Sunday, June 5, 2011

Of Bastards and Cuckholds

People that have sex will invariably become pregnant. Nature cares little for social niceties, legal bindings, and personal conveniences.

As Kathy so rightly points out in a comment in my previous post, it IS a much bigger deal when a child is born to an illicit affair. There is no question about that! If my wife came to me and said she was pregnant with another man's child, I might not remain married to her... but I definitely will not have the blood of that child on MY hands by encouraging her to abort the child.

Both Left and Right, Abortion supporters and foes... need to put their heads around the implications from the advancements in technology... i.e., Photos and commentary on the Internet to spread rumor and innuendo (worse when it is true) and DNA technology to remove all doubt of parentage.

I know this is a touchy subject... but please follow my line of reasoning:

If women and men are brought together they will have sex, irrespective of the time, place, or circumstance.

WHEN, not if, people have sex, pregnancies will result... irrespective of whether one is married, convenience, propriety, etc...

In this era, someone will ALWAYS try to make political hay from this. Feminists, the religious Right, etc... (it is not possible for me to heap enough scorn on these people. They are not just hypocrites... they are sub-human. The worst of the hypocrites? Hollywood and the Media. These people ALWAYS align with Feminist Left - except when the Feminists agenda affects THEM. How so? When Hollywood marries, which is not often, it is NEVER absent a pre-nup... in other words, they support the Women's Movement mandate of terrorist "family law"... except when it has to do with them....  "do as I say, not as I do"... BTW... I am a BIG BELIEVER in pre-nups as they take the government out of your marriage... and contrary to what some might believe.... these agreements have become enshrined in our jurisprudence, and are not often overturned - if ever. That was soooooo 1980's).

Regardless of said political hay, people will continue to have sex (does ANYBODY doubt this?). This is simply an unstoppable fact of our existence.

Therefore, they will continue to get pregnant.

That these children still deserve to live, irrespective of the circumstances of their birth, and that the birth should be allowed to take place and nature to take its course, should STILL be the view of those that respect the sanctity of life.

Supporters of the Pro-Life position should come to the rescue of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Schwarzenegger and their lovers for respecting the sanctity of Life. The sins of sex outside of marriage are venal, and are simply incomparable with the sin of destroying a human life (I use the word "sin" colloquially, as I tend toward the secular). The Pro-Abortion Feminists are welcome to grind at these individuals for embarrassing themselves - and more importantly to this group, their wives - as they see fit (I am a Libertarian; censorship is "not my bag, baby"), and; people like me are permitted to point out the inconsistencies and faults in their reasoning (and make glorious fun of their inability to reason. Its almost not fair, sort of like being in a duel with an unarmed opponent).

The spouses of the cheaters are free to decide whether or not to remain in the marriage, to live their life in perpetual rage or forgiveness as they so choose.

Life is so short... and it seems to me that these forces, the forces to control the reproductive outcomes of people, have been raging since time immemorial - and Nature continues to win the argument.

The idea that one can use FORCE - physical violence or the institutional violence of present day family law - to control the reproductive efforts of other people is inconstant at its base, and in the extreme. Really want a faithful spouse? You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar... There is no such thing as a "carrot and a stick" when it comes to this subject. It is ALL "carrot". The "stick" simply does not work. Yet the Feminist agenda has been, and continues to be, ALL "STICK" - with all of the attendant outcomes I have mentioned.

Think about it! Is anybody terribly happy with the outcome?  Then somewhere along the line we need to change the equation. In the same way that I reject the use of government force to enforce a ban on abortion, I reject the use of government force to maintain sexual fidelity. Sexual fidelity with your partner is something you must put a great deal of POSITIVE effort into - no amount of violence, physical or institutional, will answer. And when our efforts in this vein fails, punishment, or worse, revenge, will simply not satisfy. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to spend this beautiful yet very short life dwelling on how they might change these natural laws... but they do. (For better or worse, or just because it is... some people absolutely, positively have no reason to expect, and are in NO WAY deserving, of a faithful spouse. Think about that for a moment. There are plenty of circumstances where people are STUCK with lousy/crummy spouses... it is sooooooo easy to pontificate to these unfortunate souls, but for my part I refuse.)

I am merely examining this, and throwing the yellow flag for a foul against  reason. There is no guarantee that the person you love now will always love and want you... or you them. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between John Edwards cheating on his wife and a wife leaving/filing for divorce from a faithful husband. NONE.  Each brought an outsider in in order to destroy their bond (by some miracle the Feminist/Left has convinced people that there is a difference). These are the circumstances of this Life. I simply reject the idea that any child conceived in this drama is any less entitled to Life than you or I. Ergo, I find the behavior of John and Arnold somewhat less reprehensible than members of the "Women's movement" seem to do.

Nobody is perfect... but Life IS good.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

> I am a Libertarian; censorship is "not my bag, baby"

So you should be against people running for office, covering up something about themselves and defrauding the electorate?

>people like me are permitted to point out the inconsistencies and faults in their reasoning (and make glorious fun of their inability to reason. Its almost not fair, sort of like being in a duel with an unarmed opponent)

Thats funny after seeing your tirade in a previous comments section.

These special interest groups you rail against would rule this country and your life if it were not for the rule of law.

The three most important things when it comes to rule of law are the constitution, the laws themselves, and our judges. All of which are directly effected by those we elect.

We can talk about them going after him because of his love child. But the reality is they are going after him because he attempted a cover up and lost. He attempted to defraud the people of the United States.

You say you are for full disclosure when it comes to the food we eat. Let us be informed in our choices you say. Well that goes doubly true for our elections and those we elect.

John Edwards is being prosecuted because he attempted to defraud the electorate. The charges are related to campaign finance. He will get his day in court. He is innocent until proven guilty regardless of what the media or feminists or Greg would have you believe. But just because others get away with it does not mean they should not prosecute.

I reject the idea that he is being prosecuted for having a love child. If that were true charges would be brought up on Arnold too.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Anonymous:

You have the reasoning capacity and maturity of a 10 year old girl... in addition to Borderline Personality Disorder, I take it that suffer from some form of Arrested Development, too?

I really wish you would go away.

Anonymous said...

Greg,

The number of insults you throw. And you call yourself a thinking man. You have yet to foot an argument that goes beyond your opinion on anything but you've lobbed dozens of insults. Your argument is very reminiscent of nearly every conspiracy theorist I've seen. And it was classic having you throw in your weak reference to Nazi's. That takes the cake..

You want me gone. No problem. Your beginning to bore me anyway.

Try sticking to things you actually know.

tweell said...

So, anon, you are working to take President Clinton back to court because of his many 'bimbo eruption' coverups? Hmm? Monica Lewinsky was just one of the many.
What Mr. Jeffers is stating is that it simply should not be relevant. Once upon a time that was so, otherwise the newspapers would have had to make a separate section for the Kennedy escapades. Now what's in the bedroom is also big news, however this is a very selective exposure.
You can reject his point all you want. Can you disprove it?

(By the way, those special interest groups do rule the country. If you don't believe me, go speak out against feminists at your work. Complain how feminists, gays and lesbians are destroying America, if you have the guts [HA]. Punishment will be swift and extensive.)

Anonymous said...

Tweell,

Civil discourse. Thank you.

If I recall right Clinton was impeached which is basically the same as his day in court. Granted the senate is a bit different as are the rules.

Clinton was acquitted. I have no idea how but he was. I doubt it will be any different for Edwards but thats not the point is it.

I realize that Jeffers OPINION is that it should not be relevant. And McDonald's opinion is that the fat content or sodium content of their food should not be relevant either but that doesn't mean we all agree. It seems to me that it is not our job in life to determine what should and should not be relevant to the electorate at large. Censorship for whatever purpose has no business in our discourse. Varying opinions is part of our system. You are very rarely ever going to agree with them all. That is how it works.

I do not expect much from the Media. A growing number of people are seeing them as the propaganda machine they are. I would love to see that change but censorship is the only way I can see to make that happen and I am not for that. Let them spew their lies and distortions, the lemmings will follow them off the cliff, and the rest of us will come to realize what a sham they are in growing numbers.

Can I disprove it? Thats the whole point isn't it. Any good conspiracy is always driven by a non-falsifiable premises. I can no more disprove it then he can prove it.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards will probably get off scott free. He just needs Mrs. Mellon to say she gave him the $800K for stud muffin fees instead of campaign funds.
This will not change the outlook or behavior of American men. No average joe I know can relate to John Edwards at all. He is an ultra rich ultra liberal pretty narcissist and is of no political significance at all these days. Forget about him

tweell said...

Ah, but all theories start at the same point. Does it fit the facts? Is it the most simple explanation (Occam's Razor)? Can it be disproved?
If it passes those tests, then the theory can be used as a law. That's science in action, which includes (or at least it should include) the 'social sciences'.
Mr. Jeffers has postulated his theory. Anon, you have not argued that it doesn't fit the facts, and have stated that you cannot disprove it. Is there a simpler explanation? If not, then from what I understand of the scientific method, his theory should stand.
There are many theories that are unproven, relativity and evolution among them.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Tweel:

Please don't debate this individual. While You are a rational person interested in intellectual co-examination of the issues and facts... This is not Anon's agenda...

Anon:

Please go away. I have no more to say to you.

Anonymous said...

Tweell,

The simpler explanation is that he is being charged with a crime for violating campaign finance laws because it is believed he accepted donations in excess of those allowed under law..

Seems pretty simple to me. Here is a means to disprove it. Why has Arnold not been drawn up on charges?

PioneerPreppy said...

I think you are taking Greg's theory out of context. Regardless of what Edwards is being charged with Greg is theorizing that it is being pushed because of the child not being aborted. As I understand it he is claiming that had the child been aborted then the feminist special interest group would have been satisfied or unconcerned about anything else.

Perhaps Arnie will be charged with something. Hell it took years for them to get around to charging Edwards.

Also I apologize for furthering the discussion against your wish Greg. It's your blog and I should have restrained myself but I got in late and felt I should add a bit of support.

Anonymous said...

One needn’t use sound reasoning to come to the correct conclusion. For instance I could conclude that the sun will rise in the east because the celestial sphere it is stuck to is spinning around the earth. The reasoning is a tad off but the sun is still coming up in the east tomorrow morning; however it’s always an accident when it happens that way. Another example would be Anon concluding that Edwards shouldn’t have tried to cover up the affair because the voices told her so.

Edwards’ should have walked up to the podium all Andrew Dice Clay like and simply stated “yea, I Fu%&ed her.” Ok, maybe not; however, politicians routinely get into more trouble with cover-ups than whatever it is they are trying to cover up would possibly land them in. Honesty is disarming. Embarrassing at times to be sure, but still, disarming toward the critics. It is also why Edwards’ is in the dock and Schwarzenegger is not.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

Gregg,

Boys will be boys, but anyone running for high office knows their opponents have whole teams digging up dirt on them. You can argue that this shouldn’t be so and I would agree with you. However the existent reality is what it is. Ergo, anyone dumb enough to generate that dirt while actively campaigning has rocks in their head and is too stupid for office.

Best,
Dan

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Dan!

No QUESTION about that! I hope you don't think I am supporting Edwards in ANY WAY!... other than he is being lynched, and I feel that this wrong is infinitely worse than his wrong.

I don't want to hear from Edwards EVER AGAIN.

That does not mean I think he committed a crime. He was not "covering up" from a government investigation! He was covering up an affair to his wife! Do you know how full our prisons would be if we charged spouses with a crime for trying to keep such information from their betrothed?

Americans seem to have become enchanted with the idea of government thugs overseeing EVERYTHING.

Anonymous said...

Americans are a hugely mixed up bunch of people.

They love to focus intensely and judgementally on all the reproduction related issues- abortion, gay marriage, sex ed, premarital sex, extramarital sex, child sex abuse, pornography, prostitution, gay rights, contraception.

And they are the biggest consumers of pornography in the world-- to the tune of $11,000,000,000/year.

Meanwhile, PEAK OIL cannot be publicly discussed or even mentioned by high-level national leaders.

Nor is the reality of 1.5 million dead Iraqi civilians ever a fit subject for public discussion.

What a mess
Marshall

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Marshall:

I have no idea if your data points are accurate.... but this American will happily discuss ALL of the issues you raise with only the force of my ideas, and not harsh words.