Sunday, January 23, 2011

Live and Let Die: The Creepy Side of Progressivism

With progressive screams of “Palin is an accessory to murder!” still fouling the air, a story emerges from Philadelphia of a macabre chamber of horrors sponsored, funded and championed by progressives. 

The gory details of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s charnel house read like something out of a Wes Craven movie. Sadly, it’s all real, right here in America.

A Twisted Idea of Morality
The morality of a woman’s right to choose trumping human life is twisted and repulsive. It is important to recall that this dubious concept was developed by the likes of racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. A progressive hero, Sanger’s work was referenced by Nazis as justification for killing not just Jews, but gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, the elderly and generally anyone else who was unwanted by society or deemed undesirable.




Think I’m being harsh? Let’s try out one of the abortion advocates’ favorite thought exercises, The Fireman’s Dilemma:

You’re a fireman rushing into a burning building with only seconds to spare. You spy a three-year old girl on the right, and a petri dish containing 20 fertilized human embryos on the left. You only have time to save one, which do you save? One life or 20?

It’s a ridiculous hypothetical trap set to spring on pro-lifers. Its purpose is to suck us into the depraved world of "moral" judgments where we weigh the value of one human life against another. Questions such as this are employed by philosophers to plumb the depths of a thought or idea, but treating it as if it has relevance in real life is absurd. And when has something like this ever really happened? Even if the hypothetical fireman had time to discern that the dish contained fertilized ova, his natural instinct would be to grab the fearful, crying girl and go. In real life, you do what you can.

The Devil’s Dilemma

Here’s the creepy, progressive eugenics part of this thought experiment: What if the choice were between an old person and a young person? Do you save a severely handicapped man or the beautiful and healthy young woman? Does a Chinese research scientist with a 180 IQ get saved instead of a cute little Mexican boy who is illiterate and struggles in his special ed classes?

See where this leads? Human beings have no right to evaluate the worthiness of other human beings and decide who lives and who dies. It is a slippery slope to hell greased with the blood of “undesirables.”

To the pro-choice crowd I ask, how can you condemn this man? 
How can you call this murder, but killing the baby inside the mother OK? Do your morals really hinge on such a thin legal distinction?

Based on pro-abortion logic, this man should not be tried for murdering the babies because the mothers wanted these children dead and he ran a legal practice that did just that.

This is the legal fiction (as Rick Santorum calls it) we have in this country: If the mother does not want the baby, he is tissue and can be aborted. If he is fortunate enough to be wanted by the mother, the law confers person-hood on him and it is murder to kill him.

Pro-abortion advocates cannot call for Gosnell being charged with murder without contradicting their own stance.

Safe, Legal and Rare
The Margaret Sanger Eugenics wing of the Democratic party likes to repeat over and over how abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” warning us of the dangers of illegal, back alley abortions that harm and kill women if we outlawed the practice. Well, abortion is legal. So tell us how this house of horrors happened?

31 comments:

John said...

Thank you, you have put in very clear terms how evil and racist Sanger, Planned Parenthood and abortion are. Liberals have done a brilliant job of hiding the truth about Sanger and her goals. As conservatives we have to do a much better job exposing the racist base of the whole abortion issue. If only African-Americans realized they were being duped into marching their posterity into Sanger's "gas chambers" by their friends on the left. We live in sad times where a life is sacrificed for the want of a sixty cent condom.

Silverfiddle said...

"...truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but at the length truth will out." -- Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

Will was right. The truth will out, and that is the downfall of progressivism.

Always On Watch said...

Wasn't there a movie glorifying Margaret Sanger? I seem to recall seeing a film like that and coming away feeling that she was a hero. My parents advised me to do a bit of research on Sanger.

Today, so many people base what they believe on movies that serve as a propaganda wing for Progressivism.

Always On Watch said...

If I recall correctly, the film I mentioned was made for television and starred Marlo Thomas.

Silverfiddle said...

AOW: I don't doubt it. Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award a few years back.

Libs want to use the term "Progressive?" Great! I say we hang it all around their neck and make them own it all, including the eugenics, the racism, the Mussolini worship, mistrust of the individual, disdain for the constitution, Woodrow Wilson watching the Klan-celebrating "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, all of it!

Yes, they marched in the civil rights movement, as did conservatives, but abortion kills more black people every week than all the lynchings in our nation's history.

Karen Howes said...

Does "progressivism" have a NON-creepy side?

It's a death cult, full stop. And you do a great job here of pointing out their astounding hypocrisy.

Divine Theatre said...

Oddly, the notion of keeping one's knees together until one is responsible enough to care for a child never enters the "mind" of the feminazis and progressives!

Finntann said...

I generally try and remain aloof when it comes to this debate. When the opportunity presents itself, I vote my conscience, which is pro-life based on ethical as opposed to religious reasoning, yet I abide by the decisions of the majority with little in the way of activism.

Incidents like this and the arguments rejecting the concept of time limits presented in the Slate article give me pause to wonder if we aren't horribly too far down the road in the wrong direction.

If you are willing to advocate abortion the day before birth, why not the day after? There is little difference. If this is okay, what is wrong with post-birth abortions? When do you stop? 1-week, 1-month, 6-months, 1-year?

There is a fuzzy ambiguity at day one, that clarifies over time and through development. I find I have few issues with the morning after pill, there are many fertilized eggs that fail to implant anyway.

When it comes to drawing that line between human and not, one cell? two? 128? 256? It is a dangerous road upon which to tread to attempt to so precisely define what is human and what is not.

One wonders what, if any, legal charges should be pursued against the mothers, who presumably knowing that second or third term abortions were illegal in their state, chose to travel to Pennsylvania (where they were also illegal) to a doctor who was known to skirt or outright ignore the law. I think you will find most of the mainstream mute on that one.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

The only way the left will have something to say about this is if they can prove Bush forced them go to this butcher because Medicaid wouldn't cover their abortions.

Now that the liberals all of a sudden are Pro China ,rah,rah rah they must agree with how they abort girls and/or have them disappear after they are born. Or will they just have nothing to comment about it being China has a "different political system" than ours.
Oh and because we have democrat president. Go Walmart!!!!!!

Divine Theatre said...

I have never been pro-China...they eat human fetuses there. Tis' true! I am, however, pro-child labor. That always makes me popular with the progressives!
I recall explaining to a college professor that the Industrial Revolution was not as bad for children as he claimed. Seems the lefties think that if Chinese children weren't working in factories making a wage they would be afrolic in a field of flowers or somesuch nonsense. I have attempted to explain until I am blue in the face that, just like the Industrial Revolution improved lives in the West, "child slavery" in places like Africa and China actually give these children a shot at a future. Imagine that. Instead of literally dying in the streets these kids can afford food and medicine so they actually make it into adulthood! How horrendous! How heartless!
My college professor was a smart man. He listened and subsequently joined the Libertarian Party!

commoncents said...

HA HA! Thanks for posting this!!

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

Leticia said...

Regardless of what stage a baby is in development there is life and no one has the right to take that precious life away.

I will never understand why people like Sanger, Gosnell and liberals feel that they can play God and kill whom they choose.

You would think they would be grateful that their mother chose to keep them instead of killing them.

Lisa said...

DT I never heard of that they eat human fetuses. I know they eat things that are repulsive to us, but that is just....I can't even find the word for it.
Although I do know some liberals who would probably eat their own to push their agenda.
That's a interesting point you ring up about child labor there. Never thought of it that way.

MK said...

In their heart of hearts, the pro-death crowd don't feel that what this fellow did was murder. They simply see it as a doctor who didn't follow the proper guidelines and simply needs some sort of fine or something like that.

Sparky said...

That is a very well written article! I completely agree. I am so fearful of late about our society. Today I posted my thoughts on how to help change things but I don't know that it will help. Our society is so deeply entrenched with liberal teachings and women are drunk on the blood of innocents all in the name of "choice". Scary and sad.

Thank you for fighting the good fight. Never give up, never give in!

God bless.
Sparky :)
(Visiting from The Malcontent's blog)

Jersey McJones said...

What a ridiculous display.

One doctor behaves apparently unethically and somehow all abortion is wrong?

Stupid. It is beneath argument.

JMJ

WomanHonorThyself said...

progressive is such a poor choice of words for them my friend...anything but going foward..more like barabaric regressives!

Divine Theatre said...

No, Jersey, not all abortion is bad. I think it is perfectly acceptable upon the written consent of the fetus.

jez said...

I don't know much about Margaret Sanger, but I do know that she was already opposed to the Nazi application of eugenics by the early 30s, which is quite an impressive display of judgement imo. There were certainly plenty of folks in the allied countries who failed to condemn Germany at that time.

"[Fireman's dilemma is] a ridiculous hypothetical trap set to spring on pro-lifers. Its purpose is to suck us into the depraved world of "moral" judgments where we weigh the value of one human life against another."

As far as I am aware, exactly this judgement is must be made routinely by medical teams and rescue services. It is even codified as simple "women and children first" style principles.

"Here’s the creepy, progressive eugenics part of this thought experiment: What if the choice were between an old person and a young person?"
Women and children first. Beyond that, a young, fit adult would probably be trying to help me rescue the old person.

"Do you save a severely handicapped man or the beautiful and healthy young woman?"
If I were single, the woman of course. That's a no-brainer.

I don't see much of a problem with this, the fireman has no choice but to choose. The reluctantly pregnant woman's choice is not as urgent, so is a different category of dilemma..

There are some other interesting ethical thought experiments, eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem which are maybe a better fit to the case where the developing fetus threatens the woman's health. I know those cases are rare, but even so there exist pro-lifers who object to terminations even in that circumstance.

"To the pro-choice crowd I ask, how can you condemn this man?
How can you call this murder, but killing the baby inside the mother OK? Do your morals really hinge on such a thin legal distinction?"

It's a biological distinction: I associate a lot of the human properties that make human life valuable with the brain as a physical organ (manipulate it, and those human properties alter; damage it and those properties are impaired etc.). A 3rd trimester fetus certainly has a nicely functioning human brain; a 2nd trimester one possibly has many of those functions up and running; a 1st trimester one almost certainly doesn't. (I say almost only because I can't claim expertise in brain development; but I'm pretty sure of it).

"Well, abortion is legal. So tell us how this house of horrors happened?"
Good question. There's no rational reason for a woman to choose one of these illegal, expensive and dangerous abortions over a legal, cheaper and safer one, is there? Was there anything that might have stopped them getting one?

Silverfiddle said...

Jez:

These judgments must be made all the time? Give us some links. I hear news of house fires, car crashes all the time, and I can't recall the last time a fire chief stood beside the wreckage explaining how they chose to save person A but leave person B to burn to death.

There are many in this world who would admire your method for ranking human worth. I am not one of them.

Finally, a pregnancy is not a burning house. There is no emergency where a "choice" must be made, so the whole thing is a false analogy.

jez said...

I had in mind some medical cases of conjoined twins. I assume that rescue services must sometimes at least choose whom to rescue first, if not (Thankfully) whom to rescue at all; I also expect that they wouldn't like or be expected to conduct an interview about it for the general public explaining their choice. It would take a particularly cold interviewer to throw that question in. (otoh, i'd be surprised if such questions weren't visited from time to time in closed debriefing sessions).

I take it you would be against separating conjoined twins, if that would be construed as sacrificing one twin for the good of the other? (eg. jodie and mary.) It is safer, is it not, to let them both die, since the alternative would be to assign greater human worth to the stronger one?

Divine Theatre said...

I agree, Silverfiddle. As you know my husband is a police officer. The deal is to save WHOMever you can HOWever you can. Not women and children first, or elderly last or any of that BS. Get them out the best way you can and try not to die, is pretty much it.
I actually GUFFAWED when I read that "Sanger doesn't approve of eugenics so that makes her A Okay"! If you would save the attractive woman first you woul NEVER qualify for the job in the first place. That's why there are VERY few lefties in the Fire Department or The Police Department...poor judgement skills disqualify them...unless of course they are affirmative action employees. They let silly lefties in if they are chicks, or hermaphrodites or some poor minority who allegedly is incapable of getting a job without special treatment. I wonder why that is?

jez said...

DT, I thought you were resolutely refusing to say what order I should rescue people. How can you claim that I'm wrong to rescue to attractive woman first? Are you judging her life to be worth less than the handicapped man's?

I was answering from my own perspective, which is not a professional firefighter's. I'm just an heroic passer-by with nerves of steel and a sturdy ladder. Plus, I was joking. I've no idea what choice I'd make, I've never done anything that heroic in real life. However, in that situation I would be forced to make a choice (apparently that makes me a monster?) and I'd be unsurprised if subconscious evolutionary psychology would lead me to prefer pretty girls over guys.

Divine Theatre said...

The lady doth protest too much.

Jersey McJones said...

Good ol' misogynistic, patriarchal, authoritarian conservatives. Where would we be without you? Oh! That's right! In a better future!

JMJ

Divine Theatre said...

Jersey, you are a caricture of a self-involved, righteous left wing nitwit. I MUST assume you are merely a troll because you never participate in logical debate. If you really put any thought into your position you would certainly have more to say than ou currently do.

MK said...

"Good ol' misogynistic, patriarchal, authoritarian conservatives. Where would we be without you? Oh! That's right! In a better future!"

Good ol' fascist, totalitarian, morally bankrupt liberals. Where would we be without you? Oh! That's right! In a far, far better world!

Cheers
MK

Lisa said...

Just go to any inner city and see what liberal policies have done.Thanks to the welfare state they created we see alot of pregnancy among under aged girls
being they don't need and education because they don't need a job or a husband.

Their so called "hand out" policies haven't done a thing to improve that situation in 50 years.

Divine Theatre said...

Right, Lisa, the Welfare State destroyed the American family and the feminists destroyed everything else!

Lisa said...

ah yes the feminists, I forgot to give them kudos for their role.