Daddy's Coming Honey!



A Modest Proposal

I had a couple of ideas for my next installment, but an article I read sparked an immediate interested. Time to flesh out a reaction.

Here is the article
And here is my response:

I am so thankful that Oxford scholars were able to figure out this puzzle, and they have finally made it clear. The taking of an infant’s life before it passes through the vagina is ethically and morally the same as taking an infant’s life after is passes through the vagina. And they take this premise to its most sensible conclusion: if you gotta kill it, kill it. Of course, if you have a C-section, you can kill that human any time you want, because they never pass through the vagina. If a man enters again into his mother’s womb, can you kill him and it not be murder? This keeps Nicodemus up all night, were he a surgeon.

So it is for this reason I propose that any life can be taken when it is no longer legitimate for the good of…well, just about anybody.

And I quote the doctors: “[It’s] not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”. Given that this statement makes perfect sense, and given that I will completely agree with it because it came from a scholar, we must conclude that a) these doctors are mentally retarded, and b) that they are also right, so therefore c) they must be aborted so that d) we can spare them what will certainly be a meaningless existence, and e) we can spare society having to put up with them. Thank you, Oxford docs for being so bold and committed. Your sacrifice will be remembered.

I don’t know why people are so shocked. As Professor Savulescu said, arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”. Why, the kingdom-state of Sparta in ancient Greece made a practice of it long before we did. These people invented democracy, and since we are a democracy, perfect logic demands we would do well to follow their every move. This is madness, you say? This is abortion!

Now, these scholars are misunderstood in their time. We just have yet to see the point they are making. And since they have received death threats, it follows that whenever someone receives a death threat in the mail, they are automatically inducted into the hall of victims and martyrs, and are thus untouchable in the justice of their cause.

But on to my main point. I’m sick and tired of all these liberals and their championing human rights. Oh, just because babies are minorities we should just refuse to abort them when it’s feasible. Just because babies can’t speak for themselves and can’t contend for their own rights doesn’t mean we should give them a voice. If a baby wanted to live it would do things like, I don’t know, attach itself to the mother and consume nutrients using some sort of filtering organ that feeds into a tube that leads directly to its stomach. If a baby wanted to live it would do things like kick around when you injected acid into the womb to abort it. They tried the same stupid argument against the grand old days of vivisection, and now look where we are: You have to anesthetize a dog when operating on it! Animals feeling pain—pah! Mere clockwork.

So yeah, I’m sick of all these liberals and their trying to tell women that they’re smart enough and powerful enough to raise and care for a child. It’s time to go back to our conservative, sound roots: If it’s conceived in a fiscally unstable household, it needs to be gotten rid of. If it was conceived by some lab in a test tube trying to play God, it’s not human and needs to be thrown out. And, most of all, if it was conceived out of wedlock, it’s a curse and must be extinguished.

Just letting babies live and giving them rights just for being here—liberal lies! First they want to overtax the rich to feed the poor, now they want to overtax hard-working money-earners by making them take time off their job to feed some sloppy baby that won’t work for itself.

Worst of all, I can’t stand these liberal, “religious” nut jobs and their consistent arguments. The practice of killing unborn children insults the blessing of maternity, a beautiful feature of womanhood? Pah, I reject such a notion, and eventually I will come up with a good reason why. And why is it that even though they believe in this outdated notion of marriage, whenever a woman becomes pregnant out of wedlock they turn around and help her out, sacrificing even their own time and money? All this nonsense about forgiveness and love—if they had any love for themselves they would let her rot, and if the child rots with her, it’s all her fault.

Oh, and then they go and adopt unwanted children? Uh, excuse me, but if you really don’t like abortion, you won’t feed the unplanned pregnancy machine by adopting all those babies. Those women made their decisions, and their children should pay the biggest part of the price possible.

Look, when a woman gets an abortion, three things are always certain: a)She hates the idea of maternity, b)She hates children, or c)Just wants a career. And don’t feed me this garbage about society pressures and pregnancies that result from rape. Everyone knows that pregnancies can’t result from rape. What’s what? Ok, so they do. Well, you know what? If she was raped, it was clearly because she was flaunting her stuff. Guaranteed, every time. I suppose you’re going to tell me that the violence of abortion coarsens the soul just as the violence of rape and sexual abuse. More liberal lies.

Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard your slippery slope argument before: “As folks become more permissive of abortion, they become more desensitized to its violence, and more likely to devalue the sanctity of human life when other situations arise, allowing folks to consider taking the lives of those deemed less viable for the livelihood of the strong and self-serving.” I suppose you’d also say that if the economic conditions in a place are so dire that desperate men to steal bread for food, that the society itself shares in the guilt of thieves for producing the conditions. The only problem is that this comes from weak people who follow a weak God. My God comes riding in on a golden chariot, theirs would be lucky to grab a donkey.

I bet your version of Jesus stands up for adulterers and makes excuses for why they shouldn’t be stoned. Weak. Your mother was wrong to let you live.

—————————————————
Footnote:
This manuscript was found by archivists researching the American 21st century blogosphere, briefly before the decline of the American Empire state. The genre in practice here is an ancient from known as satire, widely popular to some authors from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first, when it was eventually abandoned. Despite being an industrialized empire, increasingly more Americans came to prefer more rudimentary styles of text they referred to as “picket signs”, “bumper stickers,” and “tweets.”

One operating theory is that, through the use of satire, the author both chastised the actual “liberal” camp for hypocritically not including prenatal humans in their progressive human rights agenda, while also chastising the “conservative” camp for being ignorant, impotent, and ill-equipped to effectively advance the cause of prenatal live-rights in a fashion that would actually persuade the “liberal” camp instead of antagonize them.

This recently discovered text, we shall see, was unsuccessful for a number of reasons:
1) It did not reach many people, as it was the work of an amateur.
2) It belongs to a short-lived genre of literature called a blog, which by its nature was narcissistic (and there is no doubt this author was narcissistic).
3) This particular author was often very crass, and offended people on a regular basis.
4) By refusing to parrot the texts of both the popular camps, he was among many who were ignored by the mainstream culture of that period.

We also know that this author had a child of his own, so our researchers have decided to abandon the search for more texts. Writing about potential humans in a previous century will tell us little we could learn from.

Advertisements

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Comments

  1. * Yvette says:

    You write thought-provoking satire. ha! Now,to get it to those leftist human rights camps that need to hear it! Thanks for sharing your work!

    | Reply Posted 6 years, 9 months ago


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: