CommenTerry

Why is Abortion Different?

Warning: What I’m about to say is extremely politically incorrect. If you are easily offended, please do not read any further. I know the subject of abortion is a very sensitive and hot-button issue. I get it. That’s why I thought twice about writing this post. However, I would be intellectually dishonest of I didn’t call things the way I saw them. Donald Trump’s recent comments (which he later backed away from) about punishing women for getting illegal abortions got me thinking. It seems to be the consensus among those who are pro-choice, those who are pro-life, and everyone in the middle, that a woman who gets an illegal abortion should not be punished. But why shouldn’t she? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying she should. I’m just asking the question. And I’m doing so in order to point out an inconsistency, especially with those like myself, who are pro-life and consider abortion to be tantamount to murder.

Let’s say a certain woman, instead of having an abortion, gives birth to her child. But a few days later she later decides she doesn’t want it and hires someone to kill it for her. Who should be punished? Just the murder or both the woman and the person she hired to kill her baby? I’m sure that almost everyone would say they both should be punished. But why the inconsistency? If we truly believe that abortion is murder, why is abortion different from other forms of murder? Why should a woman who hires someone to murder her infant go to prison or even face the death penalty, while a woman who hires a doctor to abort her unborn child goes free? I know abortion is a tough and agonizing decision, but deciding to kill your infant couldn’t be easy either. I’m not trying to make light of the situation at all, I’m just doing an exercise in critical thinking.

Why should we be so merciful and understanding of a woman who has an illegal abortion while offering none of the same to some terrified girl who makes a hasty and wrong-headed decision to kill her infant? I think that’s something we, as pro-lifers, need to ponder. And while we are at, here’s something else that every pro-life political candidate should be asked. If women who have illegal abortions should never be punished, then would you agree that do-it-yourself abortions should be legal? Now that question will make them squirm in their seat, and they’ll go out of their way to try t0 avoid answering it. But it is one that needs to be answered. Here’s something they should keep in mind before answering that question, even if they dare try. If any given action is free of punishment, then that action is, by default, legal.

Murder Conviction for California Doctor Makes No Sense

A California doctor was recently convicted of second degree murder in connection with the overdose deaths of three of her patients, to whom she carelessly prescribed narcotic pain killers. She was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison. She became the first – and, so far, the only – doctor in the United States to be convicted of murder for recklessly prescribing drugs. Yes, she willfully prescribed dangerous drugs to patients who had no medical need for them. She abandoned all pretense of patient care and did it out of her our greed. Like many other doctors who have been convicted of lesser offenses, she basically converted her private practice into a “pill mill.”

But a murder conviction for such a thing makes no sense. That’s probably why it had never happened before. Instead, she should have been convicted of negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, or involuntary manslaughter. She was reckless and negligent, but she obviously did not intend to kill anyone. She did not administer any of the drugs she prescribed. The victims were not children. They took them voluntarily, knowing the risks that were involved. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but I think she has an excellent chance of getting her conviction overturned on appeal. A murder conviction for what she is did is just too far out of the norm, and is without legal precedent.

Why Hillary Won’t Be Indicted

The Fox News pundits and various other conservative commentators are getting excited about a possible indictment of Hillary Clinton by the FBI over her email scandal. They are so excited that they are almost breathless. To all of those people, I would say forget about it – it ain’t gonna happen. She will never be indicted, no matter how deserving she may be of it. The facts don’t matter here. Logic is irrelevant in this case. The simple point is that something like that would just be too good to be true. It would be along the lines of me winning the lotto jackpot. I would be as farfetched as a major league sports team coming to Virginia. It is as much of a pipe dream as a team from Virginia winning the FBS national championship or the NCAA men’s Division I basketball tournament.

It would be as remote of a possibility as the income tax ever being replaced by a national sales tax. It would stand the same chance of happening as another state being added to the Union ever again. It is just as far out there to think Hillary is going to be indicted as it is to think we are going to see a brokered convention this summer in Cleveland or Philadelphia. You see, life is biased toward to the boring and mundane. Everything in the universe conspires to block truly exciting things from ever happening. Hasn’t everyone realized that by now? When’s the last time something as exciting as a Hillary indictment occurred? Take all the time you need. Unfortunately, something like that never has happened in my time on Earth – and it probably never will.

Planned Parenthood Injustice Needs to Be Righted

A Texas grand jury recently cleared Planned Parenthood of charges that it was trying to sell body parts from aborted babies. The jury ignored clear video evidence of their guilt. To add insult to injury, that same grand jury brought charges against the two pro-life activists who provided the evidence by secretly filming Planned Parenthood employees as they apparently offered to sell fetal body parts. Both were indicted for using fake driver’s licenses and one was indicted for “seeking to buy fetal tissue.”

The latter charge is especially ridiculous, as it is tantamount to charging a cop with “seeking to solicit sex” for pretending to be an underage child while trying to catch online pedophiles. Someone needs to right this injustice. Since this a state issue, Texas Governor Greg Abbott should immediately pardon the two defendants if or when they are convicted. He should also convene a new grand jury – one that is free of liberal political bias – to hear the charges against Planned Parenthood. If Abbott refuses to right these wrongs, he should forget about seeking the GOP nomination for re-election as governor.

We Shouldn’t Base Prosecution on Outrage

An Ohio man was recently sentenced to 30 days in jail after he filmed the grisly aftermath of a deadly automobile accident and posted the video on YouTube. People were outraged that he decided to film the scene inside the car instead of offering aid to the 17-year-old victim who was dying in the front seat. But since there is no law against filming an accident, the district attorney had to come up with a different way to prosecute him. Therefore, the man was charged with and found guilty of vehicular trespassing for opening the door of the car without the owner’s permission. Yes, they used an obscure law against vehicular trespassing in order to get him for the filming, which is what the real outrage was about. Vehicular trespassing is rarely prosecuted. How many times have you heard of someone even being charged with it, much less found guilty of it?

As outrageous as this man’s act was, I disagree with the state of Ohio's decision to send him to jail for it. Prosecution should not be based on outrage. But it frequently is. That’s why the ‘run’ portion of hit and run is punished so harshly. The ‘run’ part really doesn’t do any additional harm. The ‘hit’ is what does the damage. Yet people’s outrage is directed at those who refuse to stop and offer aid after they are involved in an accident. Because of that outrage, those who refuse to stop after they have an accident are generally punished a lot more severely than those who stop. It doesn’t matter than they might have been motivated by fear. Outrage demands a pound of flesh, and it usually gets it. This should not be the case. Laws and the enforcement of those laws should be based on logic and reason – not outrage.

It’s All About the Money

I have to wonder about all the tickets that are handed out on our streets, roads, and highways each year. It’s supposedly about safety, but I can’t help but think it’s all about the money. The funds collected from those tickets are generally used to buy new police cars, equipment, etc. While most police departments will vehemently deny that they use quotas for writing tickets, I believe most of them do. Catching speeders and those who are not wearing their seatbelts is an easy way to extract money from the citizenry. And I don’t see where it actually increases public safety. If the powers that be wanted to convince me otherwise, they would designate the money collected to go to producing public service announcements (PSAs) encouraging people to drive safely. I’m not going to hold my breath for that to happen.

What Good Are Criminal Lawyers?

I wonder sometimes if there are any good criminal lawyers. I have yet to find one, not matter how good they may claim they are, who offers any kind of guarantee. I mean, what good are they without a guarantee? Why should anyone pay them big bucks to defend them against criminal charges if there is no guarantee that they will be found not guilty? You might say, Terry, you are crazy, there’s no way a lawyer can guarantee such a thing. He or she is not in control of the jury, which ultimately makes the decision about guilt or innocence. I understand that. However, if a lawyer is confident enough in himself/herself, they should offer their clients their money back in the off-chance they are found guilty. At least it would be a good marketing ploy.

Why Punish Uncontrollable Behavior?

According psychological experts, people do not choose their sexual orientation. They claim that it is a matter of how one’s brain is wired from birth, and that it is irreversible. Therefore, according to their rationale, homosexuals should not be discriminated against. After all, why discriminate against someone for something they can’t help? Sounds logical to me.

