The Conservative Son

Imagine, if you will, that the police raid an apartment on a tip that a violent crime was just committed there. They quickly arrive at the apartment, only to find upon entrance, a man, covered with blood, and no one else present.

Now, the officers would certainly arrest him, for obvious reasons, until they could determine if a crime had actually been committed. The man, wisely, kept his mouth shut and called his lawyer.

His lawyer advised him to continue to exercise his right to remain silent. He told him, "I'll handle everything."

The prosecutor was bright and ambitious and decided to have the man arraigned, though there was no body. Still, he felt sure that he could convince the jury that, simply because the accused was shrewd enough to dispose of the remains, that was no reason to let him get away with murder. He declared, "With all of this blood, surely we'll get a conviction."

The trial commenced and the attorneys did a great job arguing their respective cases. The defense argued that there was no body, so, there was no conclusive evidence that a murder had taken place. The prosecutor argued that DNA evidence proved the blood was human, therefore, even though the accused craftily disposed of the remains, that was not cause to let him go free.

Both sides were persuasive, yet, in the end, the jury found the man guilty. They felt, even without the body, a crime had been committed. The human blood was proof enough for them.

At this point, the man, on his lawyer's advice, decided it was time to confess to the truth of what had happened. This was his last chance for freedom. So, he admitted that he had, perhaps, taken a life, but not in the way it seemed.

He explained that he was a physician and had received a call from a frantic female friend of the family who had become, unexpectedly, pregnant. She begged him to perform an abortion and keep it secret from her husband and the rest of the family. After some persuasion, the doctor reluctantly agreed to meet her at a secluded motel, perform the operation, and they could both slip away without anyone knowing.

The story became more loathsome when he confessed further that, even though in the first trimester, the child was, he believed, viable. This was a terrible situation for himself and the "mother." She vehemently begged him to dispose of the infant in spite of its budding health. At this point, he agreed it was best for her and him if he did exactly that.

He continued that after terminating the fetus, he disposed of the remains in a fashion that he felt would leave no evidence. Perhaps all the blood and the sound of a hysterical woman kept him from being as surreptitious as he would have liked to have been. Apparently, someone at the hotel became suspicious and called law enforcement.

His lawyer argued that he had not committed a murder, but had merely performed a private health service for a distraught woman. He further argued that thousands of such procedures are performed every day well within the confines of federal law. Therefore, he asserted the judge must overturn the conviction and release the doctor. This was the conundrum in which the judge found himself.

Sadly, the same basic scenario occurs on a daily basis in America and around the world. Women "choose" to abort their children and it's considered, by some, to be nothing more than a "medical procedure." You know, much like an appendectomy or removing a gall bladder, they claim.

In most states, first trimester abortions are protected by federal, state, and local law. Some even are allowed much later in pregnancy, such as in partial birth abortions.

Far to many Americans' have a cavalier attitude toward the unborn. This is a never ending source of amazement to me. Still, a simple DNA test can prove the pre-delivery child to be human. Yet, far too many don't consider it wrong to arbitrarily end its life. Far toomany of us have hearts that are cold as stone and just as hard.

So, should the doctor be found guilty of murder? Is there any difference, practically speaking, between what he did and what doctors do in abortion clinics daily? Should the judge let the doctor go? Should he, legally speaking, be set free?

If you had the power to decide, what would you do? Actually, when you support those who support this heartless sort of thinking, you do have the power. You know what they say: With great power comes great responsibility. What will you do with that power?

Labels: abortion, DNA, murder

I was listening to Mark Steyn a few days ago, who was guest hosting for Rush Limbaugh. Mark is my favorite sub-host for Rush.

It happened that a woman called in complaining how she and her husband were both disabled and at least one, I wasn't sure which, was required to regularly take a very expensive medicine. Furthermore, this drug required paying out more monthly than they are taking in, for a medicine that was keeping one or both of them alive.

Mark was compassionate, eloquent and pedantic. I, on the other hand, believe I had an epiphany. I thought to myself, "Bless her heart. She could just die."

Am I being facetious? Well, maybe. Am I being heartless? Well, maybe.

Still, this woman's big complaint was that the pills which kept her and/or her loved one alive are so expensive. At least she's alive to complain about it.

We live in a world where people live well past their prime years and I'm glad they do. When I'm an octogenarian, I imagine I wouldn't mind seeing my great-great, etc. grand-kids. All I'm doing is trying to offer a little perspective here. If your biggest complaint is that staying alive is expensive, do you really have that much to complain about?

Labels: drugs, health care, Mark Steyn

Well, there ya go. I messed up, again, and said something nice about a Democrat and it jumped up and bit me on the buttocks!

After what Leon Panetta said about Dick Cheney "almost" wishing for an attack on the U.S. just to prove his point, I'm sorry I said anything nice about Panetta. Notice, he tried to qualify his statement with "almost" as if that is any difference.

So, finally, I apologize, Mr. Panetta. I won't make that mistake twice.

Labels: apology, Democrat, Dick Cheney, Leon Panetta

"War is not the answer."

I see the bumper stickers, the t-shirts and hear this mantra chanted on a daily basis. Other than just being a shallow, completely un-thought out, asinine thing to say, it's nothing more than a pathetic slogan for know-nothings and wanna-know-nothings. It doesn't' go to the heart of the matter.

What is the answer when terrorists are trying to sink our harbored ships overseas? What is the answer when terrorists are bombing our embassies? What is the answer when terrorists are attacking our allies? What is the answer when terrorists are blowing up our cities?

The pacifists say, "War is not the answer." I say, "It all depends on the question."

Labels: military, terrorists, war