Stay out of my uterus! - Exploring what this phrase actually means

© 2019 Jim Spence -  “Stay out of my uterus!”
It is a catchy phrase that actually seems quite libertarian on the surface. Recently, I heard this phrase used. Foolishly, I decided to explore what was meant by the declaration, “Stay out of my uterus.”
The young lady who uttered the phrase offered a seemingly simple explanation. Her explanation began with a very coherent defense of birth control rights. With no interest in re-litigating Roe vs. Wade, I decided to get right to the heart of the matter and see how far she might go in defending limitless abortion rights.
"When should abortion not be allowed?" I asked. "When is it too late?"
At first, she tossed out the third trimester as a logical boundary. I nodded and repeated her suggestion that there should be no abortions allowed after the six months of pregnancy. If she had agreed with the limit she set, it could have ended the discussion. It didn't.
Instead, there was a sudden serious hesitation. It seemed like some sort of a trap had been set for her.
She backtracked and allowed that under certain circumstances, it was acceptable to abort a baby after six months.
When she had finally finished hemming and hawing, I again tried to get to the crux of the matter. I asked her if she had ever heard of Kermit Gosnell. She hadn’t. It was not surprising she had not heard of him. The media has many filters in place to screen out anything that hurts their narrative preference on all abortions. The Kermit Gosnell case was censored away from the typical spoon-fed public view, by the national mainstream media, simply because the facts of the case were so sobering. The acts of Gosnell could make any reasonable person engage in a serious reconsideration of their demand that there be zero limitations on abortion.
Since she had never heard of him, I explained that Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortionist who was currently in prison for life without parole for the murder of infants who were actually born alive. At first, she recoiled in horror at the idea that anyone would kill babies. She agreed that if Gosnell broke the law, he deserved to go to prison.
I reminded her that in most late-term abortions, the babies’ skulls are crushed with forceps by the abortionists. Horrifically, the testimony in the Gosnell trial revealed that when his baby targets were not killed in the womb or in the birth canal via skull crushing, Gosnell simply snuffed out their lives with surgical scissors. To kill them once and for all, he slashed their spinal cords. Yes, Gosnell did these things while the babies were alive on the abortion table. When I explained these facts to her, she definitely agreed Gosnell belonged in jail.
Then came the tricky part. I advised her that there were several Democrat-dominated states including New York, that had recently passed laws that essentially made what Gosnell did a few years ago, legal today.
“How do you feel about those people who passed those laws?” I asked.
She quickly became uncomfortable. She knew she had to choose between legal and moral, so after some hesitation she surmised the following: “If the voters elected those people legally, and they passed those laws legally, then.......it is legal because it is the law,” she said.
Astonished, I asked her how she felt about the morality of the law, not the legality.
She realized at this point that those Democrats who would go so far in defending her uterus rights as to support infanticide, were now going to be required to be branded as "immoral." She simply couldn’t make herself do it.
Intellectually she was trapped, so she struck out at me, and inferred that I was making her out to be insensitive and evil.
In a feeble attempt to find common ground, I reminded her of her original suggestion regarding a third trimester limit, and asked her to simply say if not after the second trimester, to say at what point that she thought that it was simply too late for an abortion procedure, because of the life and health of the baby.
She just stared at me.
I tried to help her with suggestions of various stages of the baby's development. Would it be fair enough to ban these procedures after six months? Her answer was, "Nope." How about after seven months? "Nope," she repeated. How about after eight months?.....Nope.
She had had enough. In an effort to shut me up, she said that even at the end of the ninth month, it was OK to abort a baby.
And with that, the seemingly libertarian concept of saying, “Stay out of my uterus,” had morphed into the idea that all abortions should be legal, even after the delivery. Essentially, if the baby had survived all efforts to kill it, in states where the Democrats passed laws saying it was legal to kill it, abortionists could kill it if the mother had demanded it be killed. If a baby made it to the abortion table and out of the womb as they sometimes do, just kill it then and there. But call it a "legal abortion," instead of an illegal murder.
Shocked that this discussion would end with murder being advocated, I crassly suggested that people who thought like her should be rounded up and shot with AK-47’s.
Oddly, it was at this point, that my feigned advocacy of murder, simply to make the point, finally struck home. Completely missing the irony of such an absurd statement, especially within the context of our discussion of baby killing, she was deeply offended by the AK-47 crack, and she stomped off. She was clearly furious at my feigned views on murder, while still content with her actual views on murder.
As I contemplated this exchange, I was reminded of my reading of the words of William Wilberforce. Back in England in 1791, after he submitted mountains of factual testimony regarding the human horrors of the slave trade, and then argued for an end to legalized slavery. He said:
“You may choose to look the other way," he said, "But you can never say again that you did not know.”
The vast majority of self-described progressive thinkers truly understand the fundamental nature of infanticide. Incredibly, when confronted with alarming facts and truths, they find it more comforting to simply look the other way on the horrors of infanticide. The term “Stay out of my uterus” seems to actually mean......"If Democrats pass laws making it legal to deliberately kill babies in the birth canal or on the abortion table, it is justifiable." Even uterine sympathy goes straight out the window. Half of all babies killed in late-term and post-birth abortions are female. The "stay out of my uterus" argument can be reduced even further. Only "the demands" of the larger persons on the late-term abortion table are are to be honored, despite the fact that 1/2 those being killed are merely smaller human beings. They may have a uterus, but they have no rights.
Most of this is just as I suspected. It never had anything to do with protecting the uterus.
Share/Bookmark

Limited Government - Abandon at your own risk

© 2019 Jim Spence - Limited government means different things to different people. Mostly it has been a philosophical pillar that provided the foundation of the battle cry of Republicans. We are learning that GOP battle cries are all about “talk,” and talk is cheap. With each passing year the Republicans talk more and do less. The GOP now pretends it is for limited government. It is a con.
Americans need to take a long look around. The opposite of enjoying the freedoms associated with limited government, is what we have right now. In 2019, the federal, state, county, and even Las Cruces city government have stretched so far in their insatiable needs for control, these entities in one way or another are involved in every aspect of our lives. And because of the enormous amount of power and control all forms of government have, national elections have become multi-billion-dollar contests to determine who will preside over virtually every decision every American makes about every facet of their lives.
Having completely lost sight of the incredible freedoms that come with limited government, Americans are now seeing that there is no such thing as an election season anymore. Again, because there is so much money, power, and control at stake, elections and the re-litigating of elections is NON-STOP.
Recall the election of George W. Bush in 2000 to his first term. On election night Democrat Al Gore actually called Bush to congratulate him on his victory. The call was placed before Gore’s scheming lawyers stepped in and convinced Gore to retract his concession and sue over his devastating loss in Florida. The Democrat’s perversion regarding accepting the election result did not stop there. Before they were done, Gore’s lawyers tried their best to have overseas military ballots invalidated in the Florida recount. Why would they do something so atrocious? If there is one thing all Democrat lawyers have demonstrated about themselves, it is that they know military votes are most surely not going to their candidates. The military trains people to fight for freedom, not destroy it.
Politics has always been a filthy business. Accordingly, nobody in their right mind would choose to endure the character assassination that comes to anyone who announces themselves as candidates for national office. In fact, even statewide office candidates draw the kinds of nakedly false accusations that used to be relegated to the hospitals for the mentally ill.
Take a step back and consider the improbable election of Donald Trump. So horrific was the Democrat’s candidate that hopelessly flawed candidate Trump, actually won. And yet even prior to Trump’s inauguration, the Democrats decided to launch a non-stop effort to undo what they could not get done at the ballot box. Amazingly, a still free but haplessly partisan press has been complicit in efforts to smear Trump non-stop. Impeachment has been the stated goal since November of 2016. And ever since, the Democrats have been desperately searching for a charge that will stick. The latest Ukrainian accusation is but another SHOT the Democrats have fired.
The pattern of character assassination has become utterly disgusting. It becomes the new rule of engagement in political war. Democrats don’t seem to understand that every president will be subject to the types of attacks they think are legitimate. This will continue to drive down the quality of candidates we get to choose from.
The patterns are in place and will continue to get worse for as long as Americans vote to surrender their freedoms and give more power to national, state, county, and city governments. Those of us who have observed the patterns of behavior in Democrats are hardly surprised by all of this. What has become increasingly surprising is the behavior of high-ranking GOP officials, who seem to have suspended every principle regarding limited government they ever claimed to hold dear.
What a pity that there is nobody left to keep totalitarianism at bay.
Share/Bookmark

"The Trump Lesson"


© 2019 Jim Spence - Michael Swickard sent an email to me a few days ago asking what “The Trump Lesson” was.
It is a great question. My conclusions were somewhat paradoxical. It is important to take a few looks around. There are many seemingly conservative men and women who seem to buckle and surrender their principles once they get to Washington. It is almost like a law of physics the way it happens. Note there are a large number of GOP House and Senate members who are not going to stand for re-election in 2020. It is my belief that many are walking away simply because they cannot bear to endorse or be endorsed by Trump. And this is true despite the sound pro-business, pro-growth, pro-minority employment, policies Trump has deployed.
Still there are many GOP House members and Senators who simply cannot get behind good policies, because running a successful personal political franchise operation is all about style points and superficial appearances.
Excluding certain circles, Trump is clearly a bad messenger.......with a great message. However, I stand by my opinion that anyone could have beaten Hillary in 2016. She was that bad.
Most certainly those who try to be civil, but stick to intellectually honest pro-growth views, have little or no influence on the American political scene anymore. A big part of the decline of influence by those who understand how jobs are created, where wealth comes from and how limited government is in its ability to solve problems, is the horrible way that journalism has died and been replaced by naked advocacy. 
Journalism students graduate and go to work at places where facts no longer matter. Most journalists have already been indoctrinated to nakedly support far-left big government socialism before they ever cash their first paycheck.
The newspapers and television stations are all dying slowly. And because nobody working in journalism makes much money except a handful of stars at the "top," the only reason most people work in journalism these days, is because they like having the power to publish a steady drumbeat of anti-business “narratives” that attempt to influence voters to vote socialist. Naturally, these types find articulate conservatives to be very dangerous, which explains why you almost never hear from pro-growth types in the news media.
Consider the treatment of top-notch reporter Sharyl Attkinson by CBS (and the Obama government). Her story serves as a model for just how far journalism has fallen and how low media outlets like CBS have sunk.
And of course, it is very sad that the symptom of all of these sham actions by faux journalists is Trump. Unlike Reagan, Trump is a very poor messenger for sound public policies. Personally, I also find Trump to be detestable, mainly because there is not a drop of loyalty in Trump’s psyche. He praises and appoints people one day, and bad mouths them the next. He reminds me of basketball coach Bob Knight. He demands respect but offers none. Still, he governs well enough for me.
Trump’s efforts to improve public policy are by FAR the best since Reagan. And Trump has done more for the working poor than any president in recent memory. Wages are soaring thanks to his policies. The Bushes were part of the problem from a policy standpoint. Trump is at least trying to clean up the cesspool around him.
Because it is NOT easy to overcome the powerful media filter, sound and logical ideas seem to get completely lost in a sea of political dialogue dysfunction. Most people have tuned out politics and it is pretty easy to understand why.
In the end, I continue to think the evolution of American politics continues to be driven by toxic journalism, which has essentially declined into the abyss of advocacy. The rising popularity of Elizabeth Warren is a case in point. If this woman is elected, and she enacts 20% of the economic policies she endorses, she will destroy America’s vibrant economy for at least a generation. Sadly, very few Americans understand this anymore.

Share/Bookmark