Paging Dr. Huxley. Your patient, Amanda Marcotte is baaaaaaaaaaack. . . February 24, 2007Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Liberal self-loathing, Pandamansanity.
. . .and even more deranged than before.
Claiming that this is a purer argument for pro-aborts to proclaim, Amanda has now gone beyond arguing that abortion is healthier for a woman to now state that it is morally superior to choose an abortion.
The “I’m pro-choice but I think abortion is wrong” thing crops up a lot in these discussions, and while I understand the urge to feel like a complex person that lays behind it, I seriously don’t get why people think that it helps anything to hand wring about how terrible abortion is if you’re supporting the right to have one.
In this, Amanda is showing some intellectual honesty in that there is a fundamental disconnect in the Kerry/Kennedy/CINO logic that states they are “personally opposed to abortions, but support the woman’s right to choose.” She is morally consistent, OK.
So were Hitler and Stalin.
Her moral consistency:
I think that abortion is not only a good thing, but I’d like to posit that it seems to me that in the vast majority of abortions, the choice made was the most moral choice for that woman.
Don’t you just cringe when serial drug abusers score another hit, then stumble around in public with vomit on their shirts and urine staining their crotches, utterly bereft of any sort of awareness that they’ve soiled themselves? With this statement, Amanda just fed her jones again. The worst part of it all is that she is fully aware that she’s soiled herself, and is proclaiming that this is the desired state for her -and other women- to be in.
The key of her position (it’s not really an argument:
To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value. When a woman chooses abortion, she’s not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal. She is probably thinking about her family’s well-being and yes, her own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called “selfish” by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female. In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance.
Taken one step at a time:
To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value.
Inherent in this phrase is another manifestation of her pathological feminism: Women are viewed by most people as somehow less than human. There is no logic here; just an animalisitic emotional appeal.
When a woman chooses abortion, she’s not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal.
Setting aside the second clause, the bold phrase is the key here. She is attempting to set up a straw-man that abortion is reviled in part because it is used so casually. Whether or not a woman is casual in her reaching her decision to murder her baby is immaterial, if not outright oxymoronic. I can’t see how a woman can casually choose to murder her own blood.
She is probably thinking about her family’s well-being and yes, her own well-being.
No one would challenge this, save to say that inherent in this calculus are the needs of the woman herself, and the inconvenience a baby presents. One may pass some of the responsibility off on others, but only a small portion.
Taking your own well-being into consideration is called “selfish” by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female.
Amanda is resorting to snarky disingenuousness here, with yet another reference to her rampant, pathologically paranoid brand of feminism to add spice to the misleading statement.
In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance.
Ah. Here is the meat of it: Standing up to those evil pro-lifers is an act of moral courage; hence, chopping the baby into hamburger “sticks it to the man.”
To worst part of this madness is that her own sycophantic echo-horde has chimed in over 450 times, mostly rabidly in favor of her pathetic argument.
“Felagund” provides a rather terrifying sample of what passes for “thought” amongst Edwards supporters:
I’m not just pro-choice but pro-abortion: I think it should be marketed to people who are too poor, young or emotionally dysfunctional to have children. This means pretty much anyone below $40k/yr, 28-30 years and most of the rich kids I went to high school with. I don’t think people in such situations should have children because children need good homes.
Finrod would severely limit those having children to the young and the wealthy. Francis Galton would love this fellow. He foams on:
I’m not intending to be coercive about this, so do restrain yourselves from pointing out the obvious elitism here: we may be coming from different philosophical standpoints.
That is flat-out intellectual incompetence. Philosophical standpoints have nothing to do with it. Finrod is a rabid elitist and he is a menace to society.
I don’t believe anyone has a “right” to have children, though I don’t think abortion should be forced upon anyone. I would like to see contraception become the overwhelming norm in our society and I’d like to see the idiots who speak out about contraception gagged.
So, while abortion should not be mandatory, contraception, abortion’s fraternal twin, should be mandatory. Consistent, Mr. Felagund is.
Fertility should be a choice one makes after establishing oneself professionally and dealing with one’s emotional issues. For the record, I also think that pre and post natal care ought to be paid for in its entirety by the state, as should all medical care, and that education from pre-K to Ph.D. should also be of the highest quality and free of charge. Abortion is just one of those medical services, and it ought to be provided free of charge or guilt.
Here he is in step with his liberal brethren: Big Government solves all ills.
I also think anyone with more than three kids is an oxygen-wasting douchebag.
At the risk of being snarky, this is just because he’s jealous because he realizes that he won’t be able to have sex more than three times in his lifetime.
But my political positions are generally unpopular.
Gee, I wonder why.
Amanda Marcotte and her slavering devotees, ladies and gentlemen. And we wonder why John Edwards was less than enamored with her?