Sunday, July 14, 2013

Zimmerman Vindicated

Well, now that the verdict is in, it turns out that Martin's death was not a "mindless murder" as many race-baiting pundits, but rather a justified case of self-defense. 

This case should never have been brought to trial.  The police clearly stated they had no evidence.  The Sanford police department did not arrest Zimmerman because they had no evidence to use to support any charges.  The city administration, in frustration fired the police chief. The attorney general did not return charges for the same reason, so the governor steps in, and reassigns the case to another attorney general.  I fail to see how firing the police chief and reassigning the case can produce any evidence that was clearly not there.

While I have sympathy for the Martin family in the loss of their son, I do not have empathy.  When one looks at peripheral evidence, much of which was not allowed in the trial, instead of the portrait of the "innocent teenager" that has been painted by the medial outlets  sympathetic to concept that Martin was "racially profiled" and "singled out for murder", we find that in actuality, he was a troubled youth who had a history of violence and was a habitual drug user, and may have been involved in the illegal trafficking of firearms.

There is no question that self-defense is a human right.  As far as anyone living knows, besides George Zimmerman, Zimmerman did nothing wrong.  Yes, the police operator advised him not to follow Martin, and Zimmerman chose to ignore that advice.  However, in the state of Florida, it is not illegal to follow someone, even with a gun in your pocket.  There is no law in Florida against confronting someone that you suspect may be engaging in unlawful or unsafe activities. There is a law against attacking someone who does confront you, and smashing that person's head on a concrete sidewalk.

We can only hope that Zimmerman can sue and get a judgement against the city for wrongful arrest, and that the fired police chief can sue and get a judgement against the city for wrongful termination, and that the judgements are large and hurt the city.  Maybe then other municipalities will take note and work to keep politics out of the justice system.  This trial was politically motivated from the start and should have never been brought to trial.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Stop Having Sex ?!?

Vivian Norris wants women in Texas to stop having sex with men who do not support late term abortion.  She thinks that this will change mens' minds about the issue.  The Texas legislature was very close to criminalizing late-term abortions in the state, and the measure was only defeated by a last minute filibuster by pro-abortion state senators.  The legislation would also require abortion mills to be certified medical facilities, which to anyone but a pro-abortion advocate would seem to be common sense.

What Vivian does not realize is that there are men who can think logically and remove emotion from arguments. She bases her justification for withholding sex on a woman's right to have dominion over her body.  But this is just a fallacious argument.

Here is the problem with the argument: Women don't have rights and dominions over their own bodies.  Neither, for that matter, do men.

If a woman decides to ingest cocaine into her body, and she is caught by the authorities, she will be incarcerated.  If she decides to inject heroin and is caught, she will be incarcerated.  She cannot sell a kidney for profit.  She cannot rent out her vagina for profit.

So, I am calling BS on this "right and dominion" argument.  Furthermore, the "product of conception" has its own unique DNA.  It is not part and parcel of the woman's body. What about its "right and dominion"?

This discussion was spawned by late term abortions.  Late term abortions = viable babies.  Following this logic, if the baby is viable, what meaning does passing through the birth canal have?  If the only difference between an abortable baby and a child is passing through the birth canal, why not legalize post-partum abortions.  If a new mom doesn't think she can handle her newborn, should she be allowed to "abort" it?  After all, the only difference between it and a late term aborted baby is that it travelled about 8 inches through a vagina.

Let's be intellectually honest here.  The issue is not about women's bodies.  It is about the power over life and death of a human who may become an inconvenience.