I am happy to report that we are done with the editing process and publishing Ring of Fire is now available for purchase! It is available in paperback on Amazon, in Kindle, and if you are a student we are offering a free e-book download. Thanks to everyone who helped with the process and who gave us feedback on the chapters posted her on The American Engineer. Visit the book website at www.RingofFireBook.com!
In the early 1970’s the FBI monitored the anti-war activities of John Kerry, our current Sec. of State. In 2004, a John Kerry spokesman said “Reports that the FBI monitored John Kerry’s anti-war activities in the early 1970’s are both “a badge of honor” and a troubling example of government intrusion into peaceful and legitimate protest.”
Now let’s see what 2013 John Kerry says about Edward Snowden who revealed government spying on average everyday Americans – Snowden is “a traitor to his country”, Kerry continues “Evidently he places himself above the law, having betrayed his country with respect to the violation of his oath, and I think there are very serious implications in that,”. Now the spying in the 1970’s that John Kerry thought was so “troubling” even though wrong had some rational. Remember Vietnam war protesters occasionally resorted to violence as did President Obama’s terrorist buddy, Bill Ayers. So if spying on a groups who occasionally resorted to violence is troubling why does informing average Americans that they are being spied on make you a traitor?
We hear a lot about this “oath” John Kerry mentions. The greatest oath an American can take to our country is to uphold and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. Hero Edward Snowden upheld the highest oath to his country and the employees at the NSA who continue to violate their greatest oath to our Constitution should be made to answer for their crimes in a real court of law at some point in the future. They should be granted a legal due process, the same due process they have denied to Americans they continue to victimize. They will not be allowed to claim they were only doing what their superiors asked – each and every American is required to uphold the oath to the Constitution which includes the 4th amendment.
I suppose with John Kerry totalitarianism really isn’t the problem, just who is the totalitarian.
The USA is accused for spying on our allies by bugging up to 38 embassies. Sec. of State John Kerry has the job of interfacing with our understandably ticked off allies. In a weak attempt to mitigate stated earlier today:
‘I will say that every country in the world that is engaged in international affairs and national security undertakes lots of activities to protect its national security and all kinds of information contributes to that. All I know is that is not unusual for lots of nations.’
John Kerry intentionally misrepresents the point our allies are making. Yes, lot of nations spy on other nations – especially totalitarian enemies. Allies are not supposed to spy on allies and for good reason. The benefits of spying on allies is far outweighed by the danger to the relationship. John Kerry knows this and somehow thinks paying stupid is going to wash – it isn’t.
Let’s look back at what John Kerry had to say about spying on allies –
Then Senator John Kerry signed a letter delivered to President Clinton urging the President to not free Jonathan Pollard. Back in the mid-1980’s Jonathan Pollard worked for US Naval Intelligence. He became alarmed that the US was withholding information from Israel that pertained to the security of Israel. Israel was entitled to the information due to prior agreements. So Pollard began spying for Israel, our ally. He was caught and remains in prison today serving a life sentence. Here is what Sec. of State John Kerry had to say when the shoe was on the other foot. Entire Letter
Dear Mr. President:
… First, a commutation of Mr. Pollard’s life sentence would imply a condonation of spying against the United States by an ally. It would also give credence to the claim that espionage is somehow less serious when Americans spy on behalf of a friendly nation with which they sympathize. This would send the wrong signal to employees within the Intelligence Community. It is an inviolable principle that those entrusted with America’s secrets must protect them, without exception, irrespective of their own personal views or sympathies.
Second, it undermines our ability to act as an honest broker throughout the world. We maintain relationships with many nations that are not necessarily complementary to one another. Those relationships depend upon our assurances of confidentiality. If you release Mr. Pollard, it will convey a message to our partners that we view secrets kept from our friends as less sacrosanct. They are not, and we must assure our partners that they are not.
Signed by a number of top officials including Sen. John Kerry.
A marriage contract may be terminated for reasons of abuse, abandonment, and infidelity.
Physical abuse usually perpetrated by the husband is a direct violation of one of the key responsibilities of a husband’s role as protector. The grand bargain of marriage is that a mother risks her life in child birth and in return a father is obligated to defend his family up to, and including, giving his life. When a father turns himself into a physical threat to his wife and children there is no greater violation of the marriage contract.
Abandonment often results from one spouse becoming an alcoholic or drug addict. When either spouse has reached such a condition through choice or addiction that their condition seriously threatens the long-term physical, economic, and emotional well-being of the other spouse and children the termination of the marriage contract is allowed.
Infidelity is violation of the marriage contract. When a spouse cheats there is risk that a child may result with another partner. Thus the physical, economic, and emotional security of the family is threatened because the cheating spouse cannot be fully committed with their time and finances to the family and marriage while attending to the needs of a separate woman and child. Open marriages and all other forms of Western relational perversion are essentially anti-child and anti-woman.
A sham marriage is often an arrangement between a man and woman for the purpose of making immigration easier. On 7 Jan 2010 BBC reported on an investigation about sham marriages around London and found the price of bride to be around 20,000 pounds. One sham married couple was exposed because neither spoke the other’s language. Ironically the article talks about marriages being true “love” matches, but who can judge what true love is?
“Registrars at Brent Council in north London suggested in 2005 that a fifth of all marriages there were bogus, with officials able to spot couples who barely knew each other.” – BBC
As Western society has drifted away from traditional marriage and made divorce easy, opportunities for human trafficking have opened up. Marriage is easy, divorce is cheap, and true love is hard to define so what is to stop people from using sham marriages to get around immigration law?
Clearly two people who do not speak the same language cannot easily enter into a contractual relationship as a mother and father need to be able to communicate to raise children.
Two random people attempting to engage in a sham marriage need to bring mutual friends and relatives to witness a covenant marriage. These sham marriages do not often meet these requirements and so a covenant relationship could not go forward. If the scam was pulled off to such a level where multiple witnesses were gathered then more people would need to be paid off, more evidence would be generated, and the sham marriage would be more easily discovered and fewer would occur.
In summary, marriage is contract. The contract protects the man, the woman, and their future children. Any weakening or perversion of the contract results in broken families, child abuse, crime and economic problems.
End of the Secular Section
Legal Marriage Benefits?
I’ve often heard from liberal gay activists how unfair it is that heterosexual couples have all these legal marriage benefits that are denied to gays. After 23 years of marriage responsibilities as a husband and father, I was still trying to figure out what they meant.
Did they mean the marriage benefit of losing half your stuff if you cheat? Did they mean the benefit of having to pay the credit card bills of a financially out-of-control spouse? Did they mean being legally responsible for your juvenile delinquents? Confused, I turned to gay activists’ websites to find out what great legal benefits I had that was being denied them.
Here is what the liberal gay activists’ website state as “marriage benefits:”
Federal Employees are offered time off for the birth of their child: They want this spousal benefit even though gays can’t biologically be parents.
File Joint Tax Returns: The joint tax return was developed because a mother staying at home and raising the children is not earning a wage so there isn’t much point in having mom put in a separate return. Filing a joint tax return with two incomes is about the same difficulty as filing two separate returns. So one of the big benefits they want is about one hour of tax preparation effort per year.
Medicare, Social Security, Disability, and Veteran’s benefits: These benefits were constructed because the society has viewed being a stay-at-home-mom as an unpaid and valuable profession. If a woman works outside the home or is in the military, her benefits apply in full, married or not. A gay man does not need these benefits because he is presumably working and will have full benefits anyway. A stay-at-home-gay man doesn’t make economic sense.
Special visas and citizenship benefits offered to foreign spouses, discounted rates for family auto, health, and homeowners insurance: This is a bogus issue. Gays can buy life insurance and name the beneficiary. There are gay insurance agents catering to gay people. Most health care plans are corporate group plans. The family plans are usually more expensive, not cheaper, for two people because they assume two or more children.
“Marriage benefits” as presented by gay marriage activists are contrived. The marriage contract is about RESPONSIBILITIES, not RIGHTS for the couple, to the benefit of the wife and, most importantly, the children.
What’s in the Marriage Contract?
The term of a marriage contract is for life.
The reason for a term of life is because a child is an 18 year commitment and with multiple children the commitment lasts far longer.
Furthermore, it is not biologically easy for a woman to avoid giving up a significant portion career if she chooses to have children. Thus, the marriage contract extends beyond the child-rearing years because it is economically fair that a mother continues to be supported for her economic sacrifice. “Easy” shameless divorce allows men to have an easy exit from their economic responsibility after the children leave the home.
A marriage contract continues in force despite health, emotional, and adverse financial conditions.
Children don’t disappear when negative health, emotional or financial conditions appear so the marriage contract is not cancelled for negative life circumstances.
A marriage contract allows a childless couple to adopt.
A marriage contract ensures legal paternity. Any child born to a married woman is the legal and financial responsibility of her husband.
A marriage contract conveys inheritance rights and extended family support. A woman and her children are given rights to the property of her husband in the event he dies. Grandparents, aunts, uncles are morally obligated to support the marriage and the children. The relatives are given first priority in adoption in the event of the death or unfitness of the parents.
Single artificial insemination
The practice of artificial insemination for single moms should be banned as it is a form of child abuse. Enough with societal experimentation on innocent children. Seeing octomoms on welfare is sickening. Celebrity single women who have and adopt children as upscale pets is grotesque.
Legalized Abortion was sold to the American public as a way to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Source: New York City: The Day, Oct 11, 1972 “liberalized abortion has helped … reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births for the first time since officials began keeping such records 18 years ago.” Apparently, they declared victory a little too early because here are the statistics.
In 1965, 26% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock and 3.1% of white babies.
In 1990, 64% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock and 18% of white babies.
In 2012, 78% of black babies were born out-of-wedlock and 29% of white babies.
Even with the wide availability of birth control and abortion, the percentage of out-of-wedlock birth continues to skyrocket.
Jennifer was pregnant with our first child when she was 19. Because she was young we were given the option of participating in a “Lamaze” class for teenage mothers. A Lamaze class teaches new parents about the stages of pregnancy, what to expect during the final months of pregnancy and delivery, and natural techniques to control pain during delivery. When the time comes, take the class as it is very useful.
I don’t remember the exact number of couples in the class but I think it was around 15 when the class started. At the first class most expectant mothers were accompanied by their boyfriends. The young fathers talked about how committed they were to the relationship and excited to be a father. But as the birth time approached one-by-one the boyfriends stopped attending class and were not heard from again. By the end of the class, only 2 or 3 young fathers kept their commitment. Our instructor said it was sad but typical.
If two gay men adopt a child, then this would be a valid reason to have “gay marriage” as a child is a significant financial commitment and a contract should be in place. However, gay adoption should be opposed for statistical and emotional reasons.
First, gays are far more likely to be involved in child sexual abuse than a heterosexual couple. I don’t support celibate priests in the Catholic Church being around young altar boys. I don’t support putting drug rehabilitation centers next to crack houses. I don’t support putting politicians near unspent money for the same reasons.
I don’t support two gay men in their 30’s adopting 12 year old boys. If you do, then you are statistically supporting sexual abuse. In fact the statistics are so bad that some activists are taking a new tactic and saying that sex between adults and minors isn’t abusive.
Celibacy came to Catholic Church formally in 1139 because many “Holier than God” folks were taking 1 Cor. 7:1 “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” a little too literally. Early in Church history unmarried men and women often emulated Paul. Over the years, these men and women started organizations. The organizations started making rules. And after a few centuries those rules became Catholic doctrine. Paul’s original point was this – if you find yourself unmarried don’t stress out. Christianity wasn’t going to view a woman without a husband as a bad thing or shameful as many religions before Christianity. Instead a single person should consider going into God’s work full-time. It is amazing how a nice encouragement became a perverted doctrine that has broken the lives of young boys and broken the hearts of their parents. Celibacy for celibacy’s sake was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now. The Catholic Church needs to repent over this one and change their ways. Repentance is a good thing and they would not be the first Church that had to correct an error or two.
