I’m sure the average Liberal actually believes he is doing the right thing. Even so, his illness is seen in the way he dogmatically accepts the narrative, while remaining bitterly hostile to those who oppose him, to such a point that we cannot even work together on issues that affect us all.
All symptoms are seen from Cluster I. Symptoms 6, 7, and 8, are seen from Cluster II.
Cluster I
1. Deceitfulness, indicated by repeated lying, grand exaggerations, or omission of contrary information, with the purpose to advance their chosen narrative and discrediting others.
2. Irritability or aggressiveness towards anybody that questions or opposes their views. Coupled with the inability to recognize they own hypocrisy, double standards, and doublethink.
3. Inability to adjust views when presented with information contrary to their own beliefs.
4. Frequent projections of their own traits onto others.
5. Difficulty in dealing with a loss of control or power, or a strong desire for control and power.
Cluster II
6. Appeals to altered and redefined definitions of words, or relies on fictitious terms for argumentation.
7. Consistent feelings of having been victimized or wronged, without any actual harm being done. Seen also as playing the victim after attacking others.
8. Intense sense of righteousness or moral superiority.
9. The inability to recognize the negative outcomes of their own actions. Often placing the blame on others.
10. Intense guilt or self-hatred, often manifests as hatred towards one’s larger group identity.
IV
Infanticide
There is no single issue that characterizes the immense depravity of the Liberal mind quite like infanticide. The nefarious and destructive nature of the Left is manifest in the annual average of over one million dead babies since 1970, when the CDC began keeping track of abortion rates.141
One million a year. That is one hell of a butcher’s bill.
No other issue displays so total a disregard for the non-aggression principle, and of human life generally, as abortion. The Left is frantic to change the name of infanticide to anything else, to reframe the issue as anything but murder, and to appeal to any number of principles besides the one that matters most.
The non-aggression principle is likely as old as humankind and is arguably one of the simplest and noblest of all principles. In its simplest form, the non-aggression principle states that any sort of forced coercion or aggression against a person or his property is inherently wrong. This principle has appeared everywhere from the philosophy of old to the immortal writings of John Locke, which played an important role in our very own Declaration of Independence.
The principle is quite simple: to deprive another person of his property or right to life is inherently wrong and is at odds with natural law. To abandon this fundamental principle creates a moral and ethical dilemma in which people are not naturally entitled in their right to life and property. The basic right to life, freedom, and property is a cornerstone of Western society. Without it, there is nothing to stop a large mob of people from pillaging and raping small groups of other people for their own benefit. The non-aggression principle is the sole moral standard needed to debate and win against abortionist.
With the underlying principle out of the way, let us delve into the abysmal depths of the sickness known as Liberalism.
Re-Branding
The Liberals love to play the name-game. They rename their support of infanticide as “pro-choice”; they refer to a baby human as a “fetus” in order to obscure the truth. They reframe any abortion legislation as an issue of women’s health or reproductive rights, and they refer to severing a child’s neck with scissors as a simple “medical procedure.”
When was the last time you heard the term “infanticide,” by the way? No doubt it’s been a while, and there’s a reason for that. Liberals must re-brand every aspect of this question to gain mass appeal. Can you image Hillary Clinton standing on a podium and championing infanticide? Of course not. However, hearing a bleeding-heart Leftist drone on about “choice,” “rights,” and “freedom,” leaves one with such a nice warm fuzzy feeling. Terms such as “women’s health,” “reproductive health,” “women’s rights,” and “reproductive rights,” are commonly used to circumvent the actual issue. The sound of the newly named issues are wonderful: who would not be in favor of women’s health? Who would want to take away reproductive rights? Nobody of course!
Any truly dignified position, as for example the conservative’s defense of unborn humans, has no need to rename or reframe the issue; a dignified position can call facts by their right names. The Left must play the name-game to divert the truth and conceal its devilish stance that some lives are worth taking, and that we have the right to take them. Killing a child, even an unborn child, is a clear and gross violation of the non-aggression principle, an abuse of our strength in the face of the most helpless.
The proper response to the deception of the Left is to insist on the real issue. The life of a child is the issue. Responsibility for one’s actions is the issue. Being careless of human life is the issue. When debating a Liberal, do not allow them to use their term of “choice” in an attempt to reframe the conversation. They need us to argue on the basis of their terms, for they stand in clear violation of any decent moral principle underpinning a civilized society. Historically, infanticide is a classic hallmark of developing societies on the one hand and of crumbling societies on the other. Not of well functioning and civilized societies. What the Left calls “progress” is nothing but to recklessly race to the edge of total degeneracy. If we cannot defend the rights of the most defenseless in society, why bother to defend the rights of anybody at all?
In Bad Faith
Beyond playing games with the language, Liberals also try to use flawed reasoning and shaky arguments to make the case for abortion. There are several arguments I frequently see; we will discuss each separately. The first argument is that consenting to sex is not in any way consenting to conception. The second is that unborn humans have no rights; in the unborn stage, a human child is nothing but a clump of cells without sentience. Finally, there is even an appeal to the non-aggression principle itself: no human has the right to use another human’s body or resources, and therefore the mother carrying the child can decide to kill the child in order to prevent it from using her resources and body for nine months.
Let us begin with the first of these arguments, the false distinction between consenting to sex, and consenting to pregnancy. The argument is that sexual consent implies neither consenting to becoming pregnant, nor consenting to carrying a baby to term. The main flaw in this argument is that you do not have the power to arbitrarily decide what realistic and logical consequences may come from a given act. For example, when I get into my car to drive to class or the market or the gym, I certainly do not intend to get into a car accident. I do everything I can to prevent being in one. However, if somebody broadsides me on a rainy Thursday afternoon, I cannot undo the wreck by sustaining that I only consented to driving to the market, but not to the car wreck. That is not how reality works.
When you chose to partake in an activity, you assume, explicitly or implicitly, all logical and reasonable consequences of the activity in which you partake. Sex is as inextricably linked to pregnancy as driving is to the possibility of a car wreck. The only real way to avoid any potential car accident is to avoid cars all together.
Nobody would consider it remotely reasonable to say something along the lines of, “I’m going to consent to go skiing, but if I get hurt, I do not consent to any injuries.” It’s absolute nonsense. The same rule governs sexual intercourse, as is made clear from another of its possible side-effects: people often contract socially transmitted diseases, viruses, and infections from sex. I doubt most people explicitly “consented” to a case of Herpes or Chlamydia. Of course, people will attempt to treat these diseases wit
h medicine. The Left would give a woman the “right” to do the same thing with her unborn child, essentially identifying human life with disease.
Which brings us to the discussion of whether unborn children have rights or not. Liberals, in their unquenchable lust for control, think they can be the arbiters life and death. But the argument that an unborn child has no rights is, once again, fraught with issues. The common claims are that at conception, and for sometime after, a child is merely a “blob” or “clump” of cells. These cells are nowhere near sentient, and are moreover not viable outside the womb; therefore the fetus cannot have human rights, since it is not yet a person. Well and good. But why do we not apply these principles universally to all humans?
There are many marginal cases of humanity. There are people with severe mental retardation and severe dementia; there are others in vegetative comas. A child even after it is born is utterly helpless and incapable of independent existence. All such cases lack sentience in the full human sense. What do we do with such cases? Do we have the right to violently end their lives with a pair of scissors to the base of the neck? Absolutely not. The case of marginal humans is a quick refutation of the sentience argument. We care for those who have lost or lack sentience, and rightly so.
So far as the question of “viability” goes, it is not any stronger. As humans we all have certain requirements if we are to continue living successfully. The healthiest of us only require around 2,000 calories of food, some water, and a few hours of sleep daily. Others require varying levels of resources to survive, such as a particular diet, medicine, or some sort of therapy. What if we took this idea of viability and expanded it to people that have been involved in traumatic accidents? Imagine paramedics arriving at the scene of a car wreck, and realizing that one of the people needs to be rushed to the hospital via helicopter due to blood loss and an inability to breath due to a partially blocked airway. Do they just shrug and say, “Oh well this person isn’t viable any longer, they are no longer human, let them die”? Of course they don’t. We recognize that these people are indeed still human beings, despite having particular needs at the moment. These special requirements may extend for sometime, in some cases months or even years; yet we still provide the care they need. Because they are human. And their lives matter.
Not that long ago there were cases of human beings ravaged by Polio who were not “viable” without an Iron Lung. Had we used the same principles and logic that Liberals use for an unborn child, we might have decided that children with Polio were no longer “viable” and left them to die.
The argument that a conceived child is merely a clump of cells (it is wretched to say, I know, but it’s their argument, not mine), and not yet a human is really identical to claiming that the child is too young to have rights. The issue here is again quite simple. If we are speaking in strict biological terms, even the most complex and advanced living organisms (humans), are still nothing more than a blob of cells that have had sufficient time to go through more iterations of cell division. What about humans who are born without all their limbs due to some cellular mutation? Or those born prematurely? Do we decide it is justifiable to terminate their existences? Absolutely not. Because it’s barbaric. But that is precisely what we are dealing with; Liberals are quite literally the barbarians at our gates.
The “blob of cells” argument is simply another age-based argument, much like the heartbeat argument that says there is no life until the first heartbeat. These are again arbitrary measures, unless we have some sort of conclusive evidence that the “spark of life” occurs precisely here, and not at conception. If you really force a Liberal to play out their arguments to the logical conclusion, you’ll often find they have decided somewhere along the line what is and is not human.
No wonder, then, that the definition of life is a moving goalpost for Liberals. Many on the Left will claim that a human being becomes a human being after birth. Yet if a unicellular organism, or even the fossilized remains of one, were discovered on some distant planet by NASA, no one would deny that we had found alien life. It would be the story of our lifetimes. Every TV station and magazine would be covering the story of the new single-celled life form. Yet when it comes to humans, a “clump of cells” is evidently not to be considered a “life.”
