Friday, November 6, 2015

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 4

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment