By John Mallon

Liberalism, or what is has become, is quickly becoming an anachronism. Whatever moral highground it attempts to claim is belied by the intellectual and moral impoverishment of "political correctness." This impoverishment is becoming more and more evident to anyone who has not yet lost the capacity to think. It is not that political correctness has run amok—it has always been amok. Political correctness is liberalism run amok, intolerance in the name of tolerance. Liberals in the 60s loved to warn about the prophecies of George Orwell and Aldus Huxley but are now the very folks making them come true. They did not learn the lessons of Animal Farm.

Getting old also comes as a shock to the baby-boomers, especially the radical don't-trust-anyone-over-30 crowd, who are stunned when their children's youthful rebellion takes the form of political conservatism and religious orthodoxy. It is a shock that their children are not grateful for the chaos bequeathed to them.

Yes, the baby boomers were indeed the younger generation to end all younger generations, and pretty much reached that goal by institutionalizing legal abortion and widespread contraceptive use.

Now we have the Huxleyian spectre of human cloning. Is it any wonder that some of the young run around in "Gothic" garb, as science approaches the fulfillment of the Frankenstein legend of La Belle Epoch of a century ago?

Liberalism run amok—political correctness—fulfills another literary prophecy. It was Flannery O'Connor who said "When you govern by tenderness, tenderness leads the gas chamber." Were she speaking today, Miss O'Connor would probably have used the word "compassion" in place of "tenderness," because governing by "compassion" has certainly led to the abortion chamber. That abortion is an evil, or at the very least, not a good, is written on the human heart. But today, as in other times, the voice of the human heart—the voice of conscience— is profoundly muffled and "political correctness" has emerged in its place as a ersatz morality to drown out the muffled but nonetheless restless voice of conscience.

Whether the pillow used to smother the voice of conscience and obscure what human beings do to one another is called "compassion," or "the good of the Fatherland" or "racial superiority" it is flexible according to the times. The uneasy conscience perhaps explains why the politically correct liberal is obsessed with accusing innocent people of racism should they hold different political views. It is all too human to accuse another of what we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves, that we, too, can deny another's humanity, rationalize, and kill.

Disregarding history, liberals of today take credit for all advances in civil rights over the last 50 years, but obsess on this because there is little else they can take credit for that doesn't require one to become a relativist. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a connection between the irrational need to accuse others and the smothered voice of one's own heart.

When a modern person views photos of the Nazi death camps or the lynchings of American slavery, they rightly cry, "How could they do it?" "What were they thinking?" For the prolifer the answer is simple albeit profoundly politically incorrect. Namely, it is the same blindness to the humanity of another, and the rationalization that allows many today to be unmoved by photos of aborted babies and lets them coldly dismiss such evidence as propaganda, and continue to support the horror. Slaveholders and perpetrators of the Nazi terror were well able to view themselves as decent, even moral folks. But history, thankfully, views them differently.

Whether the suffocating pillow rationalization is called "a woman's right to choose," or "the good of the Fatherland," or "ethnic cleansing" it remains the next step in the continuum of genocide that rears its ghoulish head every few decades in a new disguise until everyone seems to wake up at once to the horror and condemn it.

A tipping point is reached and a culture-wide awakening takes place, scales fall from the culture's eyes to the horror it has countenanced, and cries of "Never again!" ring out, until the next genocide comes along.

The devil knows his business. A sterile looking clinic seems a far cry from the filth of the death camp, but the activity is the same. The innocent are killed and the lovelessness is called by a noble sounding name. Evil is good. Good is evil.

It is easier to look back at the atrocities of the past through the lens of today's sensibilities and wonder "How could they do it?" and refuse to recognize our present day blindness that allows the killing to occur in a different guise due to high-sounding excuses.

I predict that around the year 2050, the common sensibility will be to look back at the abortion years in anguish and say, "How could they have done it?" "They had photographic proof! How could they have been so blind as to allow that to be done to another human being?"

How indeed.

nice!

Probably.

Whatever, the only difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals admit their shortcomings and try to correct mistakes and conservatives pretend that they never do anything wrong and use their fake "moralism" to bulldozer any and all competition. Fucking hypocrites!

That isn't a "liberal/conservative" issue. Clinton was great for never admitting wrongdoing (at least until DNA evidence was about to out him).

I think that's a character issue, and people on both sides of the political fence have those.

