Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Give Expectant Mothers an Alternative to Abortion

By Nathan Tabor

Crowds of pro-life Americans filled the streets of Washington, D.C. this week to protest the 32 years of bloody infanticide that have followed the immoral Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. March for Life organizers estimated that more than 250,000 hardy souls braved the bitter cold to stand in defense of innocent unborn children.

A variety of speakers urged the assembled activists to stay the course, promising victory ahead. With several appointments to the Supreme Court in the offing, the prospect for reversing the Roe decision seems more real than it has in recent years.

President George W. Bush encouraged the marchers by telephone from Camp David. “We’re making progress in Washington,” Bush insisted, on issues like partial birth abortion, legal protection for infants that survive an attempted abortion, the right of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions on the grounds of conscience, and criminal prosecution for those who harm or kill a fetus while committing a crime against the mother. All positive developments. “We are working to promote a culture of life, to promote compassion for women and their unborn babies,” the President declared. But Bush also issued a solemn challenge to the crowd. “I encourage you to take heart from our achievements, because a true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts,” Bush declared.

There are many in America who preach against abortion — which I completely agree with. But there are very few who preach for the adoption of those innocent children “rescued” from abortion. Frankly, this reeks of hypocrisy. Abortion-rights activists are always challenging pro-life Christians about whether or not they have adopted. I believe this is quite fair. Remember the familiar phrase, “Put your money where your mouth is”?

We say we reverence human life, and we repudiate the heartless mother who would slay the innocent child within her womb. But do we care enough to take that unwanted child into our own home and give it the love and nurturing that it needs to grow up to adulthood? We need to show our love not only in word but also in deed.

President Bush spoke of “The America of our dreams, where every child is welcomed in life, and protected by law.” Yes, we want those babies protected by law . . . but are we willing to make personal sacrifices to welcome them into life?

Adoption truly is the alternative to abortion. Showing birth mothers that their little ones will have a safe and loving home will go a long way toward changing their hearts.

It is a fact that an abortion is fairly simple to attain as well as inexpensive, while adoption is quite a tedious and costly process. Many parents are forced to go overseas to adopt because of the regulations and costs. Most adoptions in America take place only because of a couple’s infertility. I understand we must be careful about who adopts and their intentions. Still, we need to streamline the process and lower the cost of adoptions in the USA.

On a personal note, my parents were foster parents, so I grew up with other children sitting around the table with my two natural brothers and me. I saw firsthand how much good a loving family can do in the life of a child who has no one else.

Last week, my wife Jordan gave birth to our first child, a precious little baby girl. We have talked and both agree that we would like to adopt a child one day. What about you?

According to their 2003-04 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood’s clinics aborted 138 children for every one time they referred their clients to an outside agency for adoption. But Crisis Pregnancy Centers are the pro-life alternative to Planned Parenthood clinics. They offer a haven of hope and unconditional love for both the unwed mother and her unborn child. I serve on the board of the Hope Crisis Pregnancy Center in King, NC.

We need to support these centers with both our time and our money.

Copyright © 2005 by Nathan Tabor

Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in Psychology and his Master’s Degree in Public Policy. He is a contributing editor at Contact him at

Sunday, January 23, 2005


An email from a reader

The current median age of death of gay men has been very heavilly skewed by AIDS, which ran through my generation of queers because of the post-Stonewall epidemic of promisquity. The effect is much the same as the diptheria epidemics in the American mid-west in the 1870s, 80s, etc., which filled town graveyards with young children virtually overnight. . The parents and grandparents might live into their seventies, but the average and median ages declined (Think of 3 A grades and one F.) The European middle ages had huge numbers of centenarians -- remember "3 score years and 10?" -- but they had a humungous infantile mortality.

At the time AIDS entered the country I was working at one of its epicenters, Logan Airport in Boston, in a hotel as a security guard. It was no secret that almost all if not all male stewards were gay, and they had sex like rabbits (we tried to put them at the far end of a strung out building to let the other guests sleep.) Patient 0 was a French Canadian air steward, and I suspect he flew through town frequently.

