Unwanted: A Story About Planned Parenthood

“Are you sure about this?”

Eva leans forward to rest her head in her hands. Her fiancée, whom she thinks voiced the question but is unsure because of the gravity of the situation, comfortingly rubs her back.

“I don’t know,” Eva breathes out more than says. “I just don’t know.”

“Well, babe, let’s talk about it.”

She runs her hand through thick shoulder length black hair. Seeing the hair, in this particular conversation, causes her to shudder a bit. Alex, her fiancé, must notice because he places his free hand on her shoulder and gives it a squeeze.

“This isn’t just a pro and con list,” Eva says, shaking her head.

“I know,” Alex half whispers, “I know”.

“If you know, then what do you want to talk about?” Eva sits up and looks at Alex. His green iris’s cause her to shift her view away from him quickly.

“Why wouldn’t you want to do it?” Alex turns his chair slightly so he is facing Eva.

“It isn’t a simple decision, Alex,” Tension is heard in Eva’s voice. “People don’t just make life altering decisions without a little apprehension.”

“Okay, Hun,” Alex maintains a smooth and comforting tone, despite Eva’s irritation. “Its, just, we talked about this for the past couple of weeks. You were certain this is what you wanted, I am certain it is what I want to do. So, I am trying to find out why you are unsure now.”

Eva turns away from Alex, lips pursed and eyebrows slightly furrowed. “I don’t know why I am uncertain now.”

“Maybe I can help?” the doctor chimes in. Eva is startled. She forgot they were even in the doctor’s office. Now that she remembers where she is, a chill of cool air affects her skin and causes a shudder through her spine.

“How so?” Eva asks.

“Maybe there are some questions you might have that I can answer?” the doctor replies. “I can certainly clear up any confusion?”

Eva stands up and paces from one wall to the other. It isn’t a long pace. Seven small steps at most.

There are several decorations adorning the walls. Among them are the doctor’s credentials, something of a Picasso painting, and a plaque for finishing a sporting event of some kind. She is unable to really take note of specifics, considering her mind is consumed with weightier matters. Alex and the doctor wait patiently, in silence.

“Will there be any pain?” Eva continues pacing, but slows significantly when she asks the question.

“No,” the doctor answers bluntly. “We use an anesthetic, so there won’t be any pain. The procedure will occur in a sedated state.”

Eva nods and ponders again in silence. She takes in deep and slow breathes in an attempt to avoid any emotion from showing. If she were to breathe normally, she is almost certain she will break into tears.

“What is the process from there?” She continues her inquiry.

“After the anesthetic is administered, we will remove the specimen to a controlled environment and simply cut off air supply,” the doctor’s voice is even and cold, similar to the general atmosphere in the room. “It will all occur without consciousness, so it will be peaceful.”

Eva stops, crosses her arms across her stomach and waits for a moment. She feels it. The lump forming in her throat and pounding in her chest; she is about to cry. Alex, noticing the disfiguring of her face jumps up and hugs her. Eva nestles her face in the crevice of his neck and allows tears to freely flow.

“Do we have any more time to think about this?” Alex asks the doctor.

“If we don’t do this today, we will have to get adoption services involved,” the doctor responds.

Alex nods his head slightly and gives Eva a squeeze. He allows her another moment to cry before urging the process along. He believes this will be for their good.

“Eva, darling,” Alex begins, but is cut off.

“I know, sweetheart,” Eva says between sobs. Sniffing a couple of times, she continues. “I know we need to do this.” Stepping away from Alex, she peers at the doctor. “We thought we were ready, but,” she doesn’t finish the sentence.

“It happens more than you think,” the doctor responds, a flash of a smile creasing his lips. The smile is gone as suddenly as it appeared. He pulls a tissue from a box sitting on the corner of his desk. Eva accepts it.

“A lot of people think they are ready, only to find out they aren’t,” the doctor continues. “A career to start, school to attend, places to visit, dreams to chase, or, simply, the realization of lost freedom. We all feel the strains of parenthood. There is no shame in walking away from it. After all, it is our choice to raise a child.”

“I just wish we would have known sooner, before we even tried,” Eva sits down, followed by Alex.

“Of course you do,” the doctor says reassuringly. “Some experiences, though, we just can’t imagine. Sometimes we don’t know until we try.”

“I agree,” Alex says.

“I suppose,” Eva makes one last swipe under her nose with the tissue clasped in her hand.

“So, what do we do now?” Alex asks the doctor.

“The documents have all been prepared,” the doctor reaches inside a drawer on the left side of his desk, bending down slightly. “All you need to do is sign them.”

“That’s it?” Eva is dumbfounded by the simplicity.

“Yes,” the doctor stands up from the chair to walk around the desk and hand a copy of documents to both Alex and Eva. “The documents are identical. Just look over each page, initial the bottom, and sign the last page.”

Taking the pen from their clip boards, Alex and Eva begin flipping through the pages and initialing the bottom of each page and signing the document. Alex breezes through the ten or so pages of legal language, seemingly to just initial each page without really reading through the document. He is done within a minute of being handed the document.

Eva, taking time to browse through the language, tries to ignore the eyes on her. Each tick of the clock seems to become louder and louder. The air feels to become stale. The light appears to dim. The longer she takes on each sentence, the less she is able to understand it. Is this even in English?

Losing patience and feeling uncomfortable, Eva follows Alex’s method of initialing and signing. She knows what the document means. She knows the vast change that will come to her life from signing it. What else does she need to know? Eva mindlessly initials each page, signs the back, and hands the clip board back to the doctor, who is sitting on the corner of the desk.

“Thank you,” the doctor takes the document off the clip board and scoops up a white lab coat hanging on a coat hanger behind the desk. “This way please.” The doctor holds a door open, a door neither Eva nor Alex noticed before, and signals for them to exit the office.

“Where does that lead?” Alex asks.

“To the parking lot,” the doctor replies.

“Can we not see her one more time?” Eva asks, her face turning white.

“It’s best that you don’t,” the doctor answers, more coldly than before.

“I just want to say goodbye,” Eva says, tears welling up in her eyes again.

“He’s right, Eva,” Alex places a hand on each shoulder. “It’s best we just go.”

Eva hesitates before following Alex through the door. They walk down the short corridor, which seems to be a mile long, and through the metal double doors into the parking lot.

The doctor closes the exit door, tugs at the white lab coat to remove any site of a wrinkle from its surface, and exits the office through the door leading into the clinic.

It is a simple clinic. White walls, blue carpet, and very little art work adorning the walls. In this line of work, it is best to keep things as impersonal as possible.

The doctor, approaching the administrative desk, places the two documents Alex and Eva had completed less than five minutes prior. The administrator, a strict looking woman in her late thirties, doesn’t even look up from the desk before scanning the documents and begins processing them.

“Where is the specimen?” the doctor asks. Again, the administrator keeps her eyes focused on the desktop and simply points. She points to Lab Room One.

“Thank you,” the doctor says.

“Uh-huh,” the administrator grunts.

Pushing down on the handle of the lab room door, the doctor scans a key card hanging from the lab coat and walks through the door. Lying on the table is the specimen.

She has black hair, just like Eva. When the newborn opens her eyes, the doctor notices she has green eyes, just like Alex. This pleases the doctor. Green eyes are in vogue these days. Furthermore, both Alex and Eva are healthy.

This specimen, as the doctor chooses to refer to her as, should bring in a plentiful bounty. The doctor smiles at the thought of the payday ahead and pulls a pair of blue rubber gloves from a rectangular box. The napping sound of the gloves fitting snuggly around the doctor’s wrist says “let’s get started”.

 

If this short story makes your stomach turn, then I am glad. It turned my stomach writing it. I think anyone with a child would feel the same way.

The story is meant to depict the reality of Planned Parenthood and the hypocrisy of “pro-choice”.

