his school years, excelling at calculus and chemistry, and he was always involved with the high school theater productions.  He was the youngest applicant to ever be accepted to Chaffey College’s very competitive radiological program.  He graduated top of his class and promptly received a job at Kaiser Permanente.  He worked hard and made a name for himself, not just because of his skills as a radiology technician, but also because of his brilliant ability to fix literally any type of electronic device.  In fact, when he was just five-years-old, his father gave him a screwdriver and an old VCR player to play with, and Kevin completely took apart the VCR player, put it back together again, and had it working like new.  He was kind, affable, funny, intelligent, and a little nerdy.  Kevin was a son, a grandson, a brother, a nephew, a cousin, an uncle, a friend.

And Shapri Rene Brown?  She sounds like a miscreant. A good-for-nothing social parasite, harbored through your refusal to press charges, living out her pathetic and meaningless life, and escaping this painful base existence with Norco.

I can imagine how it must be for you—flooded with police reports and new cases every day.  And I can imagine how easy it must be for you to read those police reports and not be able to put a face to the name listed.  And I can understand the temptation to immediately dismiss yet another case in which a young guy riding a motorcycle was killed by a car.  Happens every day.  Nothing to see here.

Except that cars do not kill people.  An unmanned car did not move of its own volition and pull out in front of my only brother.  A culpable person did that.  A person with a prescription for Norco.  A person that was not wearing corrective lenses, despite having a restriction on her license that required her to do so.  A person WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN ON THE ROAD THAT DAY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE CAR INSURANCE.

Had Shapri Rene Brown had car insurance, I would not be writing to you.  Accidents happen, I know this.  But a person with car insurance is responsible, accountable, and most importantly, law-abiding.  At least as far as California Insurance Code §11580.1b is concerned.

Yes, an insured driver could have just as easily pulled out in front of my brother.  But that is not what happened.  An irresponsible and negligent uninsured motorist killed my brother.

And here is the rub: had Ms. Brown been a law-abiding person, who merely could not afford car insurance, she would never have gotten in that uninsured car on January 20^th.  She would have never put the key in the ignition.  She would have never started that uninsured car and put it in drive.  Had Ms. Brown been a law-abiding person, she would have never driven down Sequoia Avenue toward Hesperia Road.  Had Ms. Brown been a law-abiding person (or if she had at least been wearing her damn glasses, as was required by her license), she would not have pulled out in front of Kevin and killed him.

Had Shapri Rene Brown been following the law on January 20, 2012, my brother would still be alive.

Unfortunately, she was not and he is not.  And Ms. Brown needs to be held accountable for her actions.  She should be made an example of for the thousands of other uninsured motorists.  Otherwise, why have laws?  Why have a justice system meant to uphold and enforce those laws?  Why bother teaching students theories of punishment, such as deterrence and retribution?

If the State cannot—or will not—punish those who willfully act outside the law, then why not dissolve to anarchy, and allow individuals to administer their own ideas of justice upon wrongdoers?

You are a civil servant, Mr. Hill.  You have been granted by society the authority to administer justice and hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions.

Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his freedom.  In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his behavior and be rehabilitated.

-Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

Do you believe Ms. Brown has already learned her lesson, is that it?  Granted, she did purchase auto insurance—after providing police with three false policy numbers (what moral fiber!)—following the accident.  But I would bet that if one were to inquire about that a-little-too-late policy, it would no longer be active or valid.  No, considering she already had two prior traffic convictions and that she has been arrested twice since January for shoplifting, I do not think Ms. Brown has learned her lesson and is on the road to becoming a responsible and productive member of society.

Or could it be that you cannot think of a fitting punishment for Ms. Brown?  Is that why you dropped the case?  She is a poverty-stricken welfare case, so it is not like Ms. Brown will pay any fines that you impose, right?  And she has already proved that she has no qualms about driving without car insurance, so it is not very likely that taking away her driver’s license will hinder her (“When a man shrinks not from a deed neither is he scared by a word.”), right?  And all of the big-hearted Liberals of California would never dream of sending a mother to prison (despite the fact that with the way things are looking for Ms. Brown, her children will inevitably end up in foster care anyway), right?

Or, what was it that you told my parents?  Something like, “There is not enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . She did not do anything different than any other driver.”  Because the black ink in the police report that spelled out “U-N-I-N-S-U-R-E-D” is just not very compelling.  And I’m sure you shudder at the daunting and arduous task of explaining to a jury that actus reus includes negligent acts (like not wearing glasses if you are blind, driving while on severely debilitating drugs, driving when you should not because you do not have car insurance, et cetera) that caused the unintentional death of a man in his prime.