This was in the late 70s, when I had returned to college to get a degree in Anthropology/Archaeology, and I hadn't accepted what I really was yet, and I certainly didn't have time for anything but school. When I left for the first time for Africa in 1981 the news had begun to report on a 'gay cancer.' I was, at the time, entirely closetted -- when some African co-workers asked me about homosexuals I kept to a standard, academic, 'value-free' analysis, and suggested it was the result of hormones affecting pre-natal brain development (I now suspect it results from either that or from simply the random association of genes during meiosis and meitosis.) Given that it is rare, and that most gay men seem able to ignore their desires in order to start families (which would have been necessary for survival for most of human history), whatever the cause, it is not actively selected against.

I suspect I'm alive and in my fifties because of two things:
a) a Catholic school upbringing that filled me with so many hang-ups about sex in general, and,
b) general fastidiousness. (I cut the sentences I had written after this.)

The second time I went to Africa in 1986 as part of my MA/PHD research, Rock Hudson died (and yes, most people knew he was gay. It just wasn't talked about. The same for Raymond Burr. They both had 'marriages' in their pasts, but, really...)

Alas,. by that time I had come out of the closet, if only to the other students at the university where I was (the result of drinking some Sardianian hooch while on a field school with other students. I had not had hard liquor before, and haven't had any since.) It got back to the professors, and the new department head. I got out of the state without a murder indictment, but for a while I had fantasies of using fire axes on a number of very 'liberal' professors. I now have official permission from the President of the University to lie about _not_ having their MA, and I have a new life. (Thank God I never told them I was a republican who had voted for Reagan twice! Not even the one professor who stood by me -- he was a conservative and all but shunned by the rest of the faculty -- knew that.)

In general, from what I can see, if you were not promiscuous during the 70s and 80s, you did not catch AIDS (except under abnormal circumstances, as Isaac Asimov did after his heart operation, before they cleaned up the blood supply.) Back when I was in High School in a town with a large Greek population, I had always assumed that homos were elderly men (I was working in a leather factory to get money for college and was sent for lunch sandwiches, and when I got back from the near-by Greek owned restaurant my co-workers warned me against going into the place ever again. At the time I didn't understand what the looks from all those elderly Greek men implied...) Or they had short hair, wore glasses, and wore business suits (the uniform has since changed.)

Now, the Gay male age graph is more a dumbell beneath a pyramid, with a big constriction in the middle. The men who had stable partners by the mid-seventies appear to be in good health (a lot are into body-building.) Also, the standards of sexual desirability have changed. The 'gay clone' look (short hair, trim moustache, skinny body) has been replaced by the "Bear." Think of the Aussie actor Bill Hunter. Evolutionary psychology predicts that 'health' will be one of the traits one looks for in a sexual partner, and the simple fact that you may be chasing after another man does not alter this; even if such unions produce no off-spring, the two partners still have the same genetic background as their hetero kin.

I suspect the probable average life expectency of gay men w/o AIDS is only slightly below that of heteros -- we lack the fanatical desire to live to see our grandchilren's college graduations, etc, generally, and solitaries in general have decreased life spans. But the current 'average' is the result of abnormal circumstances (if AIDS had been introduced in the 1800s it would not have spread very far, in the 1920s it would have left us w/o Cole Porter's music, The Man Who Came To Dinner, and Mae West would have had to make do with a female chorus in black tie, but it wouldn't have spread so far so quickly either.)

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Homosexuals Should Pay More Insurance

By Nathan Tabor

With the big flap over so-called “gay marriage” temporarily on the back burner — now that their fearless but feckless leader John Kerry has gone down in flames, and with the first government-sanctioned same-sex unions already ending nastily in divorce courts and bitter custody battles — this just might be an opportune moment to discuss some rarely mentioned health problems inherent within the allegedly avant garde homosexual lifestyle.

Some would say it is a known fact that most homosexuals, and especially gay men, are promiscuous. Their rhetoric is carefully crafted to give the impression they are in “committed, caring relationships” while research suggests that the vast majority of gays are neither celibate nor monogamous. (All heterosexuals are not celibate or monogamous either.)

Some may say, so what? Well, the corollary to this homosexual health hypothesis is another proven fact: most sexually active homosexuals simply don’t live a very long time. The heartier they party, it seems, the shorter the time that party lasts.

According to a article entitled “The Longevity of Homosexuals” in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying, the median age of death from AIDS for homosexual men is 37, and the median age of death from other causes is 42. This does not compare favorably to the ever-increasing average lifespan of the rest of the heterosexual American population.

An analysis conducted at the end of 1997 by the Centers for Disease Control revealed that fully 60 percent of all AIDS cases in the United States are found among homosexual men. This is an amazingly high figure, especially when we consider that homosexuals — contrary to Kinsey's flawed study and fabricated “one-in-ten” myth — constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of our total population.

The conclusion is simple. Homosexual activists say they want equal rights and treatment. Fine. Let’s use their own arguments against them here. Let’s start by having them pay their fair share of the healthcare costs that accompany their lifestyle.

Long-term medical treatment for HIV and AIDS is usually protracted and tremendously expensive. Maybe that’s why gay activists are pushing so hard for spousal benefits for domestic partners of homosexuals — so somebody else, like the government or an employer, will pick up the tab.

“Risky” behavior is called risky for a reason. It means that by doing it, you put your life in danger. It’s really a lot like gambling for high stakes. The more you play, the more you stand to lose. For indulging in this risky behavior, you rightfully SHOULD pay more for both life and health insurance.

This isn’t a religious or even a moral values argument. This is strictly a common sense fiscal argument. You play risky, you pay more. That’s only fair. In fact, if these types of policies aren’t implemented, then health-conscious people are the ones being discriminated against.

You can’t blame the insurance companies for charging more. After all, their likelihood of having to pay out large sums of money on behalf of their gay clients is significantly greater.

Drinking and smoking, for example, are all directly related to dozens of diseases and medical conditions. So insurance companies habitually charge higher premiums. But non-smokers, non-drinkers and those who exercise get better rates than those who don’t practice such healthy lifestyle choices.

What about skydivers, hang gliders, and racecar drivers — do they pay the same life insurance premiums as those who watch birds or collect stamps? Not hardly.

The same logic should be applied to practicing homosexuals. When actuaries and insurance underwriters finally figure out this formula, we may see some instantaneous lifestyle changes.

After all, their risky homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice, not a destiny. If the proven threat to their health won’t do the trick, maybe the cost to their pocketbooks will.

Copyright © 2005 by Nathan Tabor

Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in Psychology and his Master’s Degree in Public Policy. He is a contributing editor at Contact him at

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Abortion isn't about Choice. It's about Money

By Nathan Tabor

As we prepare to celebrate next week's gala Inauguration Day festivities in Washington, DC, Conservatives need to remember some grim realities. For the past four years we have had both a Republican president and GOP majorities in Congress, yet we have not significantly reduced the number of deaths by abortion in this country. In fact, in the 32 years since 1973, when Roe v Wade became the law of the land, more than 45.5 million unborn children in America have been sacrificed to the gods of selfishness, hedonism and personal convenience. That comes out to well over 4,000 infanticides per day, for three-plus decades. Put in historical perspective, the abortion industry in America has slaughtered seven times as many helpless children as Adolf Hitler did Jews during his infamous "Final Solution".

What is the difference between Hitler and abortion? The world banned together and stopped Hitler. These sobering facts cause me to contemplate just why this is happening in a nation founded on morals and values. One simple answer comes to mind. It is done for "the love of money which happens to be the root of all evil."

With that in mind let's examine the profits of Planned Parenthood, the nation's most prominent provider of so-called 'abortion rights', as revealed in its 2003-04 Annual Report.

- Planned Parenthood clinics performed 244,628 surgical abortions, an increase of 6.1 percent. A total 3.5 million surgical abortions have been performed at PP clinics to since 1970.

- Planned Parenthood clinics grossed $302.6 million last year, with $104 million coming from surgical abortions.
- Total PP income for the year was $810 million, with one-third of that, or $265.2 million, coming from public funds given by our elected officials.

- The PP organization has earned net profits for the past 18 years in a row, totaling $538 million. Meanwhile, private donations to Planned Parenthood dropped for the second time in three years, and the number of PP-operated clinics declined from 866 to 849.