There are a number of studies that show at-risk children placed in gay homes doing as well as at-risk children placed in heterosexual homes. However, these studies and their conclusions carry a fatal “activist flaw.” Here is an illustration of what I call the “activist flaw.” Over the past decades dozens of educational programs have been proposed as the answer to America’s poorly performing primary education system. The programs are proposed by highly motivated educators who have done a great job in a district with documented positive results. As the new program is rolled out in other districts the same great results are rarely duplicated and the program ends up in failure along with the prior initiatives. This is because the real reason for success was not the program but rather the highly motivated teachers. The original teachers could have successfully run any program. Likewise, any program run by an unmotivated teacher results in failure. So the point is this: two highly motivated gay activists, according to some studies, do as good of a job raising an at-risk child as an average heterosexual couple. On the other hand, broad studies comparing gay and heterosexual parenting report a strong correlation between a gay parent and sexual abuse. The highly negative results are very alarming.
Second, statistically children benefit greatly from having both a male and a female raising them. A mother is better able to relate to, set proper expectations, communicate female emotions, and explain biological changes to a daughter. A father becomes a better parent when discussing child rearing with the mother and vice versa.
It is time to stop socially experimenting and begin the hard process of cleaning up the societal wreckage caused by the atheistic left over the past 100 years.
 How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regenerus of the Department of Sociology and Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118, United States
American school children are often required to read the Scarlet Letter Novel as an example of Puritan anti-sex extremism. Most school children are taught that the Puritans started Thanksgiving, hated sex, and falsely killed witches at the Salem Witch trials. The Big State has no interest in glorifying or giving a balanced view of the days when America was not one big Debt Plantation. In the novel, a single mother is forced to wear a Scarlet Letter to publicly humiliate her for having a baby out-of-wedlock.
The Puritans of the 1600’s were not anti-sex, they were anti-child abuse.
It was considered child abuse to bring a child into this world without an identified father who was physically and financially responsible for the child. In New England during the 1600’s famine, disease, hard manual farming, and Indian attacks were all very real issues. Bringing a child into this environment without an identified father put a huge burden on relatives and neighbors and hurt the future life prospects of the child. Thus, it was shameful to have a baby out-of-wedlock. In 2013, due to Uncle Sam’s subsidy of out-of-wedlock births, extensive welfare, and Hollywood and the left’s glorification of sex outside of marriage, there is very little shame bringing a child into the world without a committed father.
While society is now far removed from the issues of the 1600s, the importance of intact healthy marriages has not diminished as evidence by numerous studies.
Various forms of birth control were available in the United States long before the birth control pill was introduced. However, the pill, abortion, and the 1960’s sexual revolution dramatically changed the marriage landscape in a few short years. The Left promised sex without consequence, women’s liberation, a reduction in out-of-wedlock births, less crime, and wealthier inner cities. Instead, America experience skyrocketing divorce and out-of-wedlock births, increased abuse, more inner city crime, and increased poverty.
As early as 1975, Dir. Swartz of Crittendon in Baltimore noted, as she served single mothers, how birth control pills and abortion were not lowering the rate of out-of-wedlock births.
“What we are seeing happening, I think is the creation of as much as two-thirds of tomorrow’s generation that has nothing going for it. Many will be raised indifferently, or brutally. Many will be nutritionally and medically deprived. Many will lack the benefit of a father, without conscience, without meaningful relationships, without impulse control and mostly violent.” She also asked “How can we have much hope?”
Let’s look at the single parenting statistics from the numerous studies.
University of California – Santa Barbara 1996: Children raised without fathers are more than twice as likely to become juvenile delinquents or single mothers.
University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University 2004: Young men raised without fathers are twice as likely to end up in jail … even when all other factors are taken into account such as race, income, parent education, and urban residence.
National Institute of Justice 1998: 63% of suicides are from fatherless homes, 85% of children exhibiting behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes, 71% of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes, 70% of juvenile delinquents are from fatherless homes.
These statistics are sad and overwhelming and are just a small sample of the large secular studies that have been conducted on the American Family.
Statistically broken homes equal broken children.
