Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Hunting down and eating five years old children

Keep it Safe, Legal, but Rare.

Because for some leftists, some vices are just too tasty to resist.

I can understand how a Catholic would say that outlawing baby killing is not enough, because a serious right to lifer wants to outlaw baby killing for the simple reason of he doesn't want babies to be killed. And so, not only do we outlaw baby killing, but we also do everything we can to provide help for mothers in need to help make sure illegal baby killings likewise don’t occur.

But what doesn’t make the least bit of sense is a Catholic who says keep baby killing legal because outlawing baby killing is not enough. No one who thinks killing babies is murder would want it legal, anymore than anyone who thinks hunting down and eating 5 year olds is murder and cannibalism would want those legal.

Think about it.
Keep the 5 year old hunting season legal, but provide nutritious and tasty alternatives to reduce the need to shoot and eat them. Anyone who thinks shooting 5 year olds is murder would simply not make such a stupid argument. But yet some Catholics say just that when it comes to baby killing.

Which in turn means they are no more Catholic than Catholics for a Free Choice is Catholic because if they actually thought killing babies was murder they wouldn’t make the argument.

Which in turn means Vox Nova, where I have read just such arguments made, is not a Catholic blog. (Which is not to single out Vox Nova, it just happens to be the blog I read for following the latest in leftist group think.) And when they say they are against baby killing they are lying to you, and perhaps also lying to themselves as well.

And if you have any doubt, look at how they treat the various right to life organizations that come under their inspection. Their writings are never examples of correcting a friend, but the nasty viciousness the left reserves for their enemies.

Planned parenthood is “pro-choice” because what “pro-choice” actually means, and what it meant when it was coined, is that girls should not be forced to not kill their babies.

Pro-choice also means supporting the legal right to kill babies. Which is also a meaning Vox Nova supports because that is what the current laws allowing baby killing grants. It's a law that grants the right to kill. Spin it any way you want, it all comes down to they want in place a law which grants a mother the legal right to kill her baby.

A Catholic society means having Catholic laws. And one such law that every Catholic society promulgates is “thou shalt not kill”. Which simply put means that mothers do not have a legal right to kill their babies. And any law that promulgates otherwise is not Catholic, and anyone who support that otherwise promulgation is likewise not Catholic.

Of course some will balk at my example of hunting down and eating 5 year old children, but what is more unnatural? A mother killing her own baby? Or the hunting down of strange children for food? On the natural level a mother killing her own flesh and blood baby is the more gruesome.

Yes I understand all about material versus formal and all the rest. So if anyone wants to grant them material heretic status, please feel free to do so.


April 6, 2011

Until a day ago I had always imagined that Procrustes was universally considered a paradigm example of subordinating a higher good for the sake of a lower good. A subordination extremely obvious to anyone and everyone.

But not so.

It turns out that not only is it not obvious, but it turns out that Procrustes is the father of modern catholic morality because what matters is the end intended while the means are just incidental to the morality of it all.

Have a bed where the guest is a bit too long, pull out the old ax and whack him down to size. Have a toddler who won’t fit through a passage way, dismember the little one and push her through part by bloody rendered part. It’s all good, and quite moral, perhaps even virtuous.

The scene : a cave where a mother and her toddler are trapped in a cave with only enough air for one of them. But there is a very small passage way to the outside world that unfortunately doesn’t let air in, or a toddler out without first dismembering her.

The solution. Push the toddle through the passage way to the outside world, because the means is accidental to the end. After all, what’s intended is not to kill the toddler, but only to move the toddler to the other side of the wall so that there is enough air for the mother.

It’s a paradigm with all sorts of advantages.

All you have to do is intend some end which is good, because the means is nothing more than an unintended, and thus morally neutral consequence. Need money? Just go to the bank where they have loads of it, all you need to do is intend the money and not the theft, the means, i.e. that gun in your hand is just so much unintended consequence. And not intending the theft should be easy because what you want is the money, the theft part is simply accidental to the end.

And I thought my example of eating five year old children was extreme enough that no one would argue with it being a morally repugnant act, only to find out that dismembering five years old children is all good, including eating them, when following the logic to its conclusion even though The Sinner does shy away from cannibalism.

No comments:

Post a Comment