I am sad that Clinton never came clean on that ... well, at least not while he was President, but then that had considerably less effect on other Americans than fake war, gutting medicare, etc ...

I've found that the American public is HUGELY forgiving of individuals who admit to wrong doing and ask for forgiveness. Of course, I'm basing that on celebrities, actors, and musicians, b/c I don't know of a politician who has ever done such a thing.

No, what Clinton did certainly wasn't as affecting as a war, but as you stated at the end, you don't know of a politician who has ever done such a thing, so it really isn't a left/right thing.

I don't know of any politician with a soul, so maybe that's the problem.

i will require more proof other than 6 posts to know it is indeed mr squirrel before i actually make a welcome back shithead thread in his honor

If you want to call abortion "murder", that's one thing, because in a sense, I suppose it is. But abortion is NOT "genocide", and it's insulting to make that correlation.

I'm sorry, but to me, living in the 'abortion times' is a hell of a lot more welcoming than the 'abusive times'.

Let us not ignore that an aborted child is an unwanted child. And don't give me the adoption argument. If people were so keen on adoption, women wouldn't be spitting out litters of un-naturally concieved children like puppies.

Personal opinion, of course - but I'd rather not live with a feeding tube shoved in my gut for 15 years, and I'd rather not live at all than be beaten, neglected, abused or worse for most of my life.

Yay! Another abortion debate!

I like when people say that all aborted children would be abused or neglected. I'd wager that at least 25% of the people posting on this board were unplanned. Were we all beaten or neglected?

Teach people to be responsible with their reproductive abilities and their won't be any need for abortion. I think abortion is a direct reflection of the overall stupidity that's rampant in our society.

See, now I think it is a direct reflection of our lack of personal responsibility and selfishness. Go figure.

I agree completely that the "abused or neglected" argument is one of many examples of wasted fucking time in the abortion debate. It'd be nice if we could just throw the following the fuck out:

1. Abuse/Neglect. This is far too expansive and assumptive a statement, and, to be honest, it's fairly irrelevant to the legalities of abortion even if it's true.

2. Adoption. It is true that this is an alternative to abortion, but the existence of alternatives to any situation is a given. The question that ultimately is being answered is whether elimination of a fetus qualifies as murdering a human. Adoption can be like abstinence...emphasize it, talk to teens about it, yadda yadda, but if you want to pretend it's the sole answer, have fun being an idiot.

3. Religion. Pluralistic society or not, religion has been the forerunner of this debate. This makes sense...a religious system survives via procreation, and most emphasize in one way or another having babies. Catholicism historically was very successful at maintaining growth this way. The fact of the matter is, though, that if one argues against abortion in the name of a god that murdered the sons of Egypt for their parents' sins, then one should also be arguing that giant humans existed in ancient times and that no insect has more than 4 legs. Look it up.

Actually, ignore the raving there...I simply find it ineffective and ineffectual to argue religiously for or against this, because you immediately disenfranchise too many people.

4. Pictures or stories. Ok, so a tiny fetus has limbs and reacts to sound. Ok, so a girl had a baby she didn't want and died during the birthing process. These are both emotionally jarring, heartbreaking statements. But they are substanceless, in terms of debate-value. They get us nowhere. They just make us madder and madder until nobody listens to anybody else.

My opinion has been and will be that science ought to be the guide in this. Where does complex thought begin to occur? Decision-making? Awareness? Prior to that, as far as I can see, what we have is a potential human, still developing. The body rejects these all the time.

Stupidity is at the bottom of it all. Why wouldn't someone be personally responsible? Because they are stupid. Selfishness comes in after the fact, once someone is pregnant and they decide on abortion as the solution. If they hadn't been stupid in the first place and used protection or whatever, they wouldn't have gotten into trouble in the first place.

If people would take some responsibility and teach their kids about sex instead of just ranting against it, pregnancy rates would drop.

If people would stop being so selfish by refusing to think that other people may see things differently than they do and that those people have a right to live their lives the way they chose, than abortion wouldn't even be a debate. It would just be safe, legal, and available.

I doubt this. I mean, even people that support a woman's right to choose aren't 'pro-abortion.' Let's face it, abortion, especially in the later stages of development, is a horrible thing. It's not some banner to wave around with pride or anything.

maybe in six more posts I'll make a fuck off jerry thread

hey warren, nice of you to join us