Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The logical conclusion to an illogical premise

This blog is mainly dedicated to exposing liberalism as a religion. This religion, like many others, holds certain beliefs to be the ironclad truth and all of their subsequent ideas and actions flow from this foundation of belief. Most people recognize that religious fanatics are in fact able to think logically, particularly when they are dealing with a problem or issue that is unrelated to their religious beliefs. However, one thing that is rarely acknowledged is that these same religious fanatics can also be extremely rational in taking their religious beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Basically, what I'm saying is that when a person holds the false belief A, their subsequent realization of ideas B and C may flow logically from A, but the entire sequence of A->B->C is of course false because their starting premise was untrue.

I believe this describes the very essence of the liberal religion. Almost every liberal idea would make sense if the underlying belief acting as the motivation for their ideas weren't so horribly flawed. What follows is the most extreme example of this phenomenon:

The liberal believes that a fetus is not a person and that the mother's vague right to "choice" trumps any rights of what they consider to be a non-person. The problem of course with this premise is that besides the absolute starting point of human development (i.e. conception) there is no logical event or process that determines when a fetal or embryonic "non-person" magically blinks into existence as a human. However, all fetuses eventually become full grown adults, so the dividing line must logically exist. But where? At birth? Is the definition of human life based literally on geographical location, or does the liberal believe in a vagina fairy that sprinkles each of us with our humanity as we travel through the birth canal? What about newborns? Even a newborn baby has very poorly developed frontal lobe activity, so does that mean they too are "non-persons"? In fact, frontal lobe development isn't completed until well after puberty, so is that the dividing line, puberty? My point is, if you accept the liberal starting premise, the logical conclusion is that newborns and maybe even adolescents aren't fully human and therefore it is morally permissible to exterminate them.

You might say, but Winston you are being ridiculous. Nobody would argue that killing newborns is morally permissible. I mean that would just be absolutely fucking deranged. Well, here you go folks, from the article:

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
 Well holy shit! That's certainly an interesting idea! Please tell me more!
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” 
Awesome newspeak, please continue!
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
 Fuck yea!, we threw in some eugenics in there as well. Fire up those gas chambers boys!
They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.
Well of course early term abortions are preferable, I mean it's not like we are unreasonable people or anything.
The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.”
Ha! morally relevant shmorally shmelevent. We won't let those right wing nuts shove their morality down our throats!

Anyway, you can read the rest of this grotesque piece of uber fucking bullshit during your spare time. Would you believe however that it actually gets worse? The editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics that published this garbage has this to say to you pro-life fascists out there: (Warning- the all consuming irony of the following statement may cause your brain to explode)
What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.
You hear that fuckheads? Arguing that we should kill children is proper academic discussion, but arguing that we shouldn't kill children reveals the "deep disorder of the modern world". You crazies need to stop with your fanatical opposition to killing babies. What the fuck is wrong with you people!

I'm seriously starting to believe that this has to be a hoax because it really is beyond comprehension. I think my favorite part of the editor's statement is her unapologetic admission that infanticide is a liberal value. Well, no shit.
*Again, I'm going to go on the record as saying that this must be a hoax. I mean this is worse than any snide intentionally obnoxious caricature I could ever come up with for a liberal. If it isn't a hoax, well I guess I can just shut this blog down because really what other point about the derangement of the liberal is there to make?*

No comments: