Socialist’s lack morality and
intellectual ability
When Is a Person Not a Person?
By Barry Napier Saturday, January 23, 2010
Socialists have the most incredible lack of intellectual
ability, and they lack the most basic tenets of morality. Why is this? It is because their
lives are predicated on political philosophy rather than on facts and truth. That is how
the Kenyan, Obama, came to be the Great Pretender in the White House. In essence, he spoke
well, but didn’t have an ounce of truth about him. Yet, people voted for him, to the
astonishment of more rigorous minds.
The current position on the killing of babies is yet
another example of this lack of moral and intellectual ability, not just on the part of
those who kill, but also those inept persons who judge. It is not that they are
unintelligent. They have intelligence sufficient to judge properly. What they lack is the
intellectual attitude and moral uprightness to tackle the situation.
The Loophole
Recently, a young mother in Virginia delivered her baby in
her own home, and then smothered it with a pillow. Any young mother, unmarried and
unsupported, can panic and become emotionally fragmented. But, she still knows what she is
doing and knows murder is wrong. The judge who heard the case decided not to prosecute.
Any judge should show compassion in certain cases. It is
quite possible the girl felt alone and was filled with despair. Judges can always show
mercy in cases of manslaughter. But, where the killing is deliberate murder, it should
attract the death penalty. Liberals, however, are shocked by such a thing! And so the
worth of human life is cast into the mud. There is also the Christian angle, where murder
requires the death penalty according to God, no matter what state the mind is in. But,
even if we ignore the Biblical answer, there is still the matter of human contempt for
life.
The judge who refused to penalise the mother for murder,
spoke of a loophole in the law. The ‘loophole’ is that a mother can do whatever
she likes with her baby, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached. Why not have a
bit of fun? Why not swing the baby by the umbilical cord around your head and bounce it
off the walls until the cord severs and the baby is just a bloodstained lump of dead pulp?
I think this illustration proves the invalidity of the umbilical cord idea!
This repugnant ‘loophole’ remained even after an
earlier mother shot her baby whilst it was still in her womb. Police sought action, but
liberals did not act; they said they didn’t want to be ‘involved’ because
it was “too close to the abortion issue.” In other words, they didn’t want
to invoke the wrath of immoral atheists, which is no excuse to avoid making just
decisions.
Not Failure – Just Repugnant Thinking
Many groups legitimately see this as a failure in law. It
is far worse than that – it is a deliberate policy decision to allow for killing, by
socialist governments and law-makers. And, because it is based on philosophy, no person
should have the right to impose it on others, who may have other philosophical or
religious beliefs on the matter.
Section 18.2 of the Virginia penal code says it is only a
crime to kill the ‘fetus of another’. This is a very deliberate and obvious
avoidance of the abortion issue, the hot potato of all liberals, who, like Roman emperors,
want to see the streets lined with dead babies they insist on calling ‘fetuses’.
The idea to refer to an unborn baby as a ‘fetus’
is arbitrary. It has no actual basis in fact. Rather, its basis is philosophical. Once a
legal decision is based on philosophy alone, it will contain ‘loopholes’, kept
there so that those of liberal mind can use it to their own advantage… both
perpetrator and judge.
It is a stark and glaringly awful fact that to say one can
be taken to court for killing the fetus of another, is to create precedence for the
killing of one’s own child. It also creates the precedence for killing any person of
any age.
Lane v Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1978, this case led a judge to make an unjustified
decision – that one cannot call a baby a ‘person’ unless it can live
independently of its mother. This was both immoral and extremely philosophical, not legal.
Yet, it set the precedent we see today, and so abortion-on-demand is rife.
In the Lane case, the judge said that because the
umbilical cord was still connected, the mother could kill the baby, even though it was
breathing. This was stunningly outrageous, and it was amazingly stupid. The judge was
liberal and decided to swing the law in the direction of socialist theory. That is what it
was all about. Any first year law student could have pronounced on its illogicality and
its consequences! But, these were factored-in by the judge, because it was a desired
socialist end – to allow murder, or, an extended form of abortion.
Illinois and Missouri states have now corrected that
loophole. Five other states have cases pending but will not prosecute, because they keep
the loophole in place. This is probably because the czars appointed by Obama will overturn
their decisions anyway, if they go against the idea of abortion. Obama wants abortions of
any variety, in large numbers. It is what communists do.
Virginia Senator Newman is trying to get the law changed,
regardless of umbilical attachment: Bill SB602. We will know the results in a few days
time.
Who Is ‘Independent’?
The loophole will be widened if Obama gets his way,
because he is an open fan of infanticide. But, those who are prepared to support him are
backing other applications of that law. For example, how to determine who is independent
of their mother? It is a short legally-possible step from umbilical cord to dependence in
other ways, and any sharp lawyer can create his own precedents from it.
What of a toddler? Can he live independently of his
mother? Maybe for a few weeks until he starves to death! What about an older child with
physical deformities or ailments that require constant attention? He is totally dependent.
What if he comes down with a serious illness? What of middle-aged people who have dementia
and who depend on their elderly parents? What of a husband who has a stroke and his wife
leaves him… and he is cared for by his mother? The precedents can stretch to all of
life. And that is why the ‘loophole’, a deliberate one left there by liberal
socialists, must be plugged. An umbilical cord is not the only form of dependency!
A baby at any age is another life. To deny it is to be
intellectually inept and morally defunct. Precedents would swing on what is a ‘person’
and what is meant by ‘independence’. As today’s societal degeneration
proves, immoral decisions will be based on an unethical definition made by socialists,
whose mindset is atheistic.
The apparently unconnected issue of umbilical cords can
easily transfer in principle to any form of dependence, whether on mother, state or some
other newly-defined condition. What of dependence on the state? Or on drugs? Any of these
seemingly unconnected conditions can be used by an unscrupulous lawyer who wants to create
precedent in support of his political or philosophical stance. Watch out for this kind of
law-changing when Obama’s czars get into full swing!
Relativism – The Dud Approach to Life
When legal decisions come down to philosophical theories,
it means there is no fixed answer. That is why most socialist ideas rely on ‘relativism’.
It is an attitude to life that refuses morality, refuses to penalise murder, and refuses
to acknowledge that anyone other than yourself has a right to life.
It also refuses to accept there are absolutes, which, in
itself, is an absurdity. In a debate long ago, a socialist atheist said to me: “
There are no absolutes.” I replied “But that very statement is an absolute!”
He could not answer!! This is because, to deny the existence of absolutes, socialists have
to force other absolutes upon us.
This is what makes the socialist vision of abortion and
killing of others a farce of justice, thought and morality. They cannot, by intellectual
or moral means, defend their position. But, as always, someone with the power can make
atheistic decisions and no-one can do anything about it, at least not in the short-run.
(Raw ‘power’ is not the same as deserved ‘authority’).
It has been said that morality only exists where there is
Christianity. This is not correct, for every person knows what is generally right and
wrong. It is this inward knowledge that causes them to be so violent and abusive in their
defense. They hate to have their arrogant choices shown for what they are. Yet, relativism
is without defence in truth, even though ‘truth’ does not exist in relativism!
Because of socialism, we now have a pandemic of HIV and
AIDS, ever rising STD’s, pregnancies amongst young girls, overwhelming illegal
immigration, a lowering of educational standards, more violence and murders, economic
failure, intolerance of Christianity, deaths of older people living alone, overarching
green policies, immoral and wicked youth, and more. Socialism is the cult of less and harm
to more. Babies are only a start for liberals!
We are in this mess because we allowed lunatics to take
over the asylum. Too many people are scared to voice their views, so socialists gain
ground and spread their absurd ideas everywhere, without need to explain themselves. They
then claim right-thinkers are foolish. Garbage!
Don’t be afraid of liberals, socialists and atheists
(who are usually the same person) – they are only expressing stupid ideas! Your view
is just as valid, if not more so. Pursue them relentlessly, just as they have tried to
pursue you. They are bullies without ability to use their brains. And it shows in the
decisions they make.
|
‘The Global Green Agenda’,
Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
Foreword by Dr Tim Ball.
ISBN 978-0-9559908-1-6 Available Amazon and book stores
|
