The "March for Life": A Pre-Moral - Not Moral - Display

The spectacle in D.C. yesterday, operating under the banner of a "March for Life', featured a crowd of perhaps 275,000 bearing flags, banners and placards, that flowed down Constitution Avenue, filling the street, and then  rallied at the Supreme Court building across from the Capitol.  For reference, this is significantly less than The Women's March on Washington  attended by an estimated 485,000 people last Saturday

One of the PR positions and framing adopted by the "Life" crowd is that they were adamantly "pro-woman" - which, of course, is poppycock. If you are for taking away a woman's control over her own body - even after rape or incest - you are in fact, not pro-woman but anti-woman.  In addition, you are not moral by any stretch, but PRE-moral.

The difference again is wonderfully articulated by Cheryl Mendelson, former Professor of Ethics and author of 'The Good Life' , who I earlier  (Oct. 11 post) referenced in terms of explaining the  nature of moral capacity and defining the moral character. Mendelson's take on the anti-abortion movement and personae is instructive in terms of firmly placing them in the premoral spectrum. As she writes (p. 157):

"The premoral mind confuses the disgusting with the wrong and retains an infantile fear of things sexual. Its rationality is overcome by emotion, fantasy, wish and projection. The belief that extracting a 10-week fetus from a woman's womb is murder rests to a large extent on the sense of disgust aroused by the thought of destruction of living tissue.

When fundamentalists insist on risking the life of the mother to deliver an anencephalic fetus they take this tendency to an extreme. People who think this way are unable to override disgust with rational appreciation of the objective characteristics of the fetus. The ability to do so is an indispensable trait of the moral mind."

In other words, the basis for a truly moral mind presumes the capacity for rationality to assess objectively - as opposed to emotively.  This is something I've written about a number of times before.   A point made in my Aug. 1, 2015 post was that no sane person in his or her right mind could 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!  Hence, an "unborn" (fetus) cannot be a "child".  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.

This is also why Mike Pence's arguments to the March for Life supporters, i.e. that he can get a "personhood" law implemented, is pure bollocks. Pence is talking from emotion, not science or rational objectivity.  A 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!  Is Pence insane? Not likely (we must hope!) but he isn't exercising any rationality.

As a former Roman Catholic, however, he may still be under the dogma of the Didache which declares:

"You shall not kill the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born"

Which is obviously medieval nonsense, as I showed from the arguments above.

Another failure of rational objectivity among the marchers for life is their lack of recognition that nature itself is the most pervasive source of abortions. As Sagan and Druyan observed in a widely circulated article from 1991: "Most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried"

Cheryl Mendelson for her part notes (p. 159):

"Nature sloughs off early pregnancies at a high rate and we do not hold funerals for these embryos and early fetuses.  As many as 60 to 70 percent of fertilized eggs are lost overall, usually silently - without anyone ever knowing fertilization took place. Up to 15 percent of known pregnancies miscarry in the first trimester. Were we to take seriously the morbid pseudo-moralism of the fundamentalist Right, we would recognize these countless millions of miscarried embryos and fetuses as lost lives and be sunk in a vast and permanent sea of endless mourning for the unending deaths of innocents."

So the question arises: Why don't the anti-abortionists have this endless mourning for the dead embryos, fetuses? Well, first - because there are too many and they'd never have an end to funerals or morbid grief - as Mendelson points out. Second,  because the premoral mind only makes a federal case out of it when individual women are seen trekking to Planned Parenthood for abortions!  IF those were carried out silently, discreetly in private (like nature does),  say using an abortion pill-  none of this would be known and no anti-abortion hysteria could exist  This is why the sooner  much wider access to RU-486 is achieved the better, to take the issue out of the premoralists' mitts. The problem now is that too many right wing extremists are preventing their state's citizens from accessing it - either by using excessive pricing, legal maneuvers or keeping it out of state insurance exchanges.

Mendelson goes on to make an equally cogent point regarding the false moral righteousness of these people (p. 160):

"To equate the termination of an early pregnancy with the death, indeed the murder, of an infant or child is not merely morally uncalled for but dangerous. It implicitly demeans the value of real people's lives, both adults' and children's, and confuses the reasons why we protect them so vigilantly. If our moral obligations to one another are abstracted from our capacities for feeling, thinking, intending and wanting - from everything that makes us human and forms the ground for our care and protection of each other- we are thrown back into a premoral kind of thinking.

To regard the destruction of insensate agglomerations of cells that contain human DNA as the destruction of a person's life is to step outside the moral into the brutal and dangerously irrational kind of thought that substitutes taboo for reason. It is a regression to quasi-magical thinking."

It is, in other words, a reversion to the genetic fallacy: mistaking the acorn for the whole oak tree. The human fertilized egg for the complete human person, which in either case is preposterous.

So why commit this fallacy, this regression to a premoral mental state? It is because the people who invoke it have the belief that these agglomerations are "ensouled". They thus imbue the rudimentary gaggle of cells with a supernatural aura for which no proof exists at all, none.  As Mendelson puts it (ibid.):

"The premises that the fertilized egg, embryo and fetus are ensouled or sacred are ideas that cannot be proved  factually and that many religions vehemently reject."

The monstrous error at the heart of all anti-abortionists' thinking is the genetic fallacy and also the slight given to the already born- in terms of tax policy, governmental assistance etc. 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 against the government providing free child care so a working class parent can afford to get a job, 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.  This applies with special force to the most economically marginal of our nation, the people barely scraping through at Walmart or Mickey D jobs because enough better jobs aren't available.

Looking out at the sea of pro life marchers one saw many a sign that begged to ban Planned Parenthood, and overturn Roe v. Wade. Is this moral or premoral? Mendelson again (ibid.):

"Do those people who oppose abortion on the basis of religious tenets have the right to impose their religious views on people who reject them?  The moral answer, emphatically, enshrined as law in the United States Constitution, is no. People are within their rights to attempt to persuade others to adopt and live by their religious ideas but not to force them to do so using laws and the power of government."

Thus, those two hundred thousand odd marchers for life were totally wrong if they hoped - by the force of their march - to get government to enact laws or SC rulings to prevent abortions and hence deny others the right to have them. In this sense, Pence, when he proclaimed:

“We will not grow weary, We will not rest, until we restore a culture of life in America for ourselves and our posterity,”

Is way out of his depth and position if he means anything other than the use of persuasion to attain that "culture of life".

Yes, fight for your belief that the fetus is an equal person to a full -fledged conscious human, if you must.  But do so on the field of reason and persuasion, not coercion via abominable domestic terror tactics or the jackboot of government law. To quote author Julian Baggini ('The Edge of Reason') again:

"When we give up on reason, the only tool we have left is coercion."

Alas,  coercion violates the very basis of our constitutional system which is one of declared rights, not use of force to attain an end.  This is also why Trump's global gag rule on abortion discloses he has no use for rights, but prefers coercion - like the authoritarian he is. He also - like his premoral supporters- has no real reverence for life, given that gag rule will lead to at least two million more abortions per year, by some estimates. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of more women dying by taking matters into their own hands.

The problem is that in Trump World with its embrace of alternative facts, too few people may accept it. Worse, they may be inclined to sacrifice their reason and treat every tweet issuing from a Trump brain fart as coming from the Oracle of Delphi.

I REFUSE to Believe American Women are THIS DUMB!

Trixie with her only option after a Romney Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

“Idiot America is a collaborative effort, the results of millions of decisions made and not made, to reduce everything to salesmanship. Debate becomes corrupted argument, in which every point of view is just another product- no better or worse than all the others- and informed citizenship is abandoned to the marketplace. Idiot America is the development of the collective Gut at the expense of the collective mind.
It’s what results when we abandon our duty to treat the ridiculous with ridicule. It’s what results when politicians make ridiculous statements and we not only surrender our right to punish them at the polls, but become too timid to punish their ideas with daily scorn – because the ‘polls’ say those ideas are popular…and therefore must hold some sort of truth."- Charles P. Pierce in 'Idiot America', p. 250.


Charles P. Pierce basically 'tells it like it is' in his polemic against the American brand of political idiocy. But even he might be surprised at what new stratospheric heights it's reached in this election cycle. From Romney passing himself off as an economic and military moderate in two debates (hence, too many fail to heap scorn on him and refuse to punish him at the polls) to other outbursts of memetic insanity and pundit foolishness. Such as Michael Barone, in a recent Washington Examiner column, insisting women are more leaning toward Romney (some recent polls, e.g. ABC, show Obama's earlier 16 pt. lead has evaporated- while his lead among women in Colo. and VA has been halved) because they want "a safer choice" and also demand "a reliable grown up".

Meanwhile, a supposed "scientific" study released by the UCLA Psychology Dept. has contributed to the 'judge a book by its cover' meme by making the claim - from its findings- that "GOP female politicians are prettier" than liberal or Democrat politicians. The latter possessing supposedly more "mannish" faces and features.  Some have theorized women are buying into this bollocks and this is helping to tilt more women toward Romney-Ryan.

But I refuse to believe American women are THIS stupid.

Nor do I believe that most American women are so stupid as to buy into the jabber of a female professor highlighted yesterday on the Andrea Mitchell Report. This prof,  after being asked about the Richard Mourdock "God intended it" rape soundbite- argued that truly "things are more complex than just the abortion issue. My students understand that!"

Well, DOH! SO does everyone else with two firing neurons! But that's not the point! The point that seems to have escaped the prof (and many other female voters, especially undecided)  is that the abortion issue as enunciated so radically 2 days ago by Mourdock is the linchpin to grasping the extreme radicalism of the WHOLE GOP ticket and party! In other words, the Mourdock remark (and Romney's support in his ads backing Mourdock, never mind he attempts to divorce himself from it!) translates into a snapshot of how the GOP and Romneyites will govern: to the EXTREME RIGHT!  This will necessarily influence economic policies as well as social, and military!

The trick, for the intelligent woman, is to link all of those together into one whole cloth radical fabric as opposed to piece meal separating them in her mind - and wrongly believing she can ignore the abortion issue but all else will be A-Ok. Sorry, doesn't work that way! The abortion debacle and knuckledragger memes concerning women's bodies are all of a piece with Romney-Ryan's equally radicalized economic issues and how they intend to treat women in that sphere! (Just look at Mitt Romney's avoidance of the Lily Ledbetter equal pay for equal work act.)

Let's even move beyond equal pay for equal work and assume that perhaps many of the married women (who for some reason seem to be most enchanted with  Willard Mitt) don't have a problem. Then, what will they do when their kid comes down with fungal meningitis because Romney cuts even more drug regulations, as his GOP-ers already did with respect to the FDA, eliciting the sort of outbreak from improperly mixed back pain relief drugs we're seeing now?

What will they do after Mitt peels back more food regs - so his "business plan" can prosper, and their kid comes down with E. coli from that next fast food burger, or severe salmonella from consuming peanut butter or whatever? Will they get hysterical if - after Mitt and his GOP congressional stooges lower the clean water regulations- their kid or kids or the whole family, comes down with campylobacter infection? Or perhaps amoebic dysentery?

Oh, and what will they do after Mitt dispatches "Obamacare" and these women won't be able to afford medical care for their kids, especially if getting them into an ER translates into on the spot payments first to a corporate bill collector? Will they be so happy with their "safe choice" then? Will they be enamored of the "reliable grown up"? Or will it finally sink in that an entitled rich boy brat who never grew up can't be a "reliable grown up", period?

And when Mitt, along with his Neocon generals, advisors like John Bolton, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney et al, launch two wars in his first year - one against Syria and the other against Iran - will they happy and content they went with the "reliable grownup"? Will they be happy if and when Mitt imposes a draft (as his military Neocon planners will doubtless insist, because rotating tours won't be adequate for two more wars)   and their ofspring are called up? Will they still love Mitt then, or repent at their leisure?

See, as Charles Pierce points out, these are the pointed questions that must be asked now! If American women aren't prepared to punish this huckster -ass salesman for his bollocks, then someone must, others must! Someone - even a lone blogger- has to be prepared to heap scorn on him and ridicule the ridiculous! Obama did call his ass out, but so far it appears too many are too dumb or too shocked, to take that call out seriously!

If Romney wins, also consider that at least two justices will be replaced by two more conservatives who will ensure that not only Roe v. Wade is overturned but cases like Citizens United continue to be decided wrongly. A vote for Romney is also a vote in favor of a Supreme Court akin to the one that ordered the state of Florida not to determine who really won the  2000 election. It will also plausibly legitimize voter suppression for which we saw outbreaks in over a dozen states this year. (By demanding photo IDs for everyone.) Is THIS what you want?