Well, Mr. Hill, if you cannot find a fitting punishment and if you will not press any charges, then you simply are not fulfilling your civil duties to the citizens of this state, nor are you honoring the dignity of the victims of these crimes and their families. Shame on you, Mr. Hill.  Shame.  On.  You.

For even if the matter had not been urged on us by a god it was not meet that you should leave the guilt unpurged when one so noble, and he your king, had perished; you were bound to search it out.

-Sophocles, Oedipus the King

In Disgust and Disdain,

SLB

I Heart Paul Ryan

A friend sent me this image and we both had a good laugh because these are all reasons we love Paul Ryan.  And here's why:

     1. Thank you, Paul Ryan, for voting against the Lilly Ledbetter "Fair Pay" Act.  As a rational woman capable of reason and common sense, I understand that a Federal law requiring women to be paid "the same as men" would actually harm women.  The reason women are "paid less" than men is due largely to the choices that women make.  For example, women work less hours than men, and often opt for more flexibility in their work schedules instead of a higher pay.  Not to mention the luxurious benefits that women are often offered in place of a higher pay--*ahem* I do not believe Paid Maternity Leave is something that employers offer to men.  If there were to be a Federal law requiring women to be paid "the same" as men, then women would become too expensive for employers to hire.  This would result in either employers not hiring women, or not offering them the flexibility and benefits that women often choose over a higher pay.  I don't know about you, but I would rather have Paid Maternity Leave than an extra 50 cents an hour.
     But, of course, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration (interesting how the Liberal creators of this meme left that part of the title out) Act does not even address any supposed "pay gap" between men and women.  It only extends the statute of limitations for filing equal-pay lawsuits regarding pay "discrimination" (subjective).  Oh, and never mind that female employees working under Obama earned 18% less than their male counterparts.  I am sure it had to do with reasons stated above, but it is rather hypocritical for Democrats to claim Republicans are waging a war on women while they pay their female employees significantly less than their male employees, would not you agree?

     2. Oh, women are going to die if they are denied abortions?  You mean, how Tonya Reaves was going to die if she did not receive an abortion.... Oh, wait....
     There is this thing--you might have heard of it--it is called Modern Medicine.  And it is pretty impressive.  Even if a women needs cancer treatments, studies have confirmed that an abortion is not necessary, and that this Modern Medicine can further the woman's health AND her unborn baby's.  Anyway, there is a big difference between providing necessary medical procedures for the health of a pregnant woman that may or may not inadvertently result in a miscarriage, and intentionally and violently ending the life of an innocent, developing person.  Truth is, abortion causes more health problems than it solves, such as tripling a woman's risk of breast cancer.  While a little known secret to maintaining a long and healthy life is linked to having lots of children.
     Oh, and rape and incest?  Those cases make up less than 1% of all abortions in the United States.  And for those women who have become pregnant from incidents of rape and incest, they say an abortion only adds to the trauma.  Plus, it is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" to sentence the rapist to death, so why should the innocent baby--the product of such a horrendous crime--be subjected to a fate that judges and juries will not subject to the perpetrator of the crime?

     3. Paul Ryan wants to defund Planned Parenthood?  You mean, that billion-dollar corporate fat-cat that pays its CEO over $400,000 a year and makes over $155 million a year doing abortions?  The same corporate fat-cat that never called 911 as a woman was bleeding out on their operating table and waited five hours to send that woman to the emergency room?  The same corporation whose presence, oddly, is disproportionately found in minority neighborhoods?  The same corporation that has overwhelmingly and repeatedly covered up instances of statutory rape, incest, and other abusive relationships?  Yeah, I do not have a problem with that.  And why do Liberals have a problem with it?  Was not Occupy Wall Street all about the "99%'' protesting the tax-payer funding of the "1%"?  Planned Parenthood does not need tax-payer funding.  They will do just fine killing babies and harming women without it. 

     4. Ooohhh nooooo, not my birth control!  Oh, never mind.  I practice NFP.  And you can too!  If there is a War on Women, it is that contraceptives are prescribed to perfectly healthy women for everything from an irregular cycle to acne treatment, despite the dire risks involved with ALL forms of contraceptives.  The Pill is a Group 1 Carcinogen that can also cause blood clots, heart attack, stroke, and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of women worldwide. And The Pill is not only harming women, but the environment as well.  The synthetic hormones that make up The Pill are not biodegradable and remain in a woman's urine, making its way to our water supply, and causing deformities and sterility in fish and other aquatic species--and may be affecting us in similar ways.  Also, for each year a woman is on The Pill, her cervix ages an additional year.  That means that a 23-year-old woman who has been on The Pill since she was 16 has the cervix of a 30-year-old woman.  And if a woman is to come off of The Pill, it can take up to two years for all those cancer-causing synthetic hormones to exit the woman's body.
     Meanwhile, The Shot, while also having similar risks as The Pill, also increases a woman's risk for breast cancer.  And IUDs can cause tumors, sterility, ectopic pregnancies, and various types of cancers.
     But Paul Ryan is probably mostly concerned with the abortifacient nature of "some forms of birth control."  "Some forms of birth control" do not actually prevent conception, but rather just make the uterus inhospitable for the implantation of a new life, thus resulting in an abortion.
     Women are pumping their bodies full of these dangerous, cancer-causing, non-biodegradable synthetic hormones or wearing foreign devices inside of them for months at a time, all to "control" their fertility.  But it does not have to be this way.  Perfectly healthy women do not have to put their health and their lives at risk just to avoid a pregnancy.  A woman is only fertile for about 96 hours a month, so why is your doctor suggesting you take The Pill every day, have a shot of concentrated, extra-strength hormones, or have an IUD implanted?  THAT is a War on Women, my friends.  It is insulting to our dignity to treat our fertility like a disease and it is insulting to our intelligence to suggest that we cannot "control" our fertility naturally.  Our bodies naturally tell us when we are fertile and when we are not, and we have the ability to read those signs in order to avoid conduct that might result in a pregnancy--and it is all based on biology and scientific knowledge.  All women deserve to know their bodies and TRULY take control of their fertility, while living in harmony with nature.  And with that, I conclude my tangent on NFP.

     5. Can't have kids naturally?  Too bad.  Yup.  That is exactly right.  Children are a privilege, not a right.  And again, the health and ethical concerns of IVF are staggering.  The procedure to extract donor eggs can result in hormone overdose, leave a woman damaged for life, and unable to have her own children naturally; and this procedure is all too often performed without fully informing the young egg donors of the risks involved.  And surrogacy in and of itself is utilitarianism at its finest.  It reduces a person to a commodity to be used at the expense of a wealthy person or couple.  IVF also leads to the destruction of human life, either through the immediate discarding of unused embryos or the unsuccessful stem cell research upon them.  And that is not all.  IVF children are more likely to have developmental disorders and terminal illnesses, while also having, like, 150 half-siblings.  No big deal.
     And, of course, that is only half of it.  IVF takes all of the LOVE out of having children and reduces the sexual act to a science project, while also defiling the exclusivity of the marital act by bringing a third person (the surrogate, egg or sperm donor) into the picture.  The human dignity of all persons demand better than that.
     Can't have kids naturally? Adopt.

Abortion is Evil: A Rant

I have grown increasingly less tolerant of so-called "Pro-Choice" individuals--those who advocate abortion either through their voice or their silence; their votes or their seemingly inconsequential social media posts. I have grown tired of their same-old, recycled rhetoric: "It's not a person," "I could never have an abortion myself, but I could also never tell someone else not to," "Women should have the right to choose not to be pregnant," "Population control!," "It's better that one should never be born than to be born into a life of unwantedness and contempt," blahblahblah. So for those of you who turn a blind eye to the horrors of abortion and justify it through any or all of these feeble, hollow arguments: it is my whole-hearted belief that YOU are the manifestation of evil in this world. 

Don't agree? Tell me what ISN'T evil about injecting a hypertonic saline solution into the amniotic fluid (in some cases, directly into the embryo/fetus), which BURNS the embryo/fetus inside and out (keep in mind that that "non-person" [to use the words of you Pro-Choicers] can feel pain at 9 weeks from conception--typically around the time that a woman has learned she is pregnant and looks to procure an abortion), thus "disrupting the natural process of pregnancy," or in other words, KILLING the developing human being?

What ISN'T evil about suctioning a fetus out of the womb, either whole or in pieces--and in the latter case, then scraping any remaining pieces out of the womb? And, again, a Suction Curettage Abortion is typically performed around 9 weeks.

What ISN'T evil about dismembering a fetus with forceps? Clamping onto anything one can grab with said forceps, and pulling HARD, tearing limbs and body parts from the uterus piece by piece? Decapitating the fetus, and then CRUSHING the skull, spilling the fetus's developing brain everywhere and then picking out pieces of skull from the uterus? Does any of that NOT sound evil to you?

Tell me what is NOT evil about severing with scissors the spine of a baby who has been born alive. Tell me what is NOT evil about leaving a baby who has survived an abortion to die in either the trash or a toilet. 

Tell me what is NOT evil about abortion facilities selling baby body parts for profit. 

Tell me what is NOT evil about supporting ANY politician who supports any of the above.

Tell me what is NOT evil about allowing/advocating any of this?

The past few weeks, there has been a lot of outrage by conservative women over the Left's continual attempts to belittle women by reducing women to one or two social issues. I am not among those outraged women, because I AM a one-issue voter. To me, support for abortion reveals an inherent moral depravity that cannot be justified or reconciled. If one is content with slaughtering millions of innocents, there is probably no end to one's malevolence; and I will not trust one to run my country, nor be my friend. Period.

SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP ROE V WADE

Let us just for a moment forget about that pesky little detail that the "Champion of Abortion," the plaintiff in the ground-breaking case, Roe v Wade, Jane Roe (aka Norma McCorvey), is now a Pro-Life Activist; and let us also for a moment forget about the scientific, moral, and philosophical arguments against abortion (Live Action has a great series making each of these arguments); and instead let us just focus on legal theory.

Granted, I have only a rudimentary legal education, but it is my ardent belief that the longer one stays in higher education, the stupider one becomes.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution guarantee us "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness/Property" Not "Property, Liberty, Life," or "Liberty, Life, Property," et cetera. The Founding Fathers ordered it "LIFE, Liberty, Happiness/Property" for a reason. It is in order of importance. Because you cannot have Happiness/Property unless you first have Liberty and you cannot have Liberty unless you first have LIFE. Therefore, by this standard, LIFE trumps liberty and property/happiness. For example, it makes some happy to kidnap other people. But this is illegal because it violates the kidnapee's liberty. Others feel it is within their liberty to kill people. But this is illegal and wrong because it violates the LIFE of those killed. In all matters, the issue of someone's LIFE is supposed to trump the exercise of another's liberty and happiness/property.

I am going to assume that many abortion advocates, and even many Pro-Lifers, have not actually read the Justices' opinions of Roe v Wade and its precedent (though I think you can hardly call it that since Blackmun released it mere hours before RvW), Doe v Bolton. Justice Blackmun's Majority Opinion is the single most erroneous and fallacious Supreme Court opinion I have ever had the displeasure of reading in my short study of the law. Give it a read sometime. You will wonder if Blackmun is really educated at all.

Anyway, Blackmun states right in the opinion that it is not the role of the Court to decide when life begins, nor CAN the Court decide when life begins. And then Blackmun goes right ahead and says that the Court has decided that life begins at viability, even though the Court does not know when that begins.

Yet, what Blackmun is completely disregarding in all of this is that in matters of uncertainty, it is the role of the law to proceed with the utmost caution. This is why the standard in American courts is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or by the preponderance of evidence for civil suits)." Blackmun states that he is uncertain of when life begins, but that some hold that it is at the moment of conception; so if Blackmun were to follow the standard of the court that was set decades before his time, he would have ruled RvW in favor of the defendant. But he was an activist judge with an agenda who decided to completely ignore the standard of the court and throw out hundreds of years worth of common law (customs of the people) that had been built upon by many different nations and cultures, and now abortion is among the top causes of death in America (and the number one cause of death within the black community).

A+, America.

(Note: For further evidence of Blackmun's stupidity, look to the fact that in Blackmun's RvW opinion, he cited Griswold v Connecticut [the ground-breaking case that legalized contraceptives] for the "Right to Privacy" that is "found" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though Justice Douglas, in his majority opinion for GvC, specifically states that the "Right to Privacy" can be found virtually everywhere in the Constitution BUT the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.)

An Anti-Feminist's Feminist Rant

Honestly, I'm rather embarrassed that this has fallen to me. How can this be my responsibility to call out this blatant degradation of women? Where is Rebecca Walker? Shira Tarrant? Elizabeth Wurtzel? Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? I really do not want to be the one to do this. Over one hundred years of Feminism in the United States, but it has somehow fallen to an Anti-Feminist to indict a company that is harming women? Well, if I must...

Dove chocolate degrades women and insults our intelligence with their stupid wrappers. This is a company that specifically targets women, taking advantage of our virtually universal love of chocolate and then assuming we need and will enjoy their little "inspirational" remarks printed on the wrappers. Such as, "Be Free. Be Happy. Be you." Oh, and here's a good one: "Love is a Flower, a Friendship, and a Sheltering Tree." Like I really needed a chocolate wrapper to tell me to be myself. And the latter one isn't even consistent. If you're going to relate a metaphysical ideal to three limited images, at least make sure they're all in the same genre.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who find the sayings on Dove wrappers "cute" and "fun." These women are what I like to call "stupid."

Yeah, I don't need to purchase Dove chocolate. Of course, I don't have to read the wrappers. But hasn't society progressed enough to make the condescension of women a thing of the past? 

Oh, except in the workplace where men are still paid higher salaries than their female counterparts, despite the nearly 50-year-old efforts of NOW. And in government where we have yet to elect a female president and the only viable contender the Left has produced is less feminine than Miss J Alexander, and any viable contender on the Right is maliciously attacked and unmercifully misrepresented by the media (because that isn't at all sexist/chauvinistic/misogynistic, right?)

But, hey, we’re still liberated, right? We can vote. We can dress like whores and have SlutWalks. We can be promiscuous. We can readily divorce our husbands. We can kill our children. Ah, equality. Rights. Freedom.

And yet insulting and condescending comments are still permissible under the guise of cute and fun inspiration?

Things just are not adding up. I would think that the liberated and respected women of a society would never be perceived by a corporation to need nonsensical remarks thrown at them.

Or perhaps we are not as liberated and respected as we think we are.

Maybe, just maybe, through our efforts to free ourselves from the shackles of an antiquated patriarchal society and distance ourselves from what Nature dictates a woman should be, we have actually degraded ourselves.

You know that saying, “What is last in execution is first in intention,” or something like that? Well please allow me to be all Bible-y for a moment:

“Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them . . . . The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man.’” Genesis 2:18-23

It was not until God had created Woman that he had finished creating altogether. We were it. The last thing God brought into being. But the first thing God intended to be. The “Crown of Creation,” to quote Dr. Bergsma.

So what happened? Are not crowns worn on the top of heads of royalty and kept on pedestals in museums? Are not they carefully crafted, cared for and demand respect?

I demand to be treated like a Crown of Creation, dammit. But I’m not holding my breath in this culture.

Even though women’s rights were severely limited back in 1910 when Feminism first came onto the scene in America, at least women were still respected. It would have never been socially acceptable in Victorian society for a man to refer to the woman he was courting as his “bitch” or “hoe.” Never would it have been tolerated for a young lady to degrade herself through promiscuity. There was a time in American society when women were held up on a pedestal.

And it was because all women were either mothers or potential mothers. And everybody in every culture of every society in every country knows not to disrespect someone’s mother.

But because Feminists successfully separated sex from childbearing, women are no longer viewed as mothers or potential mothers, and therefore do not demand respect from society as a whole.

By “freeing our sexuality from reproduction,” or rather, acting contrary to Nature, we have lost all respect for ourselves, for our role in Nature, and for sex itself. And men and society have merely followed along.

And for what? Obviously, Feminism has yielded irreplaceable advances for women, but what are we really getting out of all of this?

We still do not make as much money as men, but we have the right to kill our children.

We asked society for equality and freedom, and they handed us a dead baby. And pieces of chocolate wrapped in foil printed with stupid, condescending remarks that are supposed to make us feel better about what we’ve done to ourselves.

To echo the general rhetoric of my favorite (and most despised) revolutionary, Malcolm X: that’s not liberation! That’s TOKEN liberation!

Sorry, but I believe women deserve better than that.

I’ll let the real Feminists take it from here.

The Inspiration

On this day, the start of Women's History Month and the death of conservative activist, Andrew Breitbart, I have finally been inspired to start my own blog. I've considered blogging for quite a while, but always waved it away due to my inept technological capabilities, and the fact that I always had more important things to do (ie: college, touring Europe, getting married, writing my senior thesis, catching up on all seasons of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," ensuring the continuance of humanity through procreation, et cetera). But today, a tweet composed by someone I do not follow, but instead just came across in passing, which said, "Something 2 remember, @AndrewBreitbart had the same # of hours in his day that you do. He chose 2 use them 2 fight 4 America. How about you?" and this amazing blog were my inspirations.

A natural cynic, I in no way fancy myself to ever have such an important impact on society that the Liberal media would celebrate my death; I mean, it took me seven months to get 43 followers on Twitter. I am a nobody, this I know. But I can pretend and I can dream. I can throw my rants out into the cyber universe and see what happens, if anything. So watch out world (or not), I have a blog.