Planned Parenthood is aborting children, in some instances intentionally pushing the abortion past normal perimeters, and then selling the body parts and tissue of the aborted children. As though discarding of the child as burdensome waste is not enough, they destroy any dignity the helpless child might have by taking from him or her the only thing they own; a physical body. Go ahead and square that one away with the Due Process Clause in the United States Constitution (“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

Abortion advocates say it is their right to protect their bodies from pregnancy and protect their lives from the cumbersome nature of parenthood, by aborting children. However, in the act of abortion they are denying the child from making any choice within HIS or HER life at all. That child, the one created through the amazing science of procreation, is at the mercy of HIS or HER parents until HE or SHE has gained full use of HIS or HER faculties. Notice I use “HIS or HER” and “HE or SHE” instead of “IT”. That is because HE or SHE is a PERSON; a living and breathing HUMAN BEING. Where was HIS or HER choice, “pro-choice” advocates?

I agree we all have the choice to become or not become parents; however, I recognize it is morally wrong to make that choice after conception. Hers is some “planned parenthood”: Do not have sex until you are married and ready for the possibility of children! Proper planning for parenthood should not include the option of killing a child procreated because the parents are not ready for that child.

We have turned a blind eye to abortion, which is the same as offering up children to murder. Can we turn a blind eye to selling the body parts of those children?

Cecil the Lion, a lion hunted and killed by a Dentist from Minnesota, has afforded more outcry from American citizens than the evidence of Planned Parenthood killing unborn children and then selling their body parts.

There are two petitions going around. One is to extradite the Minnesota Dentist to Zimbabwe for punishment and the other is to defund Planned Parenthood. The Cecil the Lion petition has gained 229,783 signatories in less than two weeks. Defunding Planned Parenthood has gained only 21,560 signatories with close to a month of petitioning.

If this short story made you think, then I hope it inspires action. Sign the petition (Click here for it), talk to your family and friends about this vital issue in our country, and seek to change some hearts. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of morals. Can we continue to turn a blind eye to it because it makes us uncomfortable, we don’t want to have the possibility of contention, or we are simply too busy? I hope not.

If you are for Planned Parenthood, I ask you to put abortion into perspective. You may think this short story presents an extreme example, but that is abortion in practice. As far as full-term abortions, we are not that far from it. And the actual practice of full-term abortion makes my short story appear mild.

We are Americans. We represent America. Let’s conduct ourselves in accordance to the America we inherited from our founding fathers. Let’s hold true to the moral principles founded in that document, which is, whether or not you agree, is religious in nature.

Can the First Amendment and Gay Marriage Coexist?

Gay marriage has taken center stage and is likely to remain there for some time. Both celebration and outrage over the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges ensures that.

Many Americans have expressed concerns regarding religious freedom with new national law. To explore this concern, a few basic questions may be asked and answered: Are religious beliefs going to be repressed? Will free speech be suspended for dissenting opinions against the LGBT? Are parental rights going to diminish?

These questions express key First Amendment rights, not just religious freedom. With this said, here is the current record on the matter:

A couple from Oregon was recently fined 135,000 dollars for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple wishing to get married. The defendants cited religious beliefs for turning down the opportunity to make the homosexual couple’s cake. Baking the cake, to the defendants, is a form of supporting the marriage.

The plaintiffs in the Oregon case argue that religious beliefs could be used as a form of widespread discrimination against homosexuals. According to them, since homosexual marriage is legal across the United States, anti-discrimination laws should be applied against the religious convictions of Christian business owners.

Since the initial legal debacle, the defendants have been issued a gag order along with an order to pay the fine by July 13th. If the fine is not paid, or a payment plan not in place, by the date, government officials will place a lien on their home.

Our next case takes us to a bakery in Colorado experiencing a similar situation. The baker in Colorado has appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals after a ruling that states he must provide a wedding cake for a gay couple. The defendant is asking the court to not force him against his religious beliefs to bake the cake.