Possibly the strongest claim that these infanticidal maniacs like to make is that no other human, not even your own child, has a right to your body or resources. This argument relies of course on the non-aggression principle. The child is viewed as a trespasser, a parasite sucking the mother’s vital resources. Thus the mother can terminate that life at any time during pregnancy, on the basis that the child is some sort of foreign invader in a land wherein it does not belong. And I almost agree. The argument is almost valid — except for the premise that the child is an uninvited guest. Even if the pregnancy was an accident, the mother and father still explicitly engaged in an activity that had the potential to create life. That life was therefore an invited guest. The baby is not a parasite, nor an invader, nor the property of the mother. The baby did not choose to be conceived; the parents made that choice, both deliberately and explicitly.
Moreover, if a child does not have any right to the resources of those who brought it into the world, why stop at nine months? What is the difference between this and, say, wanting to kill an eight year old child because it is using too many of its parents’ resources? And while we’re at it, perhaps tax payers should be allowed to execute welfare abusers, as they are unjustly wasting tax payer resources? When you apply the same logic to any other scenario, it becomes immediately clear how repulsive and absurd it is. (Except maybe the welfare abuser idea. That might work.)
Yet another irony lost on the humorless Left: the Left claims it is a moral imperative that our taxes provide resources for poor people and poor countries. An unborn child does not have a right to the mother’s womb, but people, many not even Americans, have a right to our tax dollars? Imagine the rage of your run-of-the-mill Liberal, were anyone to suggest that such people might be “uninvited guests” or “parasites” abusing our resources!
The only place in this entire debate I would concede any ground to the Liberals would be in cases of rape. It is no wonder that the Left uses pregnancies resulting from rape or those that endanger life as a quick go-to argument. Because the rapist severely violated the non-aggression principle against the woman in question, it is at least reasonable to argue that any result of that violation cannot be legitimate. This does not of course account for the fact that the baby had no say in the matter. It does however pose a more complicated issue, as the responsibility for any consequences of this act no longer falls upon consenting adults.
But let us be clear. Rape, child deformity, and health complications for the mother or child, account for less than 10 percent of all abortions. The other 90 percent? Because the child was unwanted or inconvenient.142
Regressive Liberals talk an awful lot about choice in regards to abortion, but they somehow fail to mention the endless choices one can make not to get pregnant. You have the choice to not have sex, to use protection, and to sterilize yourself. Speaking of which — I personally think that sterilization is a fantastic idea. Anybody who is in support of infanticide should have himself or herself sterilized at once for a simple reason: it is unreasonable to assume that any person, man or woman, who supports the slaughter of the unborn would make a fit parent. People who kill three or more other humans are classified as serial killers, and if a woman has three or more abortions, I fully support labeling her as a serial killer too, and requiring sterilization to end the massacre. It’s clear that such women are not responsible enough to stop from getting pregnant — not to speak of caring for another human. Instead of using tax dollars to support abortions, why don’t we consider using tax dollars to pay for sterilization? It would solve the issue of abortion before it even begins.
I’ve often seen Liberals using the pro-life stance of conservatives against them
through faulty logic. Liberals will claim that being pro-life must also mean favoring of mass migration of so-called refugees. But this is absurd. The principle is simple: conservatives do not believe in harming the innocent or initiating aggression upon people. Therefore it is immoral to harm unborn children. A man and a woman choose to bring their child into existence; thus the child becomes the responsibility of the parents. If they did not want that responsibility, they should not have created a child. Tax payers, on the other hand, made no equivalent choice as regards refugees. They are not responsible for them, nor are the refugees entitled to the resources of American or European citizens. No American tax payer ever made the decision to cause the never-ending chaos of the planet, nor did any one ever agree to spread his money all over the world to provide financial support for matters that do not concern him.
Liberals also love to claim that being simultaneously pro-life and pro-death-penalty is contradictory. Wrong again. The unborn child is being protected from violence and death. Any person facing capital punishment already initiated extreme violence against another person, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the same.
The non-aggression principle allows for the defense of the innocent through force if necessary. Capital punishment merely takes the non-aggression principle to its extreme, by stopping further aggression against the innocent. I am in favor of capital punishment in such cases. Indeed, I would even extend capital offenses to include child abuse, animal abuse, rape, illegally entering the US, and the betrayal of citizens on the part of public officials who lead them to war and ruin. However, I favor capital punishment only in the most extreme circumstances, in which there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. For I believe it a far greater injustice to kill an innocent person, than to allow a guilty person to go free. Bringing about unjust violence is quite possibly the single most egregious moral act one can commit. And that is precisely why I believe that no one can reasonably defend abortion as a “choice,” as well as why sterilization is the most reasonable solution in such cases.
Liberalism Unmasked Page 14