However, those same experts will also tell us that pedophiles are born wired with a sexual attraction toward children. They do not choose their sexual attraction any more than homosexuals do. And they claim that it is permanent and cannot be changed. Yet they are punished for acting on their sexual desires. In addition, they are often kept in prison beyond the amount of time they are sentenced to because of their so-called helpless condition. Where’s the consistency here?

If we are going to ban discrimination against homosexuals for something they have no control of, why turn around and punish pedophiles for something they have no control of? Yes, I understand the fact that what homosexuals do is between consenting adults whereas what pedophiles do hurts innocent children. I got that. But why punish anyone for uncontrollable behavior, regardless of the impact? Our society seems to be a bit schizophrenic on the whole sexual orientation/attraction issue.

They Are Illegal, Not Undocumented

Martin O’Malley recently criticized Hillary Clinton for using the term “illegal immigrants” during a speech. She clearly slipped up when she failed to toe the Democrats’ politically correct line to use the euphemistic term “undocumented immigrants” instead. The mainstream media, of course, also prefers to call them undocumented instead of illegal. O’Malley even goes one step further in his political correctness, preferring to call them “new Americans.” All of this is completely laughable to anyone with common sense and respect for the law. The Democrats and their friends in the media have their heads in the sand. Which part of illegal do they not understand?

If someone is in this country without having gone to legal channels, they are more than just undocumented, they are illegal. They have no right to be here, and are not entitled to anything this country offers. They cannot be considered law-abiding citizens because they are breaking the law by the mere fact that they are here. Any of them who claim to be Christians are committing a sin by staying here because Jesus demands that His followers obey man’s laws. In fairness to everyone who came here legally, justice demands these illegals be deported. Sorry, but Donald Trump is right. If they want to be here legally, they should promptly leave and apply to come back as dictated by U.S. laws. When and if they are allowed to return, they would be documented and legal immigrants.

Did Parker Threaten Sen. Stanley?

After his daughter, Alison – a reporter for a Roanoke, Virginia TV station – and her cameraman were gunned down during a live TV report, Andy Parker has become a gun-control activist. During the recent state legislative elections, he participated in TV and radio commercials for various candidates who support stronger gun control laws. One person he did not do a commercial for is Virginia Senator William Stanley of Franklin County. Sen. Stanley is a Republican and strong Second Amendment advocate.

Parker is especially upset with Sen. Stanley since he represents the district in which his daughter was murdered. Parker felt that Stanley should have moderated his hardline stance against further gun restrictions in the wake of his daughter’s murder. Sen. Stanley refused. This incensed Parker so much that he sent Sen. Stanley a couple of angry messages via Twitter. Sen. Stanley perceived both of them as threats and reported them to the state police. But were either or both of them really a threat?

First, let’s look at what a threat actually is (based on common sense and not necessarily what the law says). In order to be a threat, any form of communication must relay an explicit and unequivocal intent to do bodily harm. One’s perception about it doesn’t matter in the common sense book. It might matter in the law book, but I’m not a lawyer, so I’m in no position to comment on that. Besides, I only deal in common sense anyway.

Now let’s take a look at the messages that Parker sent to Sen. Stanley. The first one reads as follows: “I’m going to be your worst nightmare, you little bastard.” While I can understand why Sen. Stanley may have been taken aback by this message, I see no threat here. I’m sure Sen. Stanley didn’t appreciate being called a bastard, especially if his parents were married at the time he was born. But that’s an insult, not a threat. And being someone’s worst might nightmare could entail a lot of different things, but most likely political ones in this context. It certainly doesn’t communicate any explicit or unequivocal intent to do bodily harm. The fact that it could be interpreted many different ways is proof of that point.

But the second message was much different. Here it is: “When you see me again, you best walk the other way lest I beat your little a** with my bare hands.” This message does indeed communicate an explicit and unequivocal intent to do bodily harm to Sen. Stanley. There is no way Parker can say he was not threatening him. He said he was going to beat Stanley with his bare hands. There is no other way a reasonable person could interpret that message. Common sense dictates that it is a threat. Sen. Stanley was justified in reporting this message to law enforcement authorities. Mr. Parker should be charged and convicted of a crime.