Look, I know the title itself will prejudice a large majority of those who choose to read this, and I will be in full rant mode throughout this article. However, if anyone that reads this actually believes in the concept of an open mind, then by all means employ it here.

The crux of the abortion debate has long centered on the view of a woman's right to choose an abortion over a continued pregnancy. The Center for Reproductive rights cites "A Safe and Legal Abortion is a Woman's Human Right" as the cornerstone to their approach to the debate, immediately framing their arguments as an expression of a woman's basic freedom. I applaud and support all efforts to ensure a woman's rights to evey right a man has. However, I refuse to bless her with the added privilege of choosing her own convenience over the life of an unborn child. Does the biological accident that made her a woman grant her greater rights than that of a man, a man that will also be the father of the unborn child. Does it grant greater status to her voice than the unspoken and unacknowledged will of the living being growing in her womb? How do you get past the hypocrisy of granting a human right to a mother that supersedes her child?

Don't get me wrong. There a scenarios in which one can argue that abortion is a necessity, or even for the greater good. The health of the mother could be at stake, with no chance for her offspring to survive. She may have been forced against her will by rape or incest. In fact, I may go so far as to grant certain economic difficulties and discrimination. But I will not grant convenience. It is the height of all hypocrisy to paint the misfortunes of a few into a canvas of 'rights' that allow the privileged to crush the weakest possible class of humans.  No woman alive should be allowed to kill her own child for nothing more than the fact that it was inconvenient for her. It is nothing short than a ghastly form of biological slavery, where the aloof and listless master cuts down the servant when her or she is a stone's throw from life and freedom.  There are people begging for children of their own all across this world who would happily assume the responsibility she is too eager to shun.

This is not how the debate it portrayed, however. Women's groups everywhere have been deeply concerned over the years at the shift apparent in young women today on the topic of abortion. You see, when the admittedly compelling arguments of women's struggle for equality devolved into the demand for supremacy, these groups lost their moral and human compass. As progress is made all over the world for the true rights of women everywhere for equality in wages, education, careers, etc. the more that the hypocrisy of abortion is revealed as a step too far, taken in the name of women but forsaken by many of them. How could a gain that ends one life in exchange for the comfort of another be thought equal, or even just? It cannot.

The role of feminism is inextricably linked to the acceptance of abortion, and I must continually stress that many of the gains that this movement made for women was for the better. I will not allow anyone the chance to claim that I, as a man myself, do not understand the debate because I am not a woman. I am a human, and in anyway that I can stand up for the rights and freedoms of any human being, I will. But this same sense of justice must fall in favor of the unborn human child when it is paired against the will of the mother, as should any sensible defense of humanity. How can one judge in favor of the strong against the weak? 

Perhaps it is most telling that the right of the father is rarely, if ever, brought up. If we are to grant equality on the basis that all, men and women, are equal, than why do we ignore the contribution of the man? Should he be punished and left voiceless simply because his biology granted him only the initial seed, with no hand in the growth? What if he is ready and willing to be a father, but is never granted the right?

We can play hypothetical games and dream up emotional and desperate scenarios, but the hard and simple truth is that the vast majority of abortions are terminated needlessly. The mother was not too sick, too poor, or too disadvantaged. She was simply too ignorant to understand the treasure she had been given, and all too willing to put herself above her child. 

Finally, the last tenet of the abortion rights crusade rests on the perception that the fetus is simply that, a fetus, with no rights other than those given by the mother. Quite simply, if time is all that stands between an acknowledged and protected life and a quietly dismissed death, than there's no point in fighting for any basic human right. We'll all die someday.

Say hello to Leela, aptly named after Futurama's cyclopian bombshell , of course.

 Click "Read More" to see a pic. . .

10. Because its most holy book wasn't written by the editors of OK! magazine, and therefore is not worth taking the time to read in context.

9. Because it commands its believers to care for the poor, which is un-American and anti-capitalist.

8. Because it dares to question the authority of all-knowing, all-powerful Richard Dawkins.

7. Because it advocates loving your neighbor, even if that jerk steals your lawnmower.

6. Because it has the audacity to think that truth actually exists.

5. Because its adherents all live in an imaginary stretch of the Southern United States, have never been past the ninth grade, marry their cousins, ignore all manner of hygiene, and blindly support everything the Republican party does.

4. Because no Christian alive is intelligent enough to work a computer, much less post anything to Digg.com.

3. Because I heard one time that this one guy on TV did this one bad thing, and therefore all religious people are hypocritical scumbags with an IQ of 13.

2. Because I read so on Digg.com.

1. Because Dan Brown is an uber-genius and everything he said about Jesus and Mary is the gospel truth, more so than, well. . .the Gospel Truth.

The Dell IdeaStorm blog, in which I’ve already vented my frustrations regarding Microsoft, seems to have an interesting personality floating around the multitudes of posters. Under the nomenclature “kyliemanders,” I would swear that Steve Ballmer himself has gone incognito and tried to spread the Microsoft gospel on any forum that would listen. Although it remains to be seen, here’s ten reasons why I think Microsoft’s Chief Excrutiating Officer has taken on a virtual persona: