Yesterday a measure failed in the Mississippi elections. The measure would have declared that life begins at conception and therefore what liberals like to call an “unviable tissue mass” deserves to have the rights of a human being.
I agree to a small degree that if the measure would have passed that a whole lot of maybe unintended consequences would have emerged. But that is, I feel, a discussion worth having. Why shouldn’t we argue from the position that human life is precious?
But many leftists said it is “madness” to say that life begins at conception because it would impinge on liberal’s love affair with infanticide. Certainly, some might say “the madness” is all the babies getting killed that liberals conveniently don’t accept as “human,” but, well, you know.
So, what is a human, anyway?
Essentially left-wingers have no logical argument about what is and isn’t a “person.” They argue to kill babies merely out of convenience. They just don’t want the bother of having a baby. About time they admitted it.
Fact: Those “unviable cells” liberals keep yammering about can ONLY become a human being if left to grow. They can’t accidentally grow into a dog, or a house fly. Ergo they ARE a human.
But, I’d like to postulate a level of agreement with liberals. Let’s agree that we can “decide” out of our own rear ends when human cells “become” human and then attain personhood. This is an entirely arbitrary point in time, mind you, but so what, we don’t expect leftists to have logic on their side, do we? I mean, having the luxury of making this arbitrary decision would be very convenient in many ways.
So, since we can just “decide” when a human is “really” a human, I say no one that has the unfortunate mental defect of being a left-winger is human. See, now we can abort them all we want.
Or how about we decide that no one with any other mental or physical defect is “really” fully human? What if we have a baby that is two years old? They can’t act autonomously, right? What if we don’t want them any more? Wait, how about if some stinking old person becomes non compos mentis? They could all be considered “unviable,” can’t they?
Let’s just eliminate all these dang “unviable” things? (In fact, these poor folks HAVE all been considered ripe for elimination by liberals in certain Universities — look up Pete singer–… oh, and those nice Nazi folks from WWII, also. They were big fans of such eugenics.)
Gosh. The convenience is awfully liberating, isn’t it?
Oh, but now all those caring leftists are going to get all huffy that I am advocating to kill liberals. Well, so what? What logical reason do they have to say my arbitrary decision on what is a “real” human is any better than theirs?
Is it that liberals don’t want to be aborted? Well, gosh, they should feel lucky that we can ask them the question. Sadly, the babies left-wingers want aborted don’t have that luxury.
Of course I am being absurd to illustrate the absurdity and arbitrariness of their stance on when a person mysteriously becomes a person. They have no logical underpinning to say that we can’t “abort” liberals, or old people, or the physically disabled.
On the other hand, those that argue for the sanctity of life and argue that serious discussion should accompany the ending of that life before such a decision is made have nothing but the most logical, most bedrock principles upon which they approach the issue.