The plaintiff’s argument is similar to that of the Oregon plaintiff. “Religious beliefs do not put the cake shop above the law,” is the official argument. Without diving deeply into the philosophical question posed by the plaintiff, if the Constitution protects the right to religion, but the Supreme Court ruling legalizes a practice that is in contradiction to a long standing religious practice, then isn’t the Supreme Court’s ruling in contradiction with the First Amendment?

This brings us to the next story surrounding religious freedom. Mark Oppenheimer, a widely read and influential writer from the New York Times, has voiced an argument that is sure to be forth coming. He argues that religious institutions and non-profits should lose their tax exempt status.

Oppenheimer states, “The Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing religion and non-profits”. To give him some credit, he does not base his argument solely on religious institutions and certain non-profits “discriminating” against homosexuals because of their religious convictions. He argues that religious institutions and non-profits are similar to political institutions that should not be constituted as a public good.

Three things I would say to Oppenheimer here. First, belief in traditional marriage and family is not discrimination against homosexuals. When did we get to a place where having an opposing opinion is discriminatory, whether for or against an issue?

Second, religion is a public good. The world, including America, owes a good portion of its traditional morals and family values to religious teachings and institutions; values that have raised exceptional men and women and built successful nations.

Third, government is not “subsidizing” religion. Take the Mormon Church for instance. He claims the government has subsidized Mormon temples and chapels by not taxing the property the buildings reside upon. Two things: One, the land was purchased in full by the Mormon Church. Two, the money given to the Mormon Church, through tithing, comes from hard-working American citizens who ARE taxed. Even if that same citizen claims their tithing as charitable contributions at the end of the year, the government still received taxes on the money flowing into the Mormon Church throughout the year. So, the Mormon Church, which functions through unpaid ministers, does pay taxes on its tithing dollars. To institute a general tax on the church would be taxing the same income twice.

Let’s move onto parental rights. What will be the effect on parental rights in regards to their children’s education? One case, among many, serves as possible coming attractions.

David Parker and his wife learned, after the gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts in 2004, their Elementary school son was being exposed to same-sex marriage material. Parker asked the school to notify them when such material was planned for classroom discussion and opt-out from spontaneous same-sex marriage demonstrations hosted by the school.

During an arranged meeting with the principal and Director of Education, Parker was arrested for trespassing. He refused to leave the office until the issue had been resolved, allowing him and his wife notification when same-sex material was scheduled for presentation at the Elementary school. Instead of working with Parker, school officials contacted police and had him arrested. He spent the night in prison, was not allowed to call his lawyer while in prison, and given explicit orders that he was not to set foot on any public school property.

In the end, their request was denied on the grounds that the school district has a responsibility to provide diversity training to all children.

Taking a look at these few instances among many, I believe it is fair to say America will continue to experience collisions between the recent gay marriage ruling and First Amendment. I believe Alexis De Tocqueville said it perfectly in Democracy in America:

“There are several others, which will at all times habitually lead men to prefer equality to freedom.” (P. 615)

America over the next few years is going to embark in an experiment. In that experiment, America is going to discover whether religious belief, which is often opposed to homosexual relationships, and gay marriage can coexist under the same legal system. If they can’t, which institution will yield?

I suggest the proper way to explore this matter is to set aside our own personal convictions, whether for or against, and seek to understand the opposing point-of-view. Once all parties are understood, we can explore the principle of gay marriage from a stand point of theory and its practical effects on the basic fabric of society.

Gay marriage hits at the heart of ardent belief for all parties. Regardless of personal belief, what America does NOT need are more knee-jerk reactions such as the few mentioned here. Otherwise, America may mirror Canada’s evolution in this same matter (click here to read more about that).

Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler Comparisons: Missing the Mark

With the Presidential Primaries just around the corner, we have not been in short supply of certain comparisons between past and present political leaders. Among them, one that has popped up frequently in social media has been the Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler comparison. A recent witty comparison places a picture of Hitler next to Clinton and a quote from each:

Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.” –Adolf Hitler-

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” –Hillary Clinton-

While I am not exactly a supporter of Hillary Clinton (I’m being modest in my objection), it is a little annoying to see this comparison. Why? It misses the mark or comparison that should be drawn.

F.A. Hayek, a brilliant economist from Austria, said in relation to the damaging brand of socialism that took root in Nazi Germany, “Yet, although history never quite repeats itself, and just because no development is inevitable, we can in a measure learn from the past to avoid a repetition of the same process”. In order to properly learn from the past, we need to understand the past.

Adolf Hitler was a unique leader that was created from his time. The dissolution of the Western Roman Empire left several Kingdoms made of different sects of Germanic tribes. These tribes fought over territory, based upon ethnic lines, until the enlightenment period. Among the most important of these, to the history of Hitler’s Germany, were Charlemagne and Napoleon.

Hitler’s Germany came from the Prussians. The French and Russians fought fiercely for the territory known as the Rhineland. Germany was caught in the middle of this fighting during the enlightenment period. Among the many philosophers of the enlightenment was Johann Gottlieb Fichte. He wrote many important articles entitled, “Addresses to the German Nation”. In these articles, Fichte, a fierce Anti-Semite, gave a description of a proper German; his ethnic and cultural identity.

Fichte is just one example of German nationalistic thought. Similar German philosophers of the time were Johann Gottfried Herder, Friedrich Gentz, Friedrich Meinecke, and more. However, I do not intend to make this an exhaustive evaluation of German nationalistic thought. Therefore, I will leave it at this. Nationalism in its most extreme, such as happened in Nazi Germany, is the creation of a State based on a common culture, ethnicity, and ideology rather than borders.

Anti-Semitic feelings were well-spread throughout Europe as well. To the growing sense of nationalism that permeated the terrain, Judaism was seen as a threat. This led to widespread separation of the Jews from other Europeans. Ghettos were established in every State throughout the continent, discriminatory laws set that banned Jews from certain jobs and sections of cities, and specific emblems issued to be worn on clothing (that’s right, the Star of David with the Germans was not the first symbol Jews were forced to wear in a European country as a physical indicator that they were Jews).

These ghettos were often characterized by devastating poverty and overcrowding. However, the Jewish ghetto in Vienna was unusually wealthy. With the majority of citizens throughout Europe being Roman Catholic, and the church still possessing substantial power to punish disobedience to religious laws, those same citizens were strict to observe the laws of the State along with laws of the church. Among these laws was usury, or making money from interest on loans. Seeing as to how Christians were barred from giving loans as a profession, the Jews, who were banned from several other career fields by State law, took up the professions of banker and investor.

Taking all these factors into consideration in Germany, when the Wiemar Republic was experiencing financial collapse, widespread unemployment, and poverty, the Jews, who were still prospering from their loans and investments, became the target of anger among the general public. Adolf Hitler, who was talented in stirring up German nationalist fervor, was able to move this anger to a dangerous rage.

Hitler made very logical, albeit founded on incorrect information and bias that spread throughout Europe from general Anti-Semitic feelings, arguments blaming the Jews for the demise of Germany. He made arguments that blamed them for the loss of World War One, the collapse of the German Mark (currency), the degradation of the hard work ethic in Germans, and several other things. These arguments appealed to European logic, German nationalism, and Anti-Semitic feeling.

Now, let’s take a quick look at Hilary Clinton. She grew up in a small town in America. Her father was a small business owner. Her mother was a tough woman from a broken family. Hillary was taught to be rough on the boys when they were rough with her, by her mother. She was taught to look out for the little man, the little man by her father’s definition.

She went to an Ivy League school, got a law degree, and was very politically active. She did not like people very much, by her own admittance in a letter to a friend (found in a biography written by a close friend of hers), but had strong ideals inherited by her parents.

She was influenced by and wrote a dissertation on Saul Alinsky, a controversial community organizer from Chicago (the same one Barrack Obama associated with in Chicago). She describes being affected by the death of Martin Luther King Jr. after meeting him through her local pastor.