Lastly, when Mitt blows up the deficit and adds $7 trillion to it - $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion from additional Pentagon spending - how happy will you be then? Will you finally see that the "abortion issue" you took to be one simplistic, isolated  "singleton" was in fact the Skeleton key  to the whole Neo-Neocon Mittster War-Profit agenda? Or maybe the expected 15% unemployment from his folly won't be enough and you will lay blame on Obama (or as some of Romney's Zombies call him "Obummer")

Think hard, very hard! Those sound bites of Mourdock dourly pronouncing on your ability to obtain abortions - whether for self or daughters - is also a heads up on the broad scope of radical Right policies if you are stupid enough to put this miscreant and his vampire Veep candidate in office.

Believe it!

Another GOOPr Fruitcake's Comments Ought to Send Chills Down Women's Spines

Even as we learned this morning that the largest proportion of undecided voters are female, a new direct card has played right into Democrats' hands compliments of a religious fruitcake, and certified Indiana Moron - Rep. Richard Mourdock. Evidently, in the course of a debate with Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) in their final Senate race showdown, a questioner asked them and Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning to explain their views on abortion.

All three said they were anti-abortion. But Mourdock went further, putting himself in the same general territory as the infamous Missouri GOP Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin, who infamously asserted that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape." Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed (wouldn't you know?)state treasurer remarked:

"The only exception I have with abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Something that "God intended to happen"? Are you kidding me?  You are going to claim to me and others with intellect, that your favorite imaginary being up in the skies some place, has conferred his "intent" that the spawn of a rapist -arriving with conception - was an event that this imaginary being "intended"? Are you fuckin' nuts, or just plain stupid?

Let's get our parameters straight here, for once, so that reason can replace this irrational bunkum. The ACT of rape is an act of violence perpetrated against women in which they are overpowered and forced to submit to the will of some miscreant, pervert or mentally- fubarred Neandertal. What this moron Mourdock doesn't grasp - and likely neither do his Moonbat followers - is that rape doesn't end with the penetration and deposit of the rapist's seed. No, it can persist for up to nine months thereafter unless halted!  Thus, a conception from a rape is PART of the act, as is the germination of the seed! Thus, the pregnancy resulting is PART of RAPE unless forcibly halted!

It is the woman's RIGHT, and indeed duty, to halt by any reasonable and medically appropriate method the act of violence (which again - the pregnancy continues) perpetrated upon her body. This is as simple and clear as it gets, without obfuscating the issue with the interventionist "intent" of imaginary beings that aren't even imaginary natural beings but 'supernatural'.

In other words, medically induced ABORTION is the correct method to halt the extended ACT of RAPE. Incredibly this moron twit tried to "clarify" by babbling:

"God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick."

 God does this, God creates that.... babble ....babble...How the hell do you know what this imaginary being wants or doesn't?  The pertinent point here is that if you claim, as you have, that rape is something  "God intended to happen",  then ipso facto you are also claiming (in parallel) that this alleged "omniscient" being also intended the rapist to be "created" before all time, and hence knew in advance the rapist would attack that woman!

Now, follow me on this, Moron - I know it's difficult, if this imaginary confection knew before all time he'd create the rapist, and knew before all time he'd rape the woman and that she'd be impregnated, and by your claim "intended the rape to happen" - then clearly "God" wanted the rape! So, contrary to your bullshit that we are "absurd or sick" for "twisting words", it is YOU that is fucking sick for suggesting that "God intended it to happen" from the beginning!

But see, these morons - like Mourdock - bloviate and call down "God" too readily to parse him or infer his intents when they really don't have a clue what the hell they're babbling about.

Lastly, Mitt Romney tried to distance himself from the remarks - like he did for Todd Aiken's (though in this case a lot faster - probably because he knows any sane woman would take issue and he'd likely lose a vote because a sane woman will also make the connection to the Repukes' platform).  But don't buy it for a second! Romney's  Veep pick, Paul Ryan,  is on the record for voting for a federal version of a personhood amendment which would, in effect, have a consequence even worse that what Richard Mourdock tolerates and prevent ALL abortions, even in the case of  a mom's life being threatened.

Women, especially any Undecideds, beware! THIS is what you're going to get in spades if Ryan -Romney are elected next month. And all they need is one Supreme Court pick to deliver a 6-3 majority in order to overturn Roe. Think of the future, think of future Surpreme Court picks, and think of this most recent 'cat out of the bag' exposing the GOP's plans to control your bodies and lives!