A number of days ago I had one of those agonizing
conversations with a liberal about the government funding for Planned
Parenthood. It was instructive to the person who would study ways to defeat the
liberal arguments. This particular liberal claimed to be very Pro-Life yet he was
completely for the government funding of Planned Parenthood based on the
other services they provide.
I have stated rather openly in my article “The
anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3” that the driving force behind all liberal
policy is to kill people while pretending to help. Here you have just one more
piece of evidence to support that supposition but it is still necessary to look
a little deeper into why this is so; and more importantly how to defeat the
argument. To that end we must first take a look into the issues of morals.
The subject of morals can be frustrating and complicated in
and of itself. There are a lot of different points to consider between the
various secular and non-secular arguments but I think for the most part, the
vast majority of people, regardless of their religion, understand at some
instinctive level what they are without actually putting the words to it. But that
is not to say there aren’t adequate words to convey the basic idea succinctly,
so that the broad masses of people could easily and unambiguously understand
what is being discussed. When Thomas Jefferson wrote these words; “We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” he hit the nail right on the head.
In spite of his invocation of their Creator in this
statement, the words, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” gives us a
simple basis for understanding what morals are in relation to government, quite
independent of any complicating religious factors. It is immoral to unjustly
deprive a person of his life. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of his
liberty. It is immoral to unjustly deprive a person of their ability to pursue
their happiness. For a government to do any of these things is like a solid
punch in the gut to any decent human being.
On the flip side of the argument it is moral to protect life.
It is moral to protect the liberty of people. It is moral to protect people so
they can pursue their own happiness. This is the bedrock foundation of all just
and moral law within the United States or anywhere in the world who understands
basic human rights. It is this sympathy with basic human nature alone that
accounts for the success of our country.
Of those three things I think life is the most important.
You can’t have liberty without it and you certainly can’t pursue happiness
without it.
In the shortest possible form then, moral equals life, and
includes anything that increases life. Immorality then, equals death, and would
also include anything that pushes people closer to death.
So having first answered the moral question we can then
decide the issues of law. Using this line of logic as an observable axiom we
can decide what laws and government programs are moral and which should be cut
out as immoral. And here’s my point; if a person does not resolve the
moral question first they will become quite lost in the morass of trivial arguments,
having no point to orient themselves between the seemingly complex issues of
right and wrong.
Such was the occurrence in my conversation with this so
called “very Pro-Life liberal.” Now I know full well some of what he posted as
an argument can be factually refuted but that’s not the point. A typical
liberal, if he will converse with you at all, will throw an infinite amount of
specious data at you in the hopes of winning by exhausting you. And the
internet has an infinite supply of pure garbage he can throw at you. If you
engage in refuting the myriad of “facts” a liberal will throw at you, you are
going to be bogged down in it without getting anywhere because you’ve abandoned the
moral argument that undercuts them all. You can and will silence him
completely if you simply insist he answer the irrefutable
moral question first.
So let’s take a quick look at what he presented to me:
“Below is a breakdown of all patient care services
provided by Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers in 2010:
·
38% - Testing of and treatment for Sexually
Transmitted Diseases/Infections (STDs/STIs) In 2010, Planned Parenthood
provided a total of 4,179,053 services which
encompassed: STI tests for women and men - 3,552,955 Genital warts (HPV)
treatments - 51,197 HIV tests for women and men - 574,901
·
33.5% - Contraception (including reversible and
permanent) In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided a total of 3,685,437 services which encompassed: Reversible
contraception for women - 2,219,726 Emergency contraception kits - 1,461,816
Vasectomy patients - 3,290 Female sterilization procedures – 605
·
14.5% - Cancer screening and prevention In 2010,
Planned Parenthood provided a total of 1,596,741
services which encompassed: Pap tests -769,769, Breast Exams and Breast Care -
747,607 Colposcopy procedures (for diagnosis of abnormal growth cells in the
cervix) - 41,549 LOOP/LEEP procedures (treatment for abnormal growths) - 2,432
Cryotherapy procedures (treatment for abnormal growths - 1,254, (Planned
Parenthood does not offer mammograms at any of their affiliate health centers
but will refer clients to other local providers who do.)
·
10.4% - Other women's health services In 2010,
Planned Parenthood provided a total of 1,144,558
services which encompassed: Pregnancy tests -1,113,460 Prenatal services -
31,098
·
3% - Abortion services in 2010, Planned
Parenthood conducted a total of 329, 445
abortion procedures.
·
0.6% - Other health services In 2010, Planned
Parenthood provided a total of 68,132 services
which encompassed: Family practice services for women and men - 35,062 Adoption
referrals to other agencies – 841
·
Other procedures for women and men (which
include WIC services -- a federally funded nutrition program for low-income
women, infants, and children up to the age of five -- as well as pediatric care
and immunizations) - 32,229
So here we have, by Planned Parenthood’s own data for the
year 2010, the basis of the moral question needed to smack down the liberal
argument and expose them for the psychotic killers they are. 10,706,150 non-abortion services versus
329,445 dead human children in that year alone. No matter what else they do
they are still killing children at a level that would be considered genocide if
done by any other sector of society. “That’s only 3% of what they do!” the
foaming at the mouth liberal claims.
The moral question is, “How many other services does it take
to offset the killing of millions of human children?” See what I mean? It’s
indefensible when you look at it from that perspective. If the Germans killed a
million Jewish children how many free condoms (at government expense) would they
have to distribute before society would have said; “okay, we can let them off
the hook for that, let’s stop bombing them”? If a person went through a
preschool class and killed twenty children how many free STD services (at
government expense) would he have to perform before society would say; “you
know, he’s not such a bad guy so I think we should give him our money”? Hell,
if one
person were to kill one child in as barbaric a fashion as Planned Parenthood
themselves describe in the procedure for a partial birth abortion, most people
would be for giving them the death sentence rather than giving him their money,
no matter what else that person accomplished in his life.
From that perspective it turns into an argument that goes
something like; “Hey! I killed a child today but I also baked some pies for the
school band’s bake sale. So I got that going for me!” See? It’s ridiculous. But
the important point is liberals can’t possibly answer the moral
question without looking rather psychotic.
Sun Tzu, in the “Art of War” says, “So in war, the way is to
avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.” Point blank, liberalism is
immoral. They are weak at that point. No matter what distraction they throw at
you, no matter what “facts” they present, attack them at that point wherever
possible, be relentless and ruthless at it and don’t let them distract you. You
won’t change the rabid liberal’s mind. Just forget it, don’t even try. The
objective is to win other people over, who are both moral and the vast majority
of human beings, by the rationality of your arguments.
If you do this, while only being careful not to take the
bait, no matter what they say or do to distract you, you will win supporters
while silencing the opposition.
Follow the links below for the rest of the series:
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven
No comments:
Post a Comment