I found this adorable commercial and couldn't resist sharing it on here. Note: I'm not necessarily endorsing Pampers. I just love their video.

They're All Devils

Anti-lifers are horrible, baby-hating people. Uncaring and unfeeling, they’re only bent on squeezing as much money from murdering babies as possible. They lie through their teeth to trick women into letting their “doctors” butcher children in an extremely dangerous, horrendous procedure, yet claiming that it is safer than carrying to term. All their staff are cold to their clients. Their exam rooms are filthy, stained with blood and littered with unwashed tools. They rush through the abortions, botching many of them and harming the women they claim to protect, just for the sake as getting as many abortions done as possible and raking in as much blood money as they can. They have conned the American people into giving them millions of dollars to continue in this ghastly practice, ruining the economy and murdering children.

I hope you didn’t agree with what you just read. I’ve read many things to this degree, though few are as extreme. What’s wrong with the above paragraph?
It generalizes. 

The truth is, pro-abortioners aren’t devils. Most of them aren’t just after blood money. Many of them truly care about women and are passionate about their work. They truly think what they’re doing is right and good. My guess is that there are a generous supply of Abby Johnsons out there. (Abby Johnson was a Christian Planned Parenthood director for eight years, now a pro-life advocate. She truly believed what she was doing was right.) Remember that pro-abortion blog I read? Well, take a look at this following paragraph:
Anti-choicers are horrible, freedom-hating people. Uncaring and unfeeling, they actually think FETUSES, a tumor growing inside a women, is more important than the woman bearing it. They deceive women into thinking these parasites are actually babies, or else they intimidate and harass them by saying they’ll go to hell for their CHOICE of a LEGAL and SAFE procedure—a procedure that’s safer than pregnancy itself! They’re so bent on illegalizing abortion and reducing women to baby incubators. They don’t want abortion, yet they don’t want BIRTH CONTROL either! They can only see the fetus. They don’t see the real, living, breathing, hurting woman in front of them. ARE THEY BLIND?? They want to save the fetus, but the won’t help the woman! They don’t even care about the fetus once it’s born! They don’t care about life: they only care about devolving our society by restricting the most basic human right: the right to control our own bodies and reproduction!!
(Would you believe me if I told you that it was actually easier (as in thinking of what to say) for me to write that paragraph, reducing people like me to scum, than writing the first paragraph, reducing people like them to scum? I’m not sure what this means…)
Did that paragraph surprise you? I see it all the time in the pro-abortion literature I read (mainly in the pro-abortion blog—minus the passionate cursing). They truly think we’re blind, uncaring individuals. There are soo many things wrong with that paragraph, but I won’t get into them, because I’m sure you can see what they are.
I wrote that paragraph based on what I'd read (I promise, it's true-to-life). Here's something that, to my knowledge, was actually made by somebody pro-abortion. Take a look at the following cartoon:

Did that make you angry? It makes me angry every time. It generalizes. Generalization is rampant on both sides because it makes the enemy sound horrid, and consequently makes your side sound angelic.
Here’s another glance into the pro-abortion mind: they do their jobs at the risk of their lives. They’re afraid for their lives and the lives of their doctors. They’re afraid of anti-choice extremists. I knew that it would be worrying to them, but I hadn’t imagined the extent to which they would mention it.
There are always exceptions to the rules, of course. They have their Gosnells and we have our Roeders. That’s what lets us write our generalizations and get away with it. Because those people do exist. But not all are like that.
Now, the pro-abortion people could very well be exaggerating their fear of being attacked by pro-life extremists so they can victimize themselves. They could very well be simply lying about how much they care about women. And I’m sure many of them do. But many of them do not.
This is frustrating to no end. It is so much easier to defeat the “enemy” in our own minds if we can just see them as Satanists. But they aren’t Satanists. They’re real people, and they’re all created by God. (Not to gloss over the barbaric “safe and legal” procedure of abortion. It’s evil. Complete evil. There’s no other way to describe it.)
My point to all of this is that we cannot  and should not view them all like this. I admit it: I have a hard time loving this type of enemy. To be honest, I used to hate them. I pray for them, along with the women and their babies. God can give us the love, though. God can give us His love for them. He does love the abortionist doctors. I don’t really love them now, but I no longer hate them. I hate what they do. Not them.
God, please give us Your love.
Devil image found via Google Images. Cartoon from here.

Life Begins Now (Part 3)

In two previous posts, I’ve been going through a list. It’s a list of different opinions about when life (and/or personhood) begins. Today, I’ll finish explaining the last few things on that list, and, finally, give my own reasons for when life begins.
·        When the heart begins to beat
A baby’s heart begins to beat at eighteen days after conception. Though this, like most of the other opinions, doesn’t signify personhood in itself, it’s hard to ignore. Something that has a heartbeat is very obviously alive. And, other than insects and algae and the like, very few animals don’t have a heart. Also, not many animals have two hearts. See what this implies?
Not only is the baby alive, it also is its own person. The baby has its own blood and own heart, completely separate from the woman’s blood and heart. (As I’ve mentioned before, pro-abortioners say that a woman has a right to control her own body. So she does. The baby isn’t part of her body.)
·        When the first brain waves are recorded, or when the baby is conceived.
I “squished” these two last opinions together because they ran together while I was writing this.
A popular opinion among pro-lifers is that brain waves can be detected at six weeks, two days. A popular opinion among pro-abortioners is that this is bogus.
To be honest, since there is such an immense amount of controversy (even more so than with fetal pain) and such convincing arguments on both sides, and since I haven’t tried measuring fetal brain waves myself, I’m not comfortable with saying for sure which opinion is right. However, in The Biology of Prenatal Development, distributed by National Geographic, as well as many other sources that aren’t necessarily pro-life, it is stated as true. (Here is the segment where this is stated. I encourage you to watch some of the other videos as well—this is incredible footage of live embryos and fetuses.) (To be fair, it is also rebuffed as not true by multiple sources as well. However, I have yet to see something rebuff this claim that isn’t pro-abortion.)
There’s something else to this though. Wilder Penfield, a neural cartographer, electrically stimulated the brains of his patients (for necessary surgical reasons. You can read about it here.), often resulting in a body part (such as a hand) moving involuntarily. The patients would often hold down their own hand to keep it from moving. The brain can be stimulated to make physical aspects of people move, but you can’t stimulate the brain to, for example, make a person pro-life or pro-abortion. You can affect a person’s environment to influence their thinking, you can plant an idea like in “Inception”, but it is the person who makes the choice. You can’t stimulate their choice. It doesn’t work like that. My point? There is something non-physical about human beings. That's what makes human beings special. Despite all the scientific facts and evidence you can gather, there’s still something elusive that can’t be tracked down with a microscope. Who are we to ignore that? It's impossible to tell when this "starts".
Life begins now. When does the life gain personhood? The baby is a person when it is born. She is a person a few  hours before she is born. A few days. A few weeks? Where is the line? Where does this clump of tissue suddenly become a person? Preemies can be born at twenty-three weeks, and they are people then. They'll still be people a few hours before. A few days. A few weeks? Let's say babies become people at twenty weeks. Okay. Fine. So it's okay to kill them at nineteen weeks, six days? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? Does this really happen: not a person...not a person...BOOM! PERSON! What happens in a twenty-four hour time line? How is the baby less of a person at nineteen weeks, five days? Four days? Three days? What's the difference between eighteen weeks and seventeen weeks? 

From now until death, this human is alive.  Human beings are special. This human is her own unique person, non identical to any other living thing for all of creation. She is completely separate from her mother, and also completely dependent on her mother. Does it really matter what physical things are functioning or not? Before, she wasn't anybody. She was an it, devided into two halves. Egg, sperm. Nothing. Not growing, just sitting. Alive just as a finger or kidney is alive. And then...they join together. Conceived, and she now has eye color and height and personality and gender. From the instant she is conceived, she is growing. Conscious, aware, feeling, or not, this human is a person. Humans are people, not mere tissue.

Image found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Video on Phill Kline Ethics Hearing

This interview was conducted Tuesday, I believe, and is a pretty good summary of how Mr. Kline's hearing is going, and what exactly the hearing is on.

Kansan Chaos

Phill Kline

There’s been a lot going on in Kansas this year, and prayers are needed. As I showed in a previous post, Governor Brownlee has signed three pro-life bills into law. Now, there are several more things going on, all connected to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri.

Steve Six

Steve Six, former Kansan Attorney General, has been nominated by President Obama to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is one of thirteen courts that are “intermediate appellate courts between the district (trial) courts and the Supreme Court of the United States”. Six getting a job here would be, put simply, not good, and here’s why:

Phill Kline, also former Kansan Attorney General, has been the only politician, God bless him, to dare confront Planned Parenthood. Since 2004, Mr. Kline has been struggling to bring Planned Parenthood to justice for the many crimes they have committed. There are many loophole-reasons that this has not happened, a large one being this: Steve Six.

In Mr. Kline’s own words, “[t]he charges are based on records redacted of patient identities which were subpoenaed by Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson in October of 2004. [5] Typically law enforcement can receive such records with patient names within three working days, yet here Planned Parenthood was able to delay use of the records for three years.”
Combined with Planned Parenthood stalling big time, Six did the following to help them (again in Kline’s words):1) pursuing two lawsuits aimed at returning the evidence against Planned Parenthood to Planned Parenthood ;[7] 2) obtaining secret orders to silence a key witness ;[8] and 3) suing the prosecutor (myself) [Kline] in an effort to remove from my [Kline’s] office the evidence against Planned Parenthood.”

Besides this, Six used a warped, illogical way of thinking to help delay the trial by claiming that Kline didn’t have the authority to file the charges. First, when Kline was the Attorney General, Six said that only a District Attorney could file the charges. (He also made this claim when Kline filed charges against the late Dr. George Tiller, who used to be the largest late-term abortionist, defeating Kline’s attempt.) But then, after Kline became a District Attorney, and Six was Attorney General, Six claimed that only his own office could hold the evidence against Planned Parenthood, though his own office couldn’t file the actual charges.

Excuse me? How much sense does this make?

This is an important trial against Planned Parenthood. If convicted of the “107 criminal acts, including 23 felonies,” Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri could easily lose all of its federal funding.

Sebilius and Six
Oh, and one more thing: Steve Six was appointed by former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius. Planned Parenthood is a major political benefactor of Sebilius.

Basically, with all obvious bias and corruption, Six SHOULD NOT be given a position in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And I didn’t even go into Six’s deception to Senators, his lawsuit against a judge, or the fact that his witness-silencing was done as secretly as possible. (You can read the detailed article by Phill Kline here, and another one by Kansans for Life here.)
Despite Six’s two-year delay, Planned Parenthood’s criminal trial is now in progress.

The decision on Six’s possible appointment has yet to be made.

Phill Kline went into the second part of his trial TODAY, July 19th, for charges against him concerning both of the investigations he led against Planned Parenthood and Dr. Tiller. The claim is that he obtained information illegally.  

If you live in Kansas you can contact either of the U.S. Kansas senators (whichever one is yours) and thank them for publicly opposing the Six nomination and ask them to continue to do so. And whether you live in Kansas or outside it, you can pray. It is much appreciated.

Images found via Google Images. No copyhright infringement intended.

Rape vs. Life

Quick, kill him! He has rapist genes!

Two of the hardest issues to think about in the pro-life movement are rape and incest (referred to here as simply “rape”)—the two times where the woman did not have a choice to get pregnant. It then seems cruel to force her to take responsibility for something that isn’t her fault. People that are generally considered radically pro-life usually say that they are against all abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.
It’s true that it isn’t fair that the mother had no choice in the matter. But it’s even less fair to let her abort the child in those instances. People who make the exception for rape and incest are looking at the problem out of proportion. If a fetus is a child, then it is murder to abort her no matter what the circumstances of her conception. Rape and incest don’t change that. You can’t sensibly say that it isn’t okay to kill the fetus in most circumstances, but it is okay to kill the fetus in cases of rape or incest, unless you don’t truly believe that the fetus is a child in the first place.
A common argument for abortion in cases of rape and incest is that the baby will have rapist genes. This is saying that it’s okay to kill this particular baby because he’s a potential rapist. Eugenics, in other words. Strictly speaking, we’re all potential rapists. Even if we’re more genetically inclined to certain kinds of evil than other people, it still comes down to the choice of the individual. If we managed to track down everyone who was genetically inclined to a crime and kill them, the population of the Earth would go from three billion to zero. Besides that, plenty of people from rough homes with rough genes grow into good people. Many also do not, unfortunately. But environment has much more to do with how people turn out than genetics.
Even if the “rape gene” was truly a deciding factor in whether someone becomes a rapist, that suggests that humans are merely evolved animals that can’t think for themselves (which many people do believe) and therefore isn’t really capable of making the decision to not rape—but if that’s the case, then there’s nothing wrong with rape (because we’re all animals anyway), and therefore absolutely no reason to abort rapist-gene-babies. Hmm. Contradict, much?
It’s a personal choice, raping. Non-genetically-inclined people can still make the choice to rape people. You can’t eliminate the “rape gene” and assume that will eliminate rapists.

Why don’t we focus more on stopping current rapists and getting “rapist babies” (who are just as beautiful as any other baby) into good homes, and forget the easy way “out” that won’t work anyway?

Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Life Begins Now (Part 2)

I intended to finish explaining my list of opinions about when life begins today, but the next subject is so sticky and deep that I decided to devote this entire blog post to it.
Some believe life begins:
·        When the baby can feel pain.
At the very least, by this time it seems cruel to dismember the fetus. Few people would want to hurt helpless beings, whether they are people or not. When something can feel pain, that something is conscious in some way shape or form. And when something is conscious human being, it’s hard to argue that the something isn’t a person.
However, those with this opinion usually aren't aware just how early babies begin to feel pain. There is a lot of debate, naturally, over when this happens. Currently, a new Kansas law prohibits most abortions past twenty weeks. Other states (I’m unsure about the exact number, as many have been debating and/or passing them recently) now have similar laws.
“At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto
An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
— Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University
Both quotes from here.
Approximately twenty-eight years ago, Kanwaljeet Anand, a doctor who dealt with pre-term babies (preemies) was surprised to find that the infants suffered less trauma in the operation room when given anesthetic before the operation. Studying this, he found that “even the most premature [about 22 weeks] babies grimaced when pricked by a needle.”
Story found in the New York Times (Online).

Twenty weeks old

Overall, people generally agree that, perhaps we should assume that babies can feel pain up to twenty weeks. I did a Google search on fetal pain and all the articles I looked at, whether pro-abortion or pro-life, at least mentioned that it was possible (though maybe not likely) that babies could feel pain around twenty weeks.
Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, left Planned Parenthood and joined the pro-life movement after helping with an ultrasound abortion—an abortion where the doctor watches a live ultrasound so he can see what he’s doing. The baby was thirteen weeks old. Abby watched as the baby struggled for her life, clawing, trying to get away from the vacuum probe. Obviously, that little “fetus” could feel the probe. If babies can feel touch, why would they not be able to feel pain?
Thirteen weeks old

Thirteen weeks. Not twenty. Wow, that’s early.
Wait, I’m not finished yet.
Twelve weeks old
The Silent Scream is a video of a week twelve ultrasound abortion. (I have yet to see this video, mostly because my internet security program blocks it, understandably. I am also afraid to see it. I’ve seen the aftermath of abortion but watching it happen, watching murder happen—that’s different.) Though I haven't yet seen it myself, from the reports I've read the baby struggles for its life...and then screams.
But I’m suggesting earlier still. This quote taken from (The entire article is excellent and easy to read, if you want more facts than I am presenting here.).
“By this age [eight weeks] the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.”

Eight weeks old

Eight weeks. Weeks six to eight are when a majority of abortions are done.
Seven weeks old
 As if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s still another fact that makes it even more painful:
"Far from being less able to feel pain, such premature newborns may be more sensitive to pain"...that babies under 30 weeks have a "newly established pain system that is raw and unmodified at this tender age." P. Ranalli, Neuro. Dept., Univ. of Toronto
Last two quotes from here.
What’s more, something that can feel pain is at least partially conscious.

Unconscious people don’t shy away from vacuum probes.

Six weeks old
Images "Thirteen" "Twelve" "Seven" and "Six" were found here. All other images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Those Darn Antis

I read pro-abortion blogs. Yes, I am a bit weird. I do it for two reasons. One, it keeps me motivated to fight against death. Two, it helps me see how these people view the world and why they believe what they do, and how, if I ever came up against them and they presented me with an argument, I would be able to answer it. In short, it helps me practice my debating skills. However, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon in this blog. Before I tell you what it is, perhaps I should describe the blog.
It’s made up of a group of very pro-abortion people. This blog is a place for them to rant, talk, cheer, thank, mull, and other related things. This is a place for them to get their thoughts out and share it with other pro-abortioners. I would have commented on many of their posts, except they explicitly asked that the other side stayed away. That this wasn’t a place for debate. Okay, I can respect that. So I’m a ghost reader. So, they aren’t necessarily trying to be professional or anything like that.
Now here’s the interesting thing: they love to rant about “antis”. The pro-life people. “Anti” has become some sort of curse word on this blog. It is quite interesting. Not because they rant about us—ranting is fine on occasion—but because they do it so much. I do not jest or exaggerate when I say it is virtually every other post they add some sort of bitter quip against the “antis”, that is virtually every page of posts that there is at least one post dedicated to the cussing out of “antis”. I was reading one of these vehement spewing the other day growing extremely angry. They call the antis stupid, ignorant, hateful, and seemed to view pro-lifers as bad—or worse--as minions of the devil.* Then the reality hit me and I began to laugh out loud.
If antis are so stupid and irrelevant, why do they hate them so much? Why do they feel the need to cuss them out constantly, to always put them down?
Unless antis make them uncomfortable.
I understand complaining about mosquitoes when you get bitten. However, if you’re complaining every day about being bitten by mosquitoes, you have a mosquito problem.
I drew the conclusion that the pro-abortion complaining was a good thing. Antis aggravate them to the point where they spew out hatred in blog posts every single week. And yes, it made me laugh. Sometimes as an anti I feel discouraged. The pro-abortioners seem so indifferent to me and my fellow antis and sometimes it seems like we aren’t changing a thing.
But if they hate us so much, we’re making an impact.
If nobody in the world hates you for what you believe, you may need to reconsider how you’re living your life. 
Of course, you shouldn’t go out of your way to make somebody hate you. You just have to be a strong advocate for what is right, not back down even when your view is unpopular, and eventually somebody will hate you.
Does somebody hate you for what you believe?

Life Begins Now (Part 1)

I posted When Does Life Begin? about a month ago, covering the basics of the “core issue” of the abortion debate. Now I’ll get down to the details of this critical question. In the aforementioned post I compiled a short list of the different opinions of when personhood begins, and I’ll go through that list now.
·        When the umbilical cord is cut
The idea behind this opinion is that the baby is just a part of the mother’s body. Therefore, until the baby is separated from the mother and no longer dependant on her, the baby isn’t a person. This idea is also the fundamental rallying cry behind the pro-abortion movement: a woman has the right to have control over her own body. Yes, of course she does.
The baby isn’t a part of her body.
The baby is connected to her mother’s body and dependant on her  mother’s body. That isn’t the same thing. Basic genetics shows this. Everybody knows the equation: man + woman = baby. Woman =/= baby. The baby has her own unique set of genes. If woman = baby, everybody would be clones of everybody else. Being connected to the woman’s body has absolutely no connection to whether the baby is a person or not.
·        When the baby breathes for the first time
Honestly, I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. What does breathing have to do with being a person? Dogs breathe, and that doesn’t mean they’re people. They’re alive and conscious, certainly, but they still aren’t people. Likewise, none-breathing, thinking, conscious, hearing human beings aren’t disqualified from being people because they don’t breathe. Drowning people aren’t disqualified from being human either.
·        When the baby develops bones
The time I heard this opinion voiced, the woman explained her reasoning like this (paraphrasing): “I think that once you’re breaking bones to abort the baby, it’s just too far along to abort it.” I can understand her feelings behind this, but developed bones by themselves don’t really have any logical connections to personhood. (It isn’t clear exactly when this woman meant. The baby has fully developed bones at about week 29 gestation, which is probably when she meant, or perhaps a bit earlier, but the bone development begins at about week 4 gestation.) However, connected with other things that are already developed, it does make a strong case for personhood.
·        When the baby is viable
This argument is irrelevant. When the baby is viable, she is able to survive outside the womb. The reasoning behind this also has to do with the argument that the baby is just a part of the woman’s body. However, when she’s able to live outside of the womb, then she must be her own person, right?
Let’s look at the most glaringly obvious obstacle to this reasoning. Science progresses. Would a twenty-three-week-old baby had survived back in the 1800s? Probably not. They can now. Were twenty-three-week-old babies less than people a few hundred years ago while they are people now? Or you could look at this argument disregarding science: if the baby can survive outside of the womb, without the help of science, then she is a person.
Lots of people are dependent on science for survival. Diseases, car crashes, disabilities. Does needing help from modern science degrade them as people? Of course not. Why then do we pin that “qualification” on unborn children?
Disregarding science entirely, people are dependent on other people. We all are. That’s part of being alive. We are dependent on others in some way shape or form as some time in our life. Like right after we are born. The twenty-three-week-old preemie is just as dependent on other people as the forty-week-old newborn. Sure, the preemie may need more intense care, but if you just left the forty-week newborn on the ground by himself he would die, just as the preemie would if left by herself.
I will continue breaking down these ideas in a few days. If you are interested, here is a detailed article about fetal development.
Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Happy Independence Day!

This holiday has been steadily rising in my mental “Favorite Holidays” list as my love for my country has grown. Sometimes I wish I didn’t love the USA as much as I do. It’s frustrating to love something flawed, especially when you feel like if only the world would listen to you, you could fix it all up to perfection.
Of course, I know I couldn’t fix it perfectly, even if everybody would do what I said, because I’m not perfect. What’s more, if the world listened to me, that would mean I was the absolute dictator of the world and that completely contradicts what I would be trying to do in the first place: fix the USA’s problems. Her problems break my heart. Abortion, specifically.
The USA is flawed. Every country in the world is flawed. What makes the USA special is the idea it is founded on.
Humans are basically evil. Not basically good. Evil. The US government is set up to protect us from ourselves by letting us be free. To let us be free. We are supposed to be free to be prosperous, but I’d like to point something out that gets overlooked: originally, we were also free to be idiots and fail, but more and more we’re trying to stop that freedom to fail. The remedy is, supposedly, big government. I humbly point out that this isn’t working.
The US government is here for two things: to protect us, the people, and to protect our property. That’s it. Nothing more.

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Yes, there is a difference. A democracy is where everything is jointly decided by the people themselves. A republic is where We the People elect representatives to decide things for us. A Constitutional Republic is where the representatives are bound to obey the Constitution that the Republic is founded on.
The Constitution that we are supposed to be obeying has a tenth amendment that states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. If the Constitution doesn’t say you can do it, Federal Government, then you can’t. That's why our military is constitutional and universal health care isn't.
It’s these basic principles that are being ignored, and ignoring these basic principles is what is messing our country up.
It would be nice if government could take care of us. Government can take care of us. But there is something you have to give up in return.

When you are a toddler, your parents take care of you. They make sure you were safe and regulate how many cookies you can have and how much sleep you get. When you become an adult, you make your own decisions. You can make great decisions by looking both ways when you cross the street and regulating your own cookie intake and sleeping hours...or you can make poor decisions and pay for it with declining health. You're free to do whichever you choose.
Even if you make poor decisions occasionally, you don’t want to safeguard against poor decisions by having your parents always make your decisions for you. For one thing, that would take away all your freedom. For another, your parents are flawed too.
This is what big government is: flawed parents who aren’t always looking out for your best interests. Do you want to be a toddler and have the government babysit you, or do you want to take responsibility for your own life and sometimes fail along the way?
Happy Independence Day! Let's celebrate Freedom!