Abstinence: The Ultimate Solution to Abortion

Contrary to popular belief, the primary purpose of sex is not for pleasure. The male and female anatomy was created in such a way that when they joined together in physical intimacy a child would be produced. This is the primary objective of sexual intercourse.
Of course, the secondary objective is pleasure and it is definitely a good thing. Yet our society has totally perverted this sacred gift by saturating our influences with promiscuous messages. These messages are even being taught in our middle schools (and sadly sometimes even younger than that!). We teach them how to put condoms on bananas.(like they couldn't figure it out).We hand out condoms at the school counselors office. We tell girls to practice "safe" sex with birth control pills. What is going on? And then we wonder why we are killing over 3500 babies a day!
Don't get me wrong, I am completely against any type of abortion for any almost any reason, but I think those who are Pro-Life need to take a step back and see why women get abortions. I seriously doubt that any woman who gets an abortion actually wants one. She is just so overwhelmed or inconvenienced that she chooses to end her babies life. But if we, as a country, promote the idea of a moral lifestyle and abstinence before marriage, then I believe abortions will have to go down because there will be less babies to kill. Yes, lets keep up the fight against abortion in our cities and in Washington, but lets try to eliminate the source of the problem, which would eliminate the problem itself. I know some of you reading this are thinking "Cmon Austin, you really want us to promote abstinence instead of "safe" sex?" My answer to you is absolutely. Why? Because it is the only method against unwanted pregnancies that actually works 100% of the time!
Hold on.I just realized how much I hate that term "unwanted". Let me clarify this-If you get pregnant on accident that child is not unwanted, it is just unwanted by you. There are many good people who want a child and cannot have one. Let them have a chance to love a child, if you want to give yours up.
Back to the point, abstinence is the guarantee that the woman will not get pregnant. Plus, there is a bonus- neither partner will receive an infectious or potentially deadly disease. I understand that is asking alot for abstinence in a culture that puts such a high value on sexuality. So lets take it a step further as we realize that most of these problems are morally linked. Lets disarm promiscuity by taking one of its main weapons- pornography. This only puts ideas in our already perverted heads and hearts. If we are always inhaling this filth visually, then of course we will exhale promiscuity.
These ideas might sound nonsensical or brilliant (depending on who you are), but if America put them into practice I believe that we would greatly reduce the number of children we kill yearly. Lets not give up in the courts though, I just doubt that there will ever be a constitutional amendment against the horrible practice of abortion. This can never happen while Congress sits on its hands and the Supreme Court thinks its God. So lets put the power back into the hands of the people, because we the people shall decide the fate of millions of future Americans. Let us stop the greatest infanticide in the history of the world.

California's at it Again

If you put any value at all in marriage and what it means, then you MUST read this article. It's got me so peeved that I really can't even comment on it right now. I'm caught in a mixture of shock and speechlessness, but at the same time I have so much to say that if I tried to say it my fingers would fall off from typing so much. I'm simply going to share the link and let all of you read it for yourself. Here's the gist of it though: "partner" is now the official term, and the terms "husband" and "wife" have been outlawed. What's perhaps most disturbing is that I doubt few outside the state will even hear about it.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE

Where are the Men?

We have traded a generation of warriors for a generation of weaklings. America was founded on the backs of hearty, angry men and their faithful families. These men were so angry that they betrayed their mother country(which happened to be the most powerful country of the time), risked life and limb to win the land from that country, and then climbed an uphill struggle to establish a new form of government. These are the types of men that we need again!
I am not saying we need senselessly violent men that kill and destroy for amusement. We have plenty of insecure, hateful men that are joining gangs, establishing political factions, littering our streets, and flooding our prisons. We don't need men like this, but we really don't need the men that our culture is pushing for- the sensitive, effeminate,emotional basketcases that have become the new models for the ideal man. Everywhere you look men are bombarded with messages such as "Get in touch with your feminine side". So these men think that they should be more gentle, soft, and tender. We already have a name for someone like this-the woman! When a man does not reflect these traits as well as a woman, he is labeled an ignorant moron or chauvenistic pig. Just look at the nightly sitcoms-women run the home and the husbands are terrified of them! What is wrong with this? Men were created to lead and if they do not women will.
Before I get burned at the stake I want to clarify that I do believe that women are quite capable of leading. Many women throughout history have proven this to be true. Joan of Arc, Deborah, and Cleopatra were just a few of these strong women. I am not saying that women can't lead. As capable and moral as Sarah Palin is, I do not know if women should be in this type of role.(Yet she has more guts than most men in politics!)The other side of me says that woman were created to be helpmates, so I guess I really have no problem with her be a VP.
Back to the point, if men would simply do what they were created to do, we would not need such courageous women as Sarah Palin to fill our shoes. Men need to be infuriated with the idea that masculinity will soon become obsolete. In reality it never will, but our culture is saying this! What I am trying to say is that we, as American men, must stand up in the face of fear, apathy and feminism! Women you must encourage us to do this! If men would just "man-up" we would not have some of the most inexperienced politicians ever running for the most powerful position in the world.

Initial Palin Thoughts

John McCain's vice presidential pick seems to have created quite a stir, at least amongst people I've come across. I personally like the idea of Sarah Palin being in office. I think. As with everything in life, there are two sides to every coin. It seems that with every pro to Palin, there is a con. Anyway, she didn't seem to get the same sort of approval or hype that, say, Mitt Romney would have gotten.

I'll start off by giving a very brief overview of some of the reasons opposing this pick and why I am a bit nervous of the pick. First off, she is a woman. I don't know that I really have a problem with it, but I will say that I would like to be OK with it. I know some people think that women can't lead as well as men, which comes across as quite chauvinistic (and may or may not be true), but that's not really the point. Regardless of whether or not Palin being a woman affects her judgement and leadership ability, it definitely has an impact on the election.

Secondly, she trumps even Obama in terms of experience. In her short career in politics, Sarah Palin has served most notably as a small town mayor and Alaskan governor. Most have said that by picking Palin as VP, the Republican party threw out the experience card they have been playing for some time now.

Alright, on to the advantages. Perhaps the biggest factor in picking Palin is that she is very conservative. She falls in the right place on the conservative issues McCain doesn't, and backs him up on the others. She's strongly pro-life, same sex marriage, and a member of the NRA. I'll begin to delve a little deeper in to the pros and cons and we'll start to see how they all tie together.

While some are apprehensive because of Palin's gender, I am actually quite excited. There is a possibility that some conservatives won't vote for the McCain ticket because of her gender, but I believe her gender, if even a factor, will draw in more votes than it loses. So if she causes McCain to lose votes, where to they go? Most likely to some insignificant candidate like Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. But what about the votes she brings in, where do they come from? Most likely from Democratic voters who previously would have voted Obama. That sounds like a fair trade to me; losing a few conservative votes to insignificant candidates while stealing a large number of votes from the only other candidate with a shot at winning. Granted, this is all speculation at this point, but I have some reasoning behind it. For reasons including those Kenneth brought up in his post about compassion, there are a lot of female Democratic voters out there. I may take some flack for this, but I'm going to say it anyway: women vote more with their feelings than they do with their brains. I've heard a number that said 70% of women who voted for Clinton did so because of his looks. That doesn't really surprise me. With "thinking" like that, that leads me to believe that perhaps a similar percentage of women will vote for McCain/Palin simply because Palin is a woman. Will Palin's gender really play that big of a role on the final vote count? Who knows. But I personally don't see it as that big of a stretch.

Now onto her inexperience. It is true, Sarah Palin has practically no political experience, at least not when compared to the level expected of such a high profile position. As I briefly mentioned earlier, the McCain campaign has really been hitting the Obama party hard on this experience issue. However, there is one key discrepancy to note: Obama is running for president and Palin is running for vice president. So even if experience is a factor for a person, which is clearly isn't for many, wouldn't one still rather vote for a veteran president and a new vp than an inexperience president and veteran vp? To me, the difference between vice president and president is huge. I see the vice presidency as a position of influence whereas the presidency is a position of final say. I personally don't have a problem with Palin's inexperience because I fully trust McCain has the knowhow to compensate for any potential problems it may bring about. The bottom line here is that anyone whose vote is affected by experience will choose McCain over Obama if they just stop and think.

Finally, conservative voters should be thrilled that McCain picked Palin. I have to admit, I did want Mitt Romney, both for his conservative views (which have been questioned) and for his role he would play in the economy. If there's one real problem with this pick it's that the McCain ticket is unlikely to radically improve the economy, not that Obama will do anything to help it out either. The heart of the matter here, though, is that Palin is a hardline conservative who is unafraid to stick up for her beliefs. Perhaps it is because she hasn't been around politics long, but she truly is a maverick who hasn't been tainted by the political world. She doesn't worry about consequences but does what she believes in. 

She is conservative on all the issues that matter most to conservatives. One of the big protests I felt and heard about McCain being the Republican nominee is how moderate he is. Recently, he's really been appealing to the conservatives and I honestly don't know where he stands anymore. But I do know where Palin stands and I do believe that she will motivate McCain to fall on the conservative side of key issues. Most of us know by now that Palin gave birth to a child with down syndrome that she could have aborted early into pregnancy. As pro-choice as Obama is, that is how pro-life Palin is. While McCain seems to be OK with letting politicians and the people work out the abortion issue, Palin is motivated in banning it and in overturning Roe v. Wade. She also opposes same sex marriages, which McCain again has chosen to allow the people to decide. On these key conservative issues, McCain hasn't shown a strong stance, but Palin definitely lines up with conservatives, which should provide some comfort for them.

Palin also lines up on a lot of issues with McCain, which should help to further their cause. Being a member of the NRA is another plus to Palin. Not only that, but she has been known to hunt big game (yes, even caribou that the tree-huggers are using as a defense to drilling in Alaska). Sure, McCain has more than locked up all of the pro-gun voters, but picking a running mate with the same views can never hurt. It further solidifies that this administration will do everything within its power to protect our second amendment rights. Oh yeah, Palin also fully supports drilling for oil. It should be noted that Palin is from Alaska. She should know the ins and outs, pros and cons of the situation and may persuade those slightly opposed to drilling. 

I could go on and on about Palin, McCain and their views all day (and you could say I have) but I will try and wrap this up. Here's the long and short of it: Palin helps the McCain ticket far more than he hurts it. There are people who say this move was out of desperation or that it's all pandering. Not true. Palin is a very solid pick that McCain made willingly and for the purpose of bettering America. Palin being a woman will likely pull in more moderates, even some democrats, and her conservative values should pull in the conservatives turned off by her gender. McCain didn't need a desperate move to win the election, and I don't believe that's what he's done here. As election day nears, I hope that more and more voters will begin to realize how competent and dynamic of a veep candidate Sarah Palin is.