Saturday, August 1, 2015

Confusing Issues Again: The Reeptards Mix Up Cecil The Lion Outrage with Abortions At Planned Parenthood

One of the many daffy images put out by the Right to try to make millions feel guilt over reacting with sympathy to Cecil the Lion's brutal slaughter- but not to abortions.

Jeebus! The sanctimonious ninnies and nannies of the Right never cease to amaze. Now we have Sen. Marco Rubio - running for President- bellyaching that we oughtn't get so worked up over Cecil the Lion when "hundreds of human babies are being annihilated every day". Uh look, dingbat, last time I checked those were not "babies" but fetuses.  Repeat after me: Neither a zygote or fetus  is a baby, or a person!

But trying to drill through their craniums is like trying to drill through concrete. It just doesn't work because they are incapable of processing scientific distinctions, far less nuanced arguments. Hence, the hue and a cry raised by conservos over  people's reactions to Cecil's vile butchering but "they're hardly making a sound over all those butchered babies". Well, maybe because some of us are intelligent enough to be able to distinguish a zygote or fetus from a baby!

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that no sane person in his or her right mind can possibly regard a "zygote" as a person, or a fetus as an "unborn child". There is simply no standard by which that passes even elemental laws or tests of logic, or science.  A child cannot be "unborn" because by definition it is already born!  Thus, we send the 'child' to school, get him to do his homework, to take his medicine, cross streets safely, respect his elders and so on. If unborn, it's a fetus, not a "child"  so all those activities are preposterous. They also show the entity is not a person. Don't these ignorant twits know any better?

person, a human person, must have at least minimal capacity for basic cognition and rudimentary choice. It must possess a brain, at the very least, which evinces definite brain waves. Anything that doesn't is a proto-human entity, but clearly not a person. The logical error made is called the "genetic fallacy" as first described by Antony Flew ('Thinking About Thinking'). That is, arguing that because a thing is going to become something, it IS something. It would be like me picking up an acorn and claiming it's an oak tree. Nope. No way. Only an insane person would assert that!

So why all the outrage about Cecil the Lion and not extending to unformed zygotes or aborted fetuses? Because Cecil was an independent, autonomous living creature in his own right - not a parasite dependent for its existence on the blood supply of another.  Cecil was also the embodiment of a nation's pride as that magnificent, autonomous beast - with his black mane.

In addition, Cecil's death was violent beyond measure with the SOB Walter Palmer letting him suffer 40 hrs. before finishing him off then lopping off his beautiful head to mount as a trophy - while letting the carcass to rot after skinning. DO NOT even try to compare this with aborting a zygote!

As for those knuckle draggers who insist on charging after Planned Parenthood after those  videos by a nutso group ('Center for Medical Progress') - obtained surreptitiously and hence illegally because of state wiretapping laws (i.e. against electronically recording conversations without the person's permission) let me clear up a few things:

- Most of Planned Parenthood's services are NOT for abortion. The true data, shows that barely 3% were abortion services last year, the remaining 97% were for health screenings such as mammograms, pap smears, and even prostate exams for males. None of this was disseminated by the vile Rs, but when one traced the source, he located the lie most often being repeated at Fox

- NO federal funds are used for abortions. Under the Title X legislative clause, they are not permitted to use one single dime of federally allocated funds for abortions! This is a detail that could be pursued anywhere, yet as we know, believers seldom do this because of the risk of having their preconceptions overturned by facts!

- NO profits are obtained from the distribution of fetal tissue. Women who have miscarriages or abortions voluntarily donate that tissue to help others, such as those suffering from MS, Parkinson's disease etc.

Instead of getting hysterical, the Right's minions need to more thoroughly avail themselves of facts before they go bonkers over the outrage directed at Cecil's slaughter, and not at the abortion of zygotes or fetuses. Also, if they wish to be taken seriously in respect to their extraordinary concern for the unborn - they need to show lots more concern as well as action on behalf of the already born! 

The problem is that all those now screeching loudest on behalf of all those unborn are prepared to turn a blind eye to the needs of the already born. Thus, they are morally near sighted in vociferously defending unborn life but failing to stretch that concern to supporting life of actual real life humans- already born.  Thus, their hand-wringing over the value of life in the womb comes up hollow. One could then ask them what they are doing:

- To provide affordable health care and proper nutrition benefits to the baby-child. (If against Obamacare and specifically contraception then they are enablers of the abortions they complain about)

- To provide state-run and paid for child care to a mom trying to get off welfare, or to be able to work.

- To provide free schooling, right through university, as Barbados and other progressive nations have done.

If you're only pro-life to birth, then you're a damned hypocrite, and don’t truly believe black lives (or any lives) matter at all.  If you’re an anti-higher tax clone of Grover Norquist – or believe taxes are only for military defense and not social support, ditto.

If you're truly pro-life you have to take civic, community ownership for the child's welfare -after it is born as much as before, via appropriate legislation- enabling it, not impeding it. And further this has to be effective  all the way through that child’s dependent years.

Even conservative WSJ columnist William Galston acknowledges the crucial importance of universal post-natal care- something most liberals have long advocated. He notes it would be "wonderful if churches and voluntarily organizations" were doing this, but they aren't because the scale necessary is too large for them. Hence, "when families are weak either government steps in or children don't have a fair chance to succeed." Thus, liberals are correct in favoring gov't interventions that "start at birth  or before".  But especially after birth in providing subsidized child care, thereby enabling mothers to seek employment and not have to worry about their charges.

But rather than make the effort to raise taxes for the provision of such care the moral phonies on the Right are more about protecting life up until birth. It costs too much in tax dollars to take care of it after. Besides, "that's the parents' job and if they can't do it..." - well, you can finish the sentence. Try to find an ending that makes sense given the Reepos are so het up on defense of pre-natal life.

 Given the Right's miscreants have no problem with eschewing the quality of life after birth (for humans) it's no surprise they wouldn't care about the after-birth lives of other living things - including Cecil the Lion. Or dismiss them as "no big deal". Therein the problem lies, including in the resistance to rational gun control, given in the U.S. there are now an average of 88 deaths per day from gun violence (according to the documentary 'Requiem for America'). But, of course, none of those deaths were of entities in the womb - only those already forced to live outside it! Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

See also:


No comments: