It's called, [to plunder a phrase], "Illustrating absurdity by being absurd..." When a writer makes a transparent "plea" to enable people to do convenient things to other people, in spite of the evil involved, he must rely on the perceptions of the reader to understand what is really being illustrated. To simply come out and say that killing inconvenient people is evil, is much less effective than momentarily putting them in a position to wonder whether the writer, or the people being written about, can actually have thought about their actions. For more telling is the corrosive effect that society's acceptance of this denial of the fundamental right to life would have on every other "right" we now enjoy, and how tenuous they would then become. If I cut it too fine and left you too uncomfortable, I apologize. But we are playing for all the marbles now, in this latest phase of the cultural war. We must win.
The problem with your piece is that it's too subtle for the issue at hand. It is, in fact, not "absurd" at all, but so vague as to be unintelligible.