Recently, I was involved in a lengthy discussion on the Rocky Mountain News Letters to the Editor forum. The topic of this particular discussion was abortion.
Needless to say, the discussion was filled with the usual circumlocutory banalities and highly nuanced obfuscations.
But, something unusual happened in this particular discussion; a few liberals uncharacteristically gave direct and honest answers to a few simple questions. Not only did they directly answer some questions, they actual admitted to some shockingly brutal notions.
It always amazes me to see the types of things considered shocking these days. Calling someone a nigger is perhaps the most shocking and outrageous thing a person can say these days. And, perhaps a close second is to suggest that Islam is a violent religion. These are the things that make liberals mad.
As I discovered today, what doesn’t ignite the ire of most liberals is the open support of infanticide.
In a conversation with a poster called fairness, we had the typical volley of exchanges that involved the usual liberal retorts such as “how many children have you adopted?” and typical lamentations about the perceived lack of support for sexual education in public schools.
But, when asked several times the following question: “Do you think abortion is the destruction of human life?” fairness finally answered: “I think it is the destruction of something that has the potential of being a human life. I do not believe that from conception that it is a human life.”
Interesting, I thought. Now we are getting somewhere. I asked him the most obvious follow up question: “How do you determine when it crosses the line from “something” to human life?”
Before I tell you his answer I would like to say a few words about logic. The human mind is not a logical machine. While the mind has an enormous capacity for logical thinking, it is also a bundle of non logical fears, worries, anger, joy, pride, etc. The human mind is not a special purpose entity like the wings of a bird or the fins of a fish or the jaws of a lion. Rather, the mind is a combination of specialties. It is the equivalent of some imaginary creature that can sometimes swim, sometimes fly, and sometimes crush, but often spreads it wings when it needs it fins, or counts on its fins when it really needs to fly, or use its powerful jaws when no action is required.
Consider that feeble analogy when reading the response by fairness. Clearly, logic was not the dominant part of his mind when he wrote:
“When the “something” has developed enough that it can survive on its own (obviously under the care of others), as in a premature baby. You have to agree that up to a point, even if a “baby” is born, at some point it is not developed enough to live. Up to that point, I believe abortion should be allowed.”
He was actually arguing that life is defined by a person’s ability to survive on his own. When questioned about the elderly, a baby’s need for breast milk, or victims of accidents that require medical equipment to survive, he politely removed himself from the conversation.
Now, enter poster Fresh to pick up the slack. He offers this comment:
“up until it leaves the body it is totally and completely dependent on to live.
up until that point it is completely up to the mother to continue or terminate the pregnancy. COMPLETELY UP TO!”
To which I asked, “So, two days before a baby is set for delivery, the mother should be allowed to kill it because it is not born yet?”
Fresh’s brutally honest answer:
“yes if it is her wish to do so , then yes it is her choice to that point.”
Keep in mind that this poster is not just advocating the right to an abortion; he is advocating the right to the most brutal and rare form of abortion. He shamelessly acknowledged his support for the arbitrary killing of a baby just two days before it is set for delivery for no other reason than because the mother chooses to do so. The man just publicly supported infanticide.
One would think that in a country where political correctness dominates most public forums, and given the outrage that follows the spewing of words such as nigger, bitch, and Islamo-terrorist , one would think that the public support of infanticide would cause a universal rebuke from liberals and conservatives alike. One could think that. But, one would be wrong to expect that in this particular Colorado forum.
In fact, another poster, O_TRAIN, had voiced his support:
“Having just read all these comments in the past half-hour, all I can say is – fresh, et al.. you deserve kudos for engaging in this dead-end argument…To put in “religious” terms – the mother is the “GOD” and thus has the RIGHT to make “GODLIKE” decisions. I don’t care if it’s two seconds before the birth. The mother has the right to choose.”
And yet another poster, me2, apparently in support of the previous posters, wrote:
“What amounts to more: the life of an unborn child or the rights of millions of women now and in the future? “
Just one liberal, just one, voiced her shock at such a statement. It was a rather remarkable situation. Here in a discussion group that consisted of about 10 different liberals, just one was concerned about the open support for the option to commit infanticide. If I had written the word “nigger”, I would have most likely received the harsh rebuke from 100% of the liberals in the forum. Yet, the open support for the option to commit infanticide a mere two seconds before birth generated mostly absurd defenses of abortion in general and just one liberal rebuke.
One could also argue that this was just a random occurrence and that this is not a typical liberal response to such an outrageous declaration. Yes, one could think that. I wonder if I could generate similar responses by attempting similar discussions in other forums. Perhaps, I could ask the leading Democrat presidential contender, Barack Obama, what he thinks about the issue:
“…if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” – Barack Obama
