Category Archives: children

>OBSERVATION: Abortion: Death takes no holiday

>(NOTE: This blog item contains graphic photographs of aborted fetuses. I provide this alert not to discourage your viewing them, but to draw your attention. No discussion of abortion can be complete without such compelling graphic evidence of its wrongness.)

Today is the 35th anniversary of the infamous Wade v. Roe decision that allowed the promotion and practice of abortion as an acceptable means of terminating more human lives than THE Holocaust – and a few lesser genocides added on. I prefer to think of it as the yet unnumbered year until humanity regains its moral, ethical, civil and common sense equilibrium and bans the arbitrary procedure that is currently based solely on the simplistic idiocy that it is merely “a woman’s RIGHT to choose.”

My personal aversion to abortion is not religious based. I am far to poor of a Christian (if at all) to rely on church decrees. It is a matter of a secularly moral, just and civil society. Healthy cultures do not just go around torturously slaughtering their progeny. I oppose abortion, not from dogma, but from the fact that I love children and respect the enormously miraculous (in both the secular and theological sense) means by which they come into life. Once conceived, their humanness is caste. The pairing of the DNA establishes all the criteria that defines humanness. The new life’s unvoiced rights exist regardless of the opinion of society in any particular millennia.

To provide the woman with exclusive right over the very life, or death, of an unborn child requires legal, ethical and logical blinders. The fetus is among the most precious “commodities” of life. It is clearly the “product” for two individuals, both with well established legal liabilities. Even if you do not accept the inalienable right to life of the fetus as a human person, it is irrefutable that at least two individuals have legitimate claims.

Most offensive of all claims is the mantra that it is the woman’s body to do with as she pleases. The fetus is not a necessary or natural part of the female anatomy. It is a host function, with codified responsibilities and liabilities. Ironically, if a woman desired to have her healthy kidney removed (no question a part of her own boy), it would be unethical and, in some cases, illegal for a doctor to perform the requested operation.

The feminists’ claim to legal and biological authority and superiority, simply because Providence or evolution placed the early stages of development within the female body, is a preposterous and arrogant fallacy – but a necessary fraud if one is to attempt any justification for abortion on demand.

It is also important to keep in mind that humanness is not something we, as a society, are ever to determine. Humanness is inalienable. It exists as its own reality, not by the opinion of society. It cannot be granted or taken away by the edict of a despot, the opinions of scientists, the vote of a democratic majority, or the judgment of nine justices. It is not our moral obligation to make a determination of the moment of humanness, but to discover it through knowledge, logic, belief and general enlightenment.

Thanks to medical science, a fetus that was once too premature to be “viable” now survives. Only human ignorance allowed those earlier “viable” fetuses to be destroyed.

We should never think of abortion as a right. It is not. It is an infamous privilege. In reality, abortion exists as a selfish convenience – for the woman (or man), for a powerful segment of the medical community, and, to large extent, for our current society. Like all the other horrors of human history, it places convenience over life. In all cases, some humans must be dehumanized, become chattel, for the benefit for the ruling class. They are to be owned or controlled like lesser animals, or slain for their benefits to medical science, their perceived threat to the “superior” culture, to be eaten as game prey, or eliminated as a threat to the resources of a theoretically overcrowded society.

No matter how pathetic the claim — poverty, immaturity, stress, etc. etc. etc. – the so-called woman’s RIGHT to choose is an argument of convenience. Or inconvenience, if you will. The only “right” involved is the pervasively ignored right to life, itself.

We know it is wrong, theologically or civilly, to kill another human. We know that our protectable humanness begins BEFORE birth. But, at what moment in the human gestation period does the newly conceived acquire the civil rights and protections to which all humans are entitled, if not always granted? That is the essential question.

Apart from conception, there is no moment, no event, that can be cited as the transition from a worthless growth to a protectable human. Since there is no clear moment in pre-natal development when we can persuasively declare the commencement of humanness, we should err on the side of life. While we demand to be assured of guilt “beyond all reasonable doubt” before the execution of a criminal, we do not apply “reasonable doubt” as a protection against the wrongful killing of a guiltless human at its earliest stages of life.

Abortion is not our connection with an enlightened future, but some lingering barbarism from our primitive past. I am confidant that future hindsight will reflect on the era of abortion as a hideous era of an ignorant culture — no matter how sophisticated it may appear to so many intelligent people today. It will take its place alongside the other horrors of human decadence, such as cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, Nazi medical experiments and periodic outbreaks of genocide. All were justified by the influence leaders of the cultures in which they existed. All were seen as beneficial to the perpetrating society.

Today is significant, not as a national day of celebration, but as yet another Memorial Day – a day upon we should sadly reflect on the loss of so many lives cut short by surgeons with disregard to the basic elements of the Hippocratic Oath. Unfortunately, we have no great cause to declare that these poor souls have not died in vane. There are no heroes yet, only victims.

>OBSERVATION: God and teenagers.

>Everytime I ponder God, I become more impressed with His perfect wisdom. Consider this. When our youngest children need our total attention and nurturing, He makes them sweet and cuddly. We can hardly let them out of our sight for the shear joy of their being. Then, when it is time for those same sweet charming children to begin their exit from the nest, He turns them into teenagers. Think about that.

>REACT: Thank God and John Walton for Wal-Mart.

>Wal-Mart just introduced the $199 computer. More about that below, but first a little preface …

The broad phalanx attack on Wal-Mart by the various battalions of liberal activists is typical of their hatred of the free market system, free trade and free just-about-anything-else — except lunch.

The unions grouse about Wal-Mart resisting representation – representation which would do nothing more than increase the costs of goods for the American consumer and make the fat cat leaders of labor a little fatter. They tell how Wal-Mart is paying wages in Asia that are a fraction of the American worker. They forget to mention that you can buy a bushel of corn in China for 12 cents. My tailor makes my pin-stripped power suits for under $100. I can leave KFC stuffed for about a buck and a half. I had $3000 worth of dental work (American dentist estimate) completed beautifully in China for $400. Also had a physical and the complete blood test cost me a Jefferson. (No, not a nickel. Geeez. A two dollar bill.)

In China, Wal-Mart is lifting tens of thousands of people out of poverty at every step of the supply chain. If Wal-Mart was such a damned awful employer, why is it when they open a store in China the job application line runs from Beijing to Shanghai? Unions also grouse about how poorly Wal-Mart treats its American workers. Same question. Why do they receive thousands of applications at every store?

Some of the alderman in my Chicago home town city council are fighting hard to keep Wal-Mart out of the Windy City – thus denying their constituents much-needed jobs and lower prices, and the city coffers some tax revenue. What is their motivation? Blind hatred with a dash of stupidity. Of course, that is only an opinion.

Then there is the crowd that complains that Wal-Mart’s lower prices are ruining the market. Pause and ponder here folks. These libs are so whacko that they think higher prices are good thing – competition is a bad thing. They say higher prices means more pay for the workers. Well, a lot of those wage gains will be eaten up by the higher prices…..duh. And the over-paid union leaders seem completely oblivious to the fact that a company also must serve its stockholders and the consuming public – and there are a lot more of them than workers. Wal-Mart has been a key player in bringing down the prices of tens of thousands of consumer products, even in the face of modest inflation. These are real dollar reductions, not the theoretical stuff we get from economists and accountants. Tee shirts that were once $14 are now $5.

One of my more liberal friends (and yes I DO have liberal friends – quite a few, in fact) criticized Wal-Mart for practically putting FAO Schwartz out of business. If you are not familiar with them, they are a trendy upscale toy store that catered to the rich and famous. It seems that nasty old Wal-Mart began selling a lot of the same toys for a fraction of the prices charged by FAO to the price-is-no-object crowd. (Since my friend’s heart is bleeding for FAO, the term “limousine liberal” suddenly jumped into my mind.)

This is how the free market and competition works. This is a good thing. I mean, yeah, I am sorry to see FAO become more like a Macy toy department. They were a fun store. However, price rules for most people – as it should.

Now … about those $199 computers. I can’t wait for the libs to figure out how to criticize this one.

The left pays a lot of attention to public education (which, in and of itself, serves as an example of the failure of their philosophy). They like to think that they are the vanguard of progressive and innovative education. Everyone agrees that getting computers in the hands of students at an early age is a good thing. The education industry has expressed that need for decades (ever since Al Gore invented the Internet).

The fear and reality is that the computer age created yet another gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Those financially-challenged kids trapped in the liberal-run city school systems are at the greatest disadvantage. The affluent parents are buying their kids thousands of dollars of cutting edge electronics to support education, while the kids in the inner city schools are getting the benefit of electronic metal detectors to eliminate cutting edges of a different sort.

There have been scores of programs to try to provide computers. The Holy Grail was always held out to be the $199 computer. Most programs fell far short of success because of the cost of the equipment. Now cometh that nasty old Wal-Mart again, this with the $199 computer. Suddenly, the dream of every kid having a laptop is inching toward reality.

Just think of the impact on our children when we can finally bring modern technology to the disadvantaged. (We do not call them disadvantaged for nothing, folks). There have been tons written on the enormous benefits of computers for kids, so you can only imagine the impact Wal-Mart pricing will have on education.

Next time you hear one of these liberal groups kicking about Wal-Mart, just remember those kids who are getting a better education – something the lip-service libs and the kids-last unions have failed to do for a generation or two.

The free market works. Alleluia!

>REACT: Daley plays the race card … and it’s a joker


In his attempt to bully support for a new Grant Park location for the Children’s Museum, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley deals the race card from the bottom of the deck. He accuses the citizens living in the highrises adjacent to the proposed location of being racists, who do not want “black or brown” kiddies to be drawn to their Loop neighborhood.

How low can the mayor go?

He blatantly calls tens of thousands of his citizens “racists,” when in fact that region of the city is populated by some of the most tolerant individuals in Chicago, including a bunch of “black and brown” parents. I would remind the mayor that this is the 42nd ward, not the old 11th.

The Mayor fails to note that the new Museum site is adjacent to the Chicago Park District field house named after his father. It is a field house, which hosts summer camp and other events for thousands of children – including many of those black and brown youngsters. Far from protesting the interracial kids’ programs and events, the neighbors include their own children among the enrollees.

If Chicago is a racially confrontational city, it is largely due to the historic race baiting tactics of the political machine. Using concocted racism as a straw man, the mayor actually promotes what he feigns to oppose.

This baseless accusation comes from a man whose family has presided over the most racially divided city in America, whose early elections were advanced by engendering racial fears over the possibility of a second black mayor, and who has successfully driven the low economic black and brown people out of the city to be displaced by suburban yuppies.

This shameless effort is designed to divert public attention away from the very legitimate reasons to deny the Children’s Museum the proposed site. It is the long-standing Grant Park covenant of keeping the lakefront as open space for the benefit of all the people, and to resist the eroding imposition of commercial venues.

Ironically, it is the mayor who has sold out to the mostly white upper crust of Chicago society. The overly costly Millennium Park was an elitist concept that gave more than ample opportunity to provide “naming rights” to the hoi polloi. It is a “park” that maintains 24 hour security guards to make sure the common folk do not bicycle, skate, run, walk dogs or trod on the sod – pleasures usually associated with urban parks.

Under the civic delirium of Millennium Park, the mayor provided space for a commercial restaurant — and yet another opportunity for the politically favored. The Harris Theatre was then allowed to intrude into the people’s commons – again for the glory and entertainment of the Windy City elite.

Another issue is traffic and parking. The mayor flips off this legitimate concern over congestion with “this is a city” — what every the hell that means. Development in that section of town is already overtaxing the transportation infrastructure. Perhaps his motive in jamming more people-attractions in that small area is to help the Grant Park garage fulfill its failed mission to finance the park.

The Children’s Museum is a wonderful thing. My family has enjoyed it over many years. There are innumerable sites where it can serve the public. How about on the south edge of Grant Park, for example? Or, to the west of the McCormack complex? Or hey! How about on underused Northerly Island (see Meigs Field).

The new 42nd ward alderman, Brendan Reilly, opposes the site, and as tradition would have it, professional courtesy should prevail in the City Council. However, it appears that the mayor is willing to throw out that tradition along with the long-standing covenants and traditions protecting the lakefront. Reilly may get his toes stomped on by the compliant City Council, but in the long run, he will have been the voice in the wilderness.