Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Liberally Speaking

Written by 

In 2014, the Democrats then vying for the 2016 presidential primaries condemned torture — enhanced interrogation — done in the wake of 9/11. Enhanced interrogation included abdominal slaps, confinement in small spaces, liquid diets, nudity, stress positions, sleep deprivation, slamming captives against walls, dousing or immersing them with cold water, and waterboarding.

“The United States must not engage in torture,” Bernie Sanders said. “If we do, in an increasingly brutal world, we lose our moral standing to condemn other nations or groups that engage in uncivilized behavior.”

Yet the candidates were unified in their support of abortion, with Hillary Clinton recently claiming that being pro-abortion should be a litmus test to be a Democratic legislator, and Democrat Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley supporting a referendum to allow late-term abortions. This despite the fact that much evidence exists that pre-born infants younger than 20 weeks gestation feel pain, such as the fact that surgeons generally anesthetize pre-born infants before operating on them to keep them from thrashing around in the womb.

The presidential contenders are not outliers: According to Pew Research, 75 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be legal in at least most cases.

The incongruity between the Democrats’ positions is remarkable: On the one hand, they say we shouldn’t torture adults, which though painful is not meant to cause long-term injury or death, because it reflects a loss of morals and is “uncivilized” — though many of those tortured are murderers — and on the other hand, we can kill little humans (often by chopping them up) because women should not be inconvenienced by having babies they do not want, though the infants are guilty only of being conceived, which is not their fault.

So that brings up the question: To harmonize their ideals, which should liberals do: be against abortion or be for torture?

Well, that is best answered by seeing what else Democrats/liberals have to say. At, the official site of the Democrat Party, it says about rights: “Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

Photo: Thinkstock

This article appears in the November 6, 2017, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.

Since Democrats are against both age and disability discrimination, killing little humans should not be OK simply because they are very young and not capable of surviving without their mothers’ support system.

Democrats also promote “ending violence,” especially violence against women, because “everyone deserves a safe environment where they can … thrive.” But abortion is extremely violent, and done to girls (little women), and includes literally twisting infants’ limbs off and then crushing their skulls, cutting holes in their heads with a scissors and then sucking their brains out with a vacuum, and using drugs to starve the babies of food, liquid, and oxygen.

Conversely, while stopping abortions would be consistent with Democrats’/liberals’ professed concern for all peoples, advocating for torture would not. Torture is violent, and often it is done to innocent, foreign victims, thereby discriminating against people based on their “race, ethnicity, national origin … [and] religion.”

Logically speaking, if liberals are sincere in their beliefs, they should be both against torture and against abortion.

In rebuttal, the refrain “my body, my choice” is invoked, or pre-born infants are deemed just a mass of cells called a fetus. These claims run against other liberal beliefs, such as “gender discrimination,” and they display more illogic.

There are two types of obligations, contractual and naturally occurring. When women have sex with men, there usually is no contract, rather there’s an implied obligation, which includes the man agreeing to only do what the woman allows. Yet liberals disallow the implied obligation between the two to jointly accept sex’s consequences, stopping men from having a say in whether a pre-born child lives. In other words, women are being granted superior status to men — sexism. Also, there can only be a naturally occurring obligation between a woman and her unborn child in which she agrees to take care of the child when she agrees to conceive it — risks conception through sex.

Most liberals, of course, deny the humanity of the being, calling it a “fetus.” But the humanity of the “fetus” is undeniable: It will only grow into a different size and shape human, with better thinking abilities (we hope). And just as in large-size humans, where being misshapen (such as becoming morbidly obese) doesn’t vacate a right to live, nor does the inability to care for oneself (think Stephen Hawking), nor does the fact that a human is a drain on individuals in society (think welfare recipients) make life optional, neither should the inability to survive outside one’s mother make one’s life expendable.

To support abortion, a liberal either needs to torture logic or be OK with torturing humans as a group. Is either acceptable?

Photo: Thinkstock

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Affiliates and Friends

Social Media