It is right to try to encourage single moms while offering hope and support. While this is the secular section of the book: Christians are instructed that “True Religion” is not just a pair of jeans – “it is to look after the fatherless” James 1:27.
In recent years more fathers are gaining sole custody of their children after divorce. New research shows that children in these homes statistically do poorly as well. Having biological mothers raise their children is important.
Children living with just their father or their father and his girlfriend are more likely to abuse drugs and be physically abused .
A lot young people will say these statistics do not apply to them. “I can live with my boyfriend and see how things work out,” “I’m on birth control,” “The guy I’m with is super nice, he’d never leave me if I got pregnant,” “I’ll get married when I get serious about a family.” If any of these statements reflect your thoughts and you think that none of the awful social statistics will apply to your situation, then please consider the following. There is a whole field of study called “Illusory Superiority.” It reveals how the majority of people think they are above average, which of course is statistically impossible. Statistics do apply to you and you are taking a big risk when you fail to heed warnings.
Before dismissing these statistics as not applying to your situation, consider these humorous statistics: 87% of Stanford MBA students considered themselves be above the average of their peers; 68% of faculty at the University of Nebraska considered themselves to be in the top 25% of teaching ability; 93% of US Student drivers thought of themselves to be above average! So in other words –
Don’t let a call from the police about your son or daughter be the first indication that your broken home is indeed a family and societal problem.
As soon as the atheist Lenin and Bolshevism took over Russia they also confiscated church property and made divorce “easy.”
So you may ask why an easy divorce does damage to marriage. Let’s go back to our original point that marriage is a contract.
If a contract is very easy to get out of, then the contract is not as valuable.
The marriage contract protects children first, thus if it is easily cancelled we are sending the message that children are not valuable.
The reason America traditionally held that divorce is supposed to be difficult is – a contract that is hard to get out of is one that should not be entered into lightly.
“The best way to compel young people to consider marriage seriously is to impress them that it cannot be dissolved for trivial reasons.” – Painesville Telegraph, Nov 1, 1921
Before “No Fault Divorce,” marriage contracts had traditionally been economically skewed in favor of woman as they should be. Women have the biological burden of child birth and early childhood nurturing. As a result of their greater time, economic, and physical commitment to the budding family, the mother and wife should and would continue to be compensated after a divorce. Thus any weakening in the marriage contract disproportionally hurts women economically. Feminists should be for a strong marriage contract, but most feminists are God-haters first and foremost.
Divorce makes men, particularly fathers, significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.
– London Observer January 24, 2009
An article from The Sunday Chronicle May 2, 1919 writes about easy divorce in Lenin’s Russia and how it resulted in the abuse of women. As the quality of marriage deteriorated more infants were given up for adoption and the Communist State was more than happy to take control in the State run orphanages. However, in a few short years the homeless child situation grew so bad in Russia that the communists were forced to repeal some of these laws and revert back to more traditional marriage.
In America the weakening of the marriage contract has been slow and steady allowing the public to get used to the new immoral standard, thus limiting the outcry and opposition. Imagine what the outcry would have been if American would have gone from a child rarely being raised without a father, as was the case in 1900, to the 30% fatherless statistic in 2013, all in a few short years.
“Easy” or “No Fault Divorce” was sold to the American public as a way for women to escape abusive marriages. Those opposing the “No Fault Divorce” advocates were the traditional marriage advocates. The traditional marriage advocates were accused of being uncompassionate and pro-abuse of women while their critics ignored the fact that abuse has always been a valid reason to seek and be granted a divorce.
There are studies that show the rate of abuse dropping 16% after “No Fault Divorce” legislation was passed. The studies indicate that many women would stay in abusive situations as they did not want to go to court and publicly air all the embarrassing dirty laundry so often associated with divorce. Even though domestic violence in marriage dropped, it was sadly more than compensated by rise in domestic violence in non-marriage relationships. Many abusive men no longer found it necessary to marry in the first place, thus skewing the statistics. Overall, domestic violence against women increased.
Policy: Reform was needed to prevent domestic abuse and public humiliation, but the answer was not “No Fault Divorce”, the answer is less fault for women, more fault for men, and a private divorce executor(s) in the same manner that will’s have executors.
The State and marriage
The state has at least three interests in marriage: one, the enforcement of the private marriage contract; two, the prevention of child abuse; three, granting citizenship to foreign spouses and children.
In the first case, meaningful legal contracts have a dispute resolution process that is enforced by a judge or arbitrator. The marriage contract is no different than any other contract in this regard. The government must be involved in either the dissolution of the marriage or ensuring that a pre-nuptial agreement is followed.
In the second case, a government prevents close relatives from marrying to prevent birth defects as government is responsible to protect the interest of the innocent and not burden the community with significant costs due to the irresponsible behavior.
In the third case, the state has interest in granting the benefits of citizenship to a foreign parent and children. Deporting a foreign parent and breaking the family unit harms the citizen spouse or child.
Birth Control and Marriage
Do you need a marriage contract if you are using birth control? Answer: Yes. Just because a baby is less likely does not mean that there is zero chance of a baby. Birth control can be forgotten and occasionally fail. We protect ourselves financially with legal contracts for rare events. For example, if you participate in school sports every child’s parent must sign a legal medical release form in the rare event their child is injured. For example, financial advisors still recommend life insurance even though death is a once in a lifetime event.
Even when taking birth control a marriage contract is still advised because the birth of a baby is a significant commitment even if it is less likely.
Abortion and Marriage
If you plan on getting an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy would marriage still be necessary? Answer: Scientifically speaking, abortion ends the life of human being with unique DNA. A man should not marry or continue to have sex with a woman who would end the life of her child for reasons of convenience. If a woman places a low priority on her offspring, how can she be a partner in a caring relationship with her spouse?
An abortion for convenience is a woman’s statement on the priority she places on children.
Comments on Abortion
The government’s fundamental role is the protection of innocent life. Abortion for convenience should be illegal. Sadly in Jan 1973 the US Supreme Court decided in Roe v Wade that abortion for convenience would be a legal method to end of the life of a baby up to the point of birth.
Marriage involves acknowledgement of the right of life that is to come into being, a right which is not subject to the disposal of the married couple. Unless this right is acknowledged as a matter of principle, marriage ceases to be marriage and becomes a mere liaison. Ethics by D. Bonhoffer (killed by the National Socialists)
Most people do not realize that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate the black race in North America and limit the population of poor whites and often referred to them as “human junk.” In the late 1910’s, Ms. Sanger opposed laws that prevented the public dissemination of birth control information without going through a doctor. Ms. Sanger as part of her information campaign started a magazine whose motto was “No Gods, No Masters” illustrating the atheistic Marxist root of this movement. Later in life she would claim to be a Methodist as she learned to hide the wolf in sheep’s clothing – remember the comment about atheists often seeking to appear religious. The United Methodist’s were pro-choice even before abortion became legal in the USA. Margaret Sanger also spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and other white racists groups. Don’t believe that? Well I have a photo of her at the Klan rally but don’t want to contaminate this book with it. While we don’t have the transcripts of these meetings it is safe to assume she was not talking how her plans were a positive for the black community. After her death, the organization she founded took up the cause of legalizing abortion for convenience.
A trial of an abortion doctor, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, is on-going as I write this. Marxists made the case that abortion needed to be legal to prevent “back alley” abortions. This case exposes how horrible these sick abortionist can be and what a lack of valuing every human life results in. The case is so sick as to defy description so feel free to google “Abortion Gosnell” if you have the stomach to read about murder and the execution of full term babies. It took the American liberal media four weeks to begin to report on this case. In many states, abortion clinics inspections are not conducted and in some states the inspections are illegal. “Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.”
Don’t forget President Obama when he was an Illinois State Senator voted against Born Alive Infants Protection Act as any good Marxist would. Our President voted against legal protection for a baby who survived an abortion! You might think for a moment that this never happens well think again. Google “Douglas Karpen.”
Rape and Abortion
Anti-God folks love to bring up extreme cases to morally confuse an issue. For example: Should abortion be legal when a pregnancy results from a rape? The anti-God folks couldn’t care less what the answer is what they want is the Pro-life supporter to fall into a moral trap. The Pharisees and Sadducees in Bible times did the same thing to Jesus. The key to avoid the trap is to frame the problem correctly.
Ironically, there is a difference in how a believer in God views rape and how the liberal views rape. Believers in God view the sexes as different. Liberals views the sexes as identical. When men and women are viewed identical then rape is not nearly as serious of a crime as men are rarely subjected to it and the consequences are not as serious. De Tocqueville writes about this difference once again in his book “Democracy in America”. France in this case represents the liberal European mind.
“The legislators of the United States, who have mitigated almost all the penalties of criminal law, still make rape a capital offense, and no crime is visited with more inexorable severity by public opinion. This may be accounted for; as the Americans can conceive nothing more precious than a woman’s honor and nothing which ought so much to be respected as her independence, they hold that no punishment is too severe for the man who deprives her of them against her will. In France, where the same offense is visited with far milder penalties, it is frequently difficult to get a verdict from a jury against the prisoner. Is this a consequence of contempt of decency or contempt of women? I cannot but believe that it is a contempt of both.”
It is these same coward liberals who now attempt to claim Pro-lifers as being uncompassionate because we don’t want to visit another crime on an innocent unborn.
Clearly rape that results in pregnancy is outside the marriage covenant, the woman did not willingly agree to the $250K in rearing cost associated with a child not to mention the time and emotional commitment, nor the constant reminder of the rape that a pregnancy entails. Pro-life folks correctly point out that the child is innocent. Innocent life has a higher priority than money, time, and emotional issues.
If we say that abortion should always be illegal including in cases of rape, then the anti-God person will say “You want to require a women to have a baby with all the cost and emotional damage. You are sick. You only say that because you aren’t the one who was raped.” If we say we provide an exception for rape and incest, then the anti-God person will say “you are not consistent and you don’t really believe life begins at conception” opening ourselves up to a debate about what life is protected and what life is unprotected and we have committed sin (acting as God over the lives of others).
We, pro-lifers need to turn the table on this debate. Today, there is no compassionate offset in public policy to attempt to reduce the costs associated with babies who are the product of rape. My opinion on the matter is this:
Policy: The State has an interest in the protection of human life as one of it’s fundamental roles and that includes babies in the womb. Thus the State should:
Pay $150K tax free for every mother who carries her baby as a product of rape to term and gives it up for adoption at birth. The mother will also receive an additional $200K tax free to raise the child. She’ll also be given 1 year paid medical leave.
As much of this money should be recovered from the rapist as possible. Rules on DNA testing would apply.
Re-institute the death penalty for rape by a stranger.
Pro-life supporters while we support a ban on abortion we first need to start pushing for compensation for pregnant rape victims. The compensation should be so high that there is no question that as a society we are showing both our support for life and a strong understanding of the trauma a woman goes through.
Paying for Live Birth
The hate-God folks have now managed to get Americans to start paying for abortion services. Well turnabout is fair play, it’s time to get Liberals to start paying for live birth. Each American child is worth about $1.6M to the US Economy over their lifetime. Why should married couples who raise children, thus benefitting the US Economy not be compensated for their trouble.
Policy: Married couples with bio mom and bio dad should receive an annual tax credit of $2000 per child.
We need to start putting our money where our values are and rewarding parents who stay together. Children raised by their bio parents are better for the US Economy. If Liberals are going to state that marriage has all these supposed benefits, well let’s give marriage some real benefits and let them have a real point to grouse about.
So how do we pay for all the new pro-family entitlements? Answer: with Taxes on Liberals, of course. Tax union dues, government pensions, abortion, Hollywood movies, companies that take more than 30% of the revenue via government contract, high crime areas, a liberty tax based on the level of local taxation (so the higher taxes, the higher the Liberty tax).
The Republican Party has made a strategic mistake in becoming the Party of no New Taxes. The Government is too big. The way to make the Big State smaller is not by giving tax immunity to those who support the Big State. If they want a Big State, then they should also pay their fair share. The Big State is not nearly so much fun when you share in the joy of paying for it.