Guns and Abortion: Part II

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..


The previous post began with:

Use the words “guns” or “abortion” and immediately, the adrenalin starts to pump to the heart and limbs, but not to the brain. It would be difficult to find someone without a strong, STRONG (i.e. emotional) opinion.

If you have a strong opinion in one direction, and I have a strong opinion in the opposite direction, all the facts in the world may not sway either of us. But perhaps there is a middle ground where reason will prevail.

That post discussed guns. Now, we’ll plunge even deeper into fact-free, emotional mysticism by talking about abortion.

We (mostly) can agree that the murder of a human being is evil. But we also (mostly) agree there are exceptions:

–Soldiers kill enemy soldiers, because killing to protect the lives, health, freedoms and way of life of fellow countrymen is justified. The life of an enemy is considered to be worth less than the life of an ally.

–Police kill threatening criminals, because killing to protect the lives and safety of innocent civilians, and in self-defense, is justified. The life of a threatening person is considered to be worth less than the life of an innocent person or a police officer.

–Some states sentence people to death, because lawful killing, by definition, is justified. The life of someone planning, attempting or carrying out a homicide is worth less than that of a victim.

–You yourself might kill someone in defense of your family, yourself, or really, just about anyone whose life is being threatened by someone else. The life of a defender is considered to be more important than the life of an attacker.

Clearly then, killing even a fully developed human, let alone a 4-cell blastocyst, often is justified. It has been done millions of times, and some of the killers are considered heroes and are decorated with medals by society.

So, in discussing abortion, we need to consider some questions that have no answers:

1. At what point does the merger of an egg and a sperm, or a blastocyst, become a human being?

2. When is killing, to protect the life, health and freedom and way of life of a mother, justified?

It is a quirk of the human psyche, that beliefs can be strongest when proof is weakest. The reason: When we lack data, we resort to intuition and faith. Science relies on fact-based conclusions, which can be overturned by more or better facts and conclusions.

But intuition and faith cannot be disproved.

Thus religion, which essentially is supported by zero facts, elicits the strongest beliefs. For most of us, the religion we so fervently support, just happens, by the accident of fate, to be the one we were born into.

What our caretakers believe, we tend to believe, and not just believe, but angrily, furiously believe. But why? It is part of our tribal survival, to adopt the ways and beliefs of those around us.

Returning to question #1., when does a human life begin? If your parents are Catholic, you may believe human life begins when the sperm merges with the egg. Perhaps, even prior to that.

Or, if not then, possibly any supporting research that demonstrates a reaction to stimuli, will “prove” human life has begun.

Or, does size matter most?

Stages of Baby Growth

Month 1: Your baby is about 1/4 inch long – smaller than a grain of rice.
Month 2: Your baby is about the size of a kidney bean.
Month 3: Your baby is approximately 2 1/2 inches long by the end of this month.
Month 4: Your baby measures 4 1/2 inches in length and weighs nearly 3 ounces.
Month 5: Your baby is about 6 1/2 inches long
Month 6: He is 12 inches in length and weighs approximately 1 1/2 pounds.
Month 7: She is now about 15 inches in length and weighs around 4 pounds.
Month 8: At about 6 pounds, your baby is between 16 to 19 inches long.
Month 9: When your due date arrives, your baby will be approximately 20 inches in length and weigh, on average, about 7 1/2 pounds.

So, what do you believe? Is the life, health, freedom and way of life of a mother more or less important than the life, health, freedom and way of life of an embryo the size of a rice grain?

What about a kidney bean? Or 2 1/2 inches long? If they were in front of you — the mother sitting in front of you, and the “kidney bean” in a tiny spoon — in whose favor would you decide? Whose life and future is more important? At what point of pregnancy, is the fetus more important than the mother?

There is no right or wrong answer, but whatever month you choose we must consider the next question: When is killing justified?

We gave examples of soldiers, police, the state, someone defending his own life or the lives of others. But it can be more than defending lives. It can include other defenses.

Would you feel justified in shooting someone if he:

1. Was about to toss “Molotov Cocktails” into your home?
2. Was about to cut off one of your feet?
3. Was about to injure your child?
4. Was about to push a computer key that would cause America to lose a war, allowing Russia to rule America.

Many people would answer “Yes” to all four questions. I know I would.

Think carefully: What would you do?

Question #1. could be under the broad heading: “Serious threats to your financial assets.”
Question #2. could be under the broad heading: “Serious threats to your physical and mental health.”
Question #3. could be under the broad heading: “Serious threats to your family.”
Question #4. could be under the broad heading, “Serious threats to your happiness and your way of life.”

Getting back to the question of abortion:

–Under “Serious threats to your financial assets,” we could include: An unwanted pregnancy, delivery and unafordable cost of raising the child
–Under “Serious threats to your physical and mental health,” we could include: A dangerous pregnancy.
–Under “Serious threats to your family,: we could include: Hating the concept of motherhood so much you know you will mistreat or neglect the child.
–Under “Serious threats to your happiness and your way of life” we could Include: Being forced to deliver and raise an unwanted child.

If you answered “Yes,” you would be justified in killing a full grown man to prevent the four serious threats, remember that to a frightened desperate girl, pregnancy/delivery/parenting could be as threatening as a housefire, an amputation, child cruelty and enduring a foreign invasion.

If you were that girl, would you also be justified in killing a rice grain-size embryo or a 4″ fetus, to prevent the same serious threats?

Can you empathize?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


11 thoughts on “Guns and Abortion: Part II

  1. Another approach to the abortion issue is to question the positive-sounding phrase, “right to life”. It is reasonable to assume that the right begins whenever life begins, but what is the right? Is it a form of entitlement? If the right begins before a child is born, what right or rights does it have before it is born? Does it include adequate nutrition to form successfully, and if so, who guarantees that right? If the state guarantees it, does that mean that the the state guarantees adequate nutrition for the mother?

    After a child is born, what right or rights does it have? Does, for example, the state guarantee that it will be fed and cared for during its first few months? You can see where this is going: does it have a right to adequate health care, nutrition, and education? If it is not expected to develop normally and needs special treatment or care, what rights does it have and does the state guarantee guarantee those rights?

    If the state tells a mother that she must give birth to a child that she does not want to bear, what else must the state do to ensure that the child has rights after it is born? My point is simply that what is presented with the noble phrase “right to life” seems to come down to little more than a right to birth.


    1. Yes, it’s an oddity of right-wing politics that they absolutely love fetuses, but hate poor children after they are born.

      They march to make sure every fertilized egg produces a child, and then once the children are born, they do everything possible to reduce federal benefits that would help these children live decent lives.

      The reason, of course, is to keep the parents poor, thus widening the Gap.


    1. I’m sure that if a law banning guns was in place they would not have had a gun…. Oh wait, I bet all these shootings were perpetrated by either criminals or insane individuals – and the last time I checked these folks don’t follow the law.

      We need to be really careful in putting laws in place that will make matters worst. Indeed, Oregon has gun laws – and guns are not allowed in school property. Well, that didn’t stop this young man – did it Rodger?


  2. Bam, you do realize what you have just written, don’t you? No? All right, I’ll tell you. Here is what you’re saying:

    If there are laws against gun ownership, lawbreakers will get guns. Since lawbreakers break laws, there is no use having laws.

    Brilliant, as always.


    1. No, that is not what I am saying.

      There is a believe that we have a “gun” problem – while the truth is different. The problem is not guns. As I mentioned on my previous post you have 2 types of people causing the shootings – criminals and mentally disturbed individuals. A law will not stop any of these individuals, but it sure will stop law abiding citizens – making the problem worst.

      That is not to say we should not have laws. As an example, say that most deaths caused by guns were due to a child mishandling a gun that should have never been in their posession. In this case, laws punishing parents not appropriately securing it would make sense – because we are talking about a law that applies to law-abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals and insane people do not.

      Gun control laws that prevent someone from having a gun in a school, such as the law that exists in Oregon for instance, are a ticking bomb and the precursor to what happened yesterday. You mock this idea if you want, but a law abiding citizen with a gun could have stopped this young man pretty quickly – potentially preventing the killing of many of these individuals.

      What’s needed is common sense – not a knee jerk reaction.


  3. Bam,

    Still don’t get it, do you. Still parroting the NRA bullsh*t.

    You said, “Law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals and insane people do not.”

    What is your “common sense” method to prevent “criminals and insane people” from getting guns before they shoot people?

    Everyone is born a “law-abiding person” until he breaks a law.

    Are you a “law-abiding person? Have you ever broken a law? No speeding? No jay-walking? No cheating in school? No marijuana? No shoplifting as a kid?

    Shall we limit gun ownership to those who never have broken any law?

    Or do you want to wait until someone becomes a murderer before restricting his gun ownership?

    The college shooter was a “law abiding citizen” and no one knew whether he was an “Insane person” until he started killing people. Now, because he killed people, we say, “Well, he must have been insane.”

    But it’s too late for the dead people, because it was too easy for the kid to get guns.

    Remember: No Guns = No Gun Murders

    In your example, every parent is a “law-abiding” parent until he breaks a law, AFTER which, he is a criminal.

    I agree with your last, unintentionally ironic sentence.


  4. The Holy Roman Catholic Church supports life ostensibly as a gift from God that is fully human from conception, and to kill the unborn is punishable by eternal damnation. The Church is really only interested in the birth of as many Catholics as possible in order to fill the pews with the faithful who think their offerings are graciously received by the heavenly Father.

    The one and only true church, the Catholic church, uses the psychology of eternal pain to implement its Sunday Take. This is why it’s a sin to miss mass on Sundays or Holy Days of Obligations or use birth control or marry a non-Catholic outside the Church or, when I was a child, go shopping on Sunday which reduces the potential Take. The motive was, and is, to keep the dollars rolling in to the max.

    The recent papal visit was a tour de force to capture new faithful and recapture fallen away money sources.


  5. Don’t bring your logic into the abortion debate. Killing an innocent human being is wrong, and cannot be justified with your oversimplification of difficult circumstances.

    Life begins at the moment of creation. Every biologist / scientist knows this.


    1. You said, “Life begins at the moment of creation.”

      If every biologist/scientist knows this, there must not be any disagreement about abortion.

      But wait. There is disagreement. How can that be?

      And then there’s the sticky question of whose life is more important, the fetus’s or the mother’s? If one is to be sacrificed to save the other, which do you choose?

      And are you claiming that a sperm is not alive? It sure looks alive. How many sperms have you murdered?

      The greatest abortionist is mother nature, as a high percentage of pregnancies are automatically aborted.

      Do you know why so many pregnancies are automatically aborted. Think about it.

      Yes, you said, “Life begins at the moment of creation.” Now, instruct us again about “oversimplification.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s