Posted on 01/10/2017 9:34:29 AM PST by Kaslin
My pro-choice friends kill me sometimes with their kindness and compassion. In return, I try to kill them with sarcasm. However, a recent comment made to me by a self-proclaimed liberal was so calloused it deserves a serious response. I will paraphrase the remark, which is one most pro-lifers have heard at some point in their lives:
“I would rather have hundreds of my tax dollars used to abort an unwanted child now than have hundreds of thousands used for public assistance later.”
In case you did not grasp the obvious, that comment is not an example of liberalism. It is an example of eugenics, plain and simple. Furthermore, it is unbecoming of an educated person to even consider such a justification for the taking of innocent life. If you are not completely appalled by that remark then you probably did not grasp its ramifications. Hence, it may be time to dissect it with a little thought experiment. So try to imagine the following:
Ronald Rump is running for president. Some see him as the reincarnation of Reagan. Others see him as a horse’s ass. Regardless, he has developed a reputation for making charged comments on the campaign trail. He says illegal immigrants are rapists. He also expresses a desire to ban Muslims from entering the country. Predictably, media leftists start foaming at the mouth and doing everything they can to stop him. Then he drops this bombshell in response to a question about what can be done to reduce the welfare rolls saying, “I think we should just kill everyone who is on welfare.”
First of all, don’t take the thought experiment literally. No presidential candidate of either major party would ever make such a suggestion. But it is a thought experiment. So take a moment to think about what would happen if Ronnie Rump really did make such a statement. Would anyone seriously expect his candidacy to survive? Could anything possibly be more offensive than proposing a reduction in the welfare rolls by the simple expedient of killing everyone who is on welfare?
Actually, there is at least one suggestion that is slightly more offensive. In fact, my “liberal” friend already proffered it. Put simply, killing someone who you merely suspect might one day wind up on welfare – and who hasn’t done anything wrong yet - is about as offensive as it gets. If you still are not appalled then rethink the ramifications with the help of another brief thought experiment. Imagine the following:
A man suspects his wife is about to leave him. He does not want her to stay because he is having an affair. But he knows that the divorce will be expensive. He will likely be paying alimony for years unless and until his future ex-wife remarries. So he hires a hit man to kill her. He succeeds and is later caught and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. He is also charged with murder in the first degree because the conspiracy was actually carried into effect.
Now stop and imagine that you have been called in to serve on the jury. Would you vote to convict if the evidence established guilt? Or would you acquit by nullifying the evidence on the basis of a broad moral claim that the killing was justified for reasons of economic expediency?
I should think that no decent person would vote to nullify the evidence under these circumstances. The man’s wife may have been unwanted but that’s not her fault. She may have posed a potential and undetermined financial burden on him but that’s not her fault either. What could possibly be more calloused than deliberately forking over money to have her exterminated simply to ease a potential financial burden?
Let me answer the question I just posed. As offensive as nullification of the guilty verdict of the hit-man-hiring husband might be, it pales by comparison to what my “liberal” friend would have us do as a matter of public policy. The husband in the thought experiment seeks to fund a one-time killing. My “liberal” friend seeks to justify the existence of a permanent fund used to repeat the same atrocity hundreds if not thousands of times over. There is no evidence that she does not want the funding of financially expedient abortions to continue in perpetuity. Without any sense of irony, she calls it liberalism and tries to justify it on the basis of avoiding perceived potential future financial hardship.
We are living in dark times in America. The pessimism is so great that some of my leftist colleagues have even suggested that another Third Reich could eventually occur here in America. On that point we agree. We should not dismiss the prospect that such a regime could be established here in America. But the party trying to ban abortions won’t ever establish it.
Indeed, if fascism ever comes to America it will be at the hands of self-appointed Utopians who are incapable of grasping their own arguments, unwilling to learn from history, yet utterly convinced they have a monopoly on compassion.
Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, readded, or removed
Mike Adams bump.
Liberals Kill Poor People bump
They don’t want them dead. They need votes.
red
I am all for it if liberals want to kill their offspring.
They just give you a blank stare as they try to process that.
The Democrats don’t use Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs as a means of understanding human behavior.
The Democrats see Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs as a means to SHAPE a person’s voting behavior to vote Democrat.
Republicans want everyone to achieve the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy....Self Actualization. A person who reaches the pinnacle is strong and free.
The Democrats don’t want others to reach the peak. People at the peak think for themselves. They work to improve their lot in life instead of begging the Democrat Party for crumbs.
But, many of the physiological and safety needs have been met for the vast majority of our people. Doesn’t this mean that most people are beyond the levels where the Democrats can take advantage of them?
In reality, yes.
So the Democrats must convince people that they are lower on the Hierarchy than they actually are, or convince them that they MIGHT fall backwards on the Hierarchy Of Needs if they don’t vote Democrat. That is why it is so important for the Democrats to control Hollywood, Madison Avenue, news organizations and the schools.
It is a horrible way to treat other people, but the Democrats want their way.
What’s that old expression... You can’t use logic to talk someone out of a position that they didn’t use logic to get into.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Callous, not “calloused.” It is an adjective.
“it will be at the hands of self-appointed Utopians”
Those whom Barzun called “eutopians” in “Dawn to Decadence.”
If a high-school graduate read and studied that book, at the end of it he would have a BA-level education.
If you have a BA and study it, you will come out with a PhD level education. That would, however, involve following the citations and other references and studying them, too.
Did anybody else read it?
There’s a psychological malady known as Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. Roughly, it is a condition in which a person in power, with a pathological need to be needed, intentionally harms a dependent to keep him dependent, to keep him bound in chains of need.
Liberals are nothing more than Munchausen’s writ large.
I think it’s even worse.
A person with that syndrome is mentally ill. Their brain is broken.
The Democrats do it because they are greedy. They are fully mentally aware of what they are doing. That’s why it is so evil.
I've seen that statement used here before.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
You do get to the point expediently. Thank you.
What I have found in the heart of Liberalism is a characterization of Ayn Rand.
The GOP is not necessarily the only group who feels Ayn Rand still has something to say.
I personally find vacuum heads, people unable to reason due to lack of deductive reasoning skills, snow flakes and PhDs in liberal arts all of an ilk. I wonder what PhDs in science are doing at this point about their “”College Jobs””. It must be very hard to go along with their peers in others departments and tout the Hegelian Dialectic.
Maslow’s Hierarchy is fraudulent, Anytime it is tried to be verified scientifically it found AT BEST to be invalid and sometimes it is even shown that there is a negative correlation meaning that Maslow got it backwards. You are right that leftist use him but they shouldn’t. Nobody should. When you hear a leftist using Maslow they should be shouted down
Please see the link for the book below.
Getting It Wrong from the Beginning: Our Progressivist Inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget Hardcover – September 1, 2002
by Kieran Egan (Author)
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/12/advent-in-the-deathworks
The author of this article refers to civilized, thoughtful leftists as “deathworkers,” but I prefer Death Eaters.
I’ve seen that statement used here before.
########################
So have I.
They continue to vote democrat long after death.
Very good, Islander 7.
red
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.