Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

A Surprising Admission from the Left

▼

A Surprising Admission from the Left

from JoeUser Forums

I logged off the computer yesterday in utter outrage. I had considered adding a JoeUser to my permanent blacklist for what was said. After some "cool down" time, I have decided against tht option, but remain no less peeved.

The person in question, was, at least honest. Many of the left don't even meet THAT standard.

The offense was by a person who labelled a baby a "parasite". That this person woul have such utter disdain or contempt for human life puts the person, in my opinion, on a philosophically equal plane with Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Ted Bundy, and any number of other deviants. They basically reduced an abortion to the equivalent of giving a pet a flea bath, and offended the sensibilities of anyone slightly to the left of Margaret Sanger.

I have written article after article on how the left has turned away many of its potential supporters with the hideous agenda they insist on pressing. It is not only not moderate, it leaves many moderates clamoring for a conservative backlash to their opinions, and upsets any sort of balance we might hope to have in politics. Not only that, it undermines the legitimate arguments of the more moderate left who do not share such contmpt for human life.

I have always prided myself on respecting a number of diverse opinions, but I do not respect this one, and will NEVER respect this one. I have lost all respect for the blogger in question over this, and the only reason they are NOT blacklisted is the same reason I don't think the KKK should be censored: people need to see that ugliness, if only to understand the TRUE agenda of some of these militants.

Personally, I wouldn't be so inclinced to lump this person with the left as much as with a sociopathic mindset, if it weren't for the fact that the left is utterly silent when outrageous statements such as this are uttered.

politics
9,689 views 37 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
*lol* All I can say is you are the Dave Kingman of bloggers, Gid. A backhanded compliment? Nah, most guys with 400 taters are in the HOF. I coulda gone with Rob Deer

Respectfully,
Shoeless David St. Hubbins
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually were not parasites. In the Matrix, Mr. Smith has an interesting take:

AGENT SMITH: Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

AGENT SMITH: There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.

Just a thought.


We can't be viruses, because viruses aren't technically living creatures, and they don't reproduce on their own and lack many other traits of what constitutes living.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about a cancer then? Reproduction and it has somewhat a life of it's own.

IG
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
its just the erosion of our values,,, we are getting to jaded and no longer hold dear the traditions we had. This is a general staement that does fit some people, not all,, just some.soon america will become so non traditional there will be public exacutions played on television, in slow motion with replay.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
soon america will become so non traditional there will be public exacutions played on television, in slow motion with replay.


I shudder at the thought. I dearly hope my values will never erode, and I can continue to believe in what I think is right.

I support a women's right to choose, but calling a baby a parasite? That's just evil.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
soon america will become so non traditional there will be public exacutions played on television, in slow motion with replay.


Well.. this is certianly not a leftist idea... so I don't know where you are coming from.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is, however, an interesting difference of opinion between the pro-child crowd and the no-child crowd. There are many of us no-childers who don't have children because we feel like they would be an overwhelming drain on time and resources -- and instead of having children we might someday resent, we instead choose to practice reproductive responsibility and never conceive in the first place.

As pro-choice as I am, I have always frowned at the idea of "abortion as birth control." My reasoning isn't that I think abortion is murder, although I admire people like Gideon who can maintain some spiritual/ethical/moral problems with the practice and still support choice. I've just always thought that preventing a pregancy is far preferable to aborting one. For example, due to some medical problems and our desire not to have children, my wife and I have practiced various means of contraception, and now she has had a tubal ligation to prevent pregnancy. She's never had to have an abortion, and there is an infitismal chance she ever will have to.

The "parasite" idea is, to me, a harsh reaction to an overwhelming view in society (and not just US society by any means) that people who don't procreate are somehow "selfish." I don't think I'm selfish at all, rather I feel like we made the best choice for us. Unwilling to do the heroic work of being parents, my wife and I decided it would be better to have none rather than be the type of parents who didn't do enough for their kids.

The choice of wording was perhaps poor, but I understand the sentiment that possibly motivated it. Having been raked over the coals for years by family and friends for not procreating, an irrational attitude tends to develop. I find both sides of this discussion fascinating, though, so I hope the thread keeps going.

Cheers.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #28 By: InfoGeek - 1/25/2005 5:19:28 PM
How about a cancer then? Reproduction and it has somewhat a life of it's own.

IG


Nope cancers can not be an *independant* organism. Host dies, so does the cancer.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

There are many of us no-childers who don't have children because we feel like they would be an overwhelming drain on time and resources --

And that is a valid choice. The choice to procreate is equally valid, so long as one is willing to support their children. If everyone took the "no child" approach (even if the majority did), we would experience a crisis within 40-60 years of an aging population without an adequate younger population to provide for the needs of the aging population (nursing, medical care, etc, which could well take a back seat to other interests of society), and the quality of life of our elderly would greatly suffer. So there needs to be balance between the two views.

I agree wholeheartedly that PREVENTING pregnancy is far better than abortion, but my chief reason for being "pro choice" is as follows:

Morally, I believe the only times an abortion is justifiable is in cases of rape or incest. But if we allowed that legal standard to prevail, the consequences could include young men unjustly accused of rape so that a woman could have an abortion, as well as added trauma to those women who ARE victims of rape or incest to go through the legal process to get a court order for an abortion. It is chiefly in the interests of the rights of these women (and the rights of the minority of men who might have to be concerned about an unscrupulous woman making false accusations that could taint them for life) that I believe abortion should remain legal. I don't believe it's a "victimless" crime, as an unborn baby with no voice constitutes the ULTIMATE victim, but neither do I believe legislation to prevent abortions is a practical approach (as an experienced herbalist, if abortions did become illegal, I know of herbs that could assist a woman in aborting a baby at an early enough stage).

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
And that is a valid choice. The choice to procreate is equally valid, so long as one is willing to support their children. If everyone took the "no child" approach (even if the majority did), we would experience a crisis within 40-60 years of an aging population without an adequate younger population to provide for the needs of the aging population (nursing, medical care, etc, which could well take a back seat to other interests of society),


Well... there is going to be that crisis anyways.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #36 By: sandy2 - 1/26/2005 2:50:56 PM
And that is a valid choice. The choice to procreate is equally valid, so long as one is willing to support their children. If everyone took the "no child" approach (even if the majority did), we would experience a crisis within 40-60 years of an aging population without an adequate younger population to provide for the needs of the aging population (nursing, medical care, etc, which could well take a back seat to other interests of society),


Well... there is going to be that crisis anyways.


I think your misunderstanding what they're talking about. He's NOT talking about lack of money. He's talking about lack of professionals to do the work.