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.