Bill Clinton became a part of her life and together they rode the political train together to the Arkansas governorship and United States Presidency. Their two terms (surprising there were two terms) were constantly shrouded in controversy and scandal, although none of them stuck. She always wrote it off as the great “right-wing conspiracy”, a phrase she continues to use today, that needed to be stopped.

She has a habit of holding closed-door meetings and acting unilaterally. She isn’t opposed to strong arming, even bullying others, to get her way. Her ideology is to look out for minorities, the people she has come to recognize as the proverbial “little guy”.

And here is where I would like to draw the actual comparison we should make between Adolf Hitler and Hillary Clinton; however, it isn’t so much a comparison between Hitler and Clinton as it is a comparison between oppressive dictators and Clinton. Hillary Clinton believes the proper way of solving social and economic problems in America is through government intervention.

If we were to teach correct principles, such as the golden rule and proper business ethics and follow them by voluntary choice, freedom would remain intact. If we choose to enforce the golden rule and proper business ethics by governmental intervention, freedom is sacrificed. This is the truth every dictator is either ignorant to or does not care about. This is the comparison we need to draw between Hitler and Clinton, or oppressive dictators and Clinton. It is historically and analytically accurate and cuts to the heart of the issue of oppressive government; it is big government that tries to control as many outcomes as possible.

With this said, I would like to announce I am going to be publishing a book within the next 45 days. It will strictly be an e-book, but is going to be the predecessor to a more exhaustive print version of the book. The book will take an analytical look at the motives behind Hitler’s holocaust, a grossly misinterpreted and, as a result, misunderstood point. It will analyze the motive and explain why every human being, not just American, should care about the motive.

Over the next few weeks, I will give samples of the book. I am going to be looking for comments and constructive criticism during that time. So, stay tuned.

Relativism: The Death of Truth

I don’t often start these with a personal experience. Scratch that, I NEVER start these articles with a personal experience; however, I am going to start this one with a personal experience today.
As a young missionary in the lively city of Farmington Maine, I had the opportunity to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the students of the local college. Some were receptive to the teachings, others only had a mild curiosity, and then some were just not interested. For the most part, everyone was nice.

There was this college student, roughly my same age, which I had an odd and slightly frustrating conversation with. We were standing on the bank of a river and discussing the topic of absolute truth. I was explaining that prophets of God have always presented truth; not relative truth, but absolute truth. Similar to the law of gravity, if I don’t believe it exists doesn’t mean it does not exist. Regardless of my personal feelings toward gravity, if I step off the edge of a cliff I am going to fall to the bottom.

So, here we were discussing the difference between relative truth and absolute truth. I give my example of gravity and he rebuts with this little gem: “How do you know you are falling?” A little perplexed at the question because it is easy to detect if you are falling; if you are confused as to whether or not you are falling, the heavy thud at the bottom will clear up any confusion. I ask him to clarify.

“Take this rock for instance,” he says as he stomps his foot on the rock. “I perceive that I am stomping on this rock, but I don’t know for sure this rock even exists.” I am certain the look on my face said it all because he immediately became indignant without any response from me. My face said I have never heard such idiocy escape the mouth of a grown man in my life.

“I suppose you are certain this rock exists,” he says a bit perturbed. “If you are so certain, then prove this rock exists.” After a short pause, wondering how the simplicity of this explanation has escaped this man, I respond.

“We are standing on the rock, therefore the rock exits,” I am not sure if the intonation in my voice indicates if I am making a statement or asking a question, but I am certain of my answer.

We continued this slightly ridiculous conversation for the next few minutes, only to arrive at a mental impasse. “Well then,” the man throws his arms in the air and stomps away at the end. “I suppose there is no way I can talk any sense into you. Good day.”

Here we have, ladies and gentleman, a perfect example of relativism (not to be confused with the theory of relativity). I had seldom come across this theory in my life to the point at which this story took place, most of them involving movies such as the Matrix. “Nothing is as it seems” type of stuff. I encountered it then, but did not realize the strange effect relativism could have on society.

We have men deciding they’re women and vice-versa. We herald people like Bruce Jenner (and yes, he is still Bruce) as heroes for having the “courage” to become what they truly are, but fail to recognize the truly heroic acts of people who remain rooted in truth while being bombarded with criticism.

We watch small snippets of video and make snap judgments on complex situations from a news report and three minutes of video.

Recently we have been faced with another form of relativism. Race is no longer an absolute. Race is, instead, a preference based on feeling.

I am a big believer in individual freedom. I believe man should have the right to make his own choices, so long as those choices do not harm others. I believe man should be judged according to the content of their character, and not according to trivial matters of race or ethnicity. No one is superior to another. As far as I am concerned, God is the only perfect being and the rest of us fall short of such perfection.

I have my beliefs and am grateful that every day I can lead my life according to those beliefs. I believe it is every individual’s right to live their life according to their preferences, with the afore mentioned stipulation; however, I do believe relativism is harmful to others.

We have only recently been presented with relativism in the category of race, but we have lived some time with relativism in gender identity. This, I do believe, is a danger. Before I continue, I do not intend my words to be hateful nor should they inspire hatred in any manner. Just as much as I may disagree with the personal choices of others, I also do not believe it is right to point the finger of scorn at others. So, my words should be taken at face value and nothing more.

What I see with relativism, in consideration of gender identity, is a serious lack of logical deduction. Because of relativism, we have taken what is a biological question and turned it into a philosophical question or a question of personal feelings.

Males and females are endowed with different anatomies that work together for the creation and nourishment of human life. Anyone taking a biology class or studying anatomy in college will agree with that purely biological assessment. What it means is that if you have the male anatomy, you are a boy. If you have the female anatomy, you are a girl. It is that simple.

Relativism, however, makes this simple biological question quite complex. We start tagging certain characteristics to gender identity. For instance, if a male likes to try on dresses it must mean he is female. If a female likes typical boyish activities and is disinterested in girl activities, then she must be male. They just so happened to be born with the wrong anatomy.

We ask males and females if they feel like they are a boy or a girl. We dive into the psyche of the male or female, ignoring the completely logical biological deduction of their gender identity, with the assumption that gender is relative to the feelings of the individual.

Now, it is one thing to do this with adults, like Bruce Jenner. Bruce is a grown man and can make his own decisions. Where the truly tragic damage is done is with our kids.

My wife and I were watching the local news (I hear this makes us a very odd young couple, watching the local news every day) when a story that was quite alarming popped up. It was a story about a young boy who liked princesses and trying on dresses; therefore, his parents determined he was a girl. The story was told from the viewpoint of the parents, who described this experience as a discovery of their son’s true identity.

Like the experience I had standing on the rock with the college student, I could not believe this was really happening. What made it worse was the ending. The parents had a sex change operation for their son. He wasn’t even ten years old before his anatomy was altered.

Let’s just talk about this one for a second. I have a daughter. She is two now. I have been around plenty of ten year olds. Currently I am a Scout Master for a group of 12 year old boys. They are all great kids, my daughter and these young scouts, but their deductive reasoning and logical judgment is just not there. Any parent can attest that their children, by the age of ten, are not equipped enough to make life changing decisions. After all, these same boys were trying to determine if their shoes would melt to the metal around a campfire. Clearly, they are qualified to make life changing decisions.

To pull this rant together I will make this point. If we, as an American society, subscribe to the notion that truth is relative and there are no absolutes, then how can we expect to overcome the challenges of an increasingly global world? We may well spend more time arguing about whether gravity is real or not then to discover the Earth orbits around the Sun. If we hope to stop the decline of America, we need to begin to recognize truth rather than argue about whether it is real.

Gender is a biological question. Race and ethnicity is determined by genealogy. We are judged by the content of our character. Gravity is real. There is absolute truth. And we should stop the ridiculousness of relativism. Otherwise, we risk raising a generation of very confused children who will become even more confused adults.

As Alfred wisely said to Batman, “Maybe it’s time we stopped trying to outsmart the truth and let it have its day”.