"Increases in abortions, more money from taxpayers' pockets, and bigger profit margins
WHY do elected officials give so much of our tax money to Planned Parenthood? WHY does 'abortion on demand, and without excuse' remain legal, when a majority of Americans oppose the gruesome practice? The answer is MONEY. Huge sums of money are spent by lobbyists and media groups, greasing politicians' palms and simultaneously putting the public pressure on them to kowtow to the radical feminists' clamor for 'reproductive choice'.

My own short-term, 'out of the box' idea is simple. Since Liberals want free healthcare, let's use their own argument against them. If a doctor performs abortions, he can't charge for his services. It has to be free. I guarantee thousands of doctors would quit performing abortions immediately. They believe in 'choice' because it lines their wallets.

On January 24th, hundreds of thousands of pro-life Americans will converge on the Ellipse for the annual March for Life to the Supreme Court and Capitol, to publicly protest the 32nd anniversary of Roe v Wade. They will be demanding an end to the indefensible, immoral practice of legalized abortion in America. Our newly inaugurated Christian president and ostensibly Conservative lawmakers should pay attention -- and take decisive action.

Copyright © 2005 by Nathan Tabor. Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has his BA in Psychology and his Master's Degree in Public Policy. He is a contributing editor at Contact him at

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Fighting an Unconstitutional War? What about the war against those states that harbored the Barbary pirates?

By: Wayne Lusvardi , Pasadena, California, USA ( )

Recently, anti-war activists have revived the somewhat passe controversy that began before the inception of the Iraq War that the U.S. is "fighting an unconstitutional war." For an example of those who continue to hold this opinion in the face of massive evidence otherwise see here.

According to these anti-war activists, a "never-before-used concept" - a war on terrorism - was born when Congress passed a joint resolution giving U.S. President Bush a blank check to do whatever necessary in the aftermath of 9/11. Such activists believe that the Constitution only provided for wars between two or more nations with clear-defined targets. As neither the Constitution nor the United Nations have ever defined "terrorism" there is no legitimate legal basis for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least as contended by these same activists. U.S. intervention in the Middle East is believed to be another case of "state terrorism" such as when the U.S. meddled in a democratically elected Nicaragua in 1981. Moreover, the War Powers Act of 1973 is said to prevent a President from acting without Congressional approval. However, the antiwar-activists make no mention that under Senate Joint Resolution 46 Congress gave President Bush such authority.

Anti-war activists who contend that "we're fighting an unconstitutional war" in Iraq perhaps are ill-informed. Have they never heard of the war in 1801 against nations harboring the Barbary pirates? This war was prosecuted by no-less than Thomas Jefferson, America's first liberal, pacifist-leaning, and non-interventionist President who authored the Declaration of Independence. This "war that wasn't a war" involved surprise terrorist attacks on the high seas, hostage taking, murders of American boat passengers by Moslems because they were "Christian dogs," an American orchestrated regime change, an unroused American public, and a pre-emptive counterattack on Tripoli (now Libya). European nations coddled the terrorists. And a Tunisian minister termed the U.S. war with Tripoli as "all a puff." All this is documented in Joseph Wheelan's timely book Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805 (2003).

Not only did the war against nations sponsoring the Barbary pirates set a precedent, but Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to privateers which provided incentives to capture the assets of so-called rogue pirates and eliminate them where necessary. Thus, military actions against rogue terrorists and non-states is addressed in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps an all-volunteer military would even qualify as "privateers" today.

There are arguable but legitimate reasons to oppose the scope of the Iraq War, but those asserted by anti-war activists that the war is unconstitutional are of no real help in understanding the complex situation we are facing today where monarchical authoritarian rulers of Arab states have all along been stealthily sponsoring terrorists rather than fighting a direct war with the U.S., so as to preserve their own lives and fortunes against a faction of Marxist-like revolutionaries who under the guise of militant Islamism will stop at nothing to return their nations to rule by a totalitarian caliphate. The most clear-minded and non-partisan view of the situation the U.S. Coalition is facing in the MidEast can be found in George Friedman's book America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle Between America and its Enemies (2004). And for those who are looking for one book that will provide an informed approach to understanding the background of the struggle, what the ancient Caliphate was, who the ancient Arab "assassins" were, how Islam is a religion of empire, and how modern day Islam has been hijacked see Daniel Brown's A New Introduction to Islam (2004).