The Gradual Enervation of My Moral Obligations: To Look Is To See What It Means

I would like to assert my opinion, because that is what I do here.

     Are you Pro-Life? Fine. I do not discredit your stance on the abortion issue, due to the fact that I, for one, am not concretely seated on either side of the spectrum of that debate. See this particular entry for an explicit set of sentences that run together to form the bulk of my opinion on the issue. I'm not going to paraphrase myself, in this instance. My apologies to those who find constant reiteration to be their favourite vice (this may, or may not, include myself, but I'm pleading the Fifth, Goddamnit).
     I do, however, have something to say which very may well tie into a hypothetical entry entitled "What are my views on the death penalty?" This one goes out to all those Pro-Lifers who use a particular form of justication for their viewpoint.

     If you have ever uttered—and believed—the following argument: "I do not support Pro-Choice because I believe that every life is precious," and have also said, with conviction, "I believe firmly in the death penalty as right and just," then I have a gift for you; hint: it's wrapped in hatred, contempt and disgust and even has a fucking bow on top. Furthermore, inside this gift could be something that rhymes with 'Mom' and is spelled a lot like 'Comb,' even though their pronunciations do not share many common traits. Don't get it, yet, ass-ram? Fine, let me clarify:

I would like to bomb you to death.

     Oh? Okay, so you believe that "only God" has the right to take life, so nobody should get abortions? You think that only our Holy Sovereign and Divine Being can truly and rightfully select those who shall die and those who shall live? Life is in God's hands, huh? Fine, fine, I really don't intend to argue that. Or, hell, maybe you're more the secular type and you're just going with a more generic, less deity-related approach to the "Life is Precious" argument? That's cool, too; let it be known that I may refer to you, at some unspecified point in the future, as a "hippy" or "bleeding-heart," but that's because I'm prone to petty slander (and libel!) at the drop of a hat, if it feels funny. Welcome to the generation that brought you South Park: making irrelevant and nonsensical Jew and/or Canadian jokes a revived hobby.
     So, you're going to wave that mighty "nobody's life is your's to take" flag, then you decide to take the soap box out the laundryroom and hoist up a second flag: "Capital Punishment Forever!" Wait, what? What? What? I could re-type "What," with varying typefaces all day and night long, but I'm still fucking confused.

In a word: bullshit.
     In a paragraph: The fuck kind of logic is this, folks? Every, single life on this planet, even that of an undeveloped fetus, is worthy of God's blessing and is not in the hands of Man to destroy, but, hey, let's electrocute people until their brains leak out their ears? Oh! I get it, this is one of those games where no two issues are actually adjacent to one another and, thus, comparisons can't be made—right, fuck you in a particularly unpleasant area of your body, or somesuch expletive.
     Would I be writing this if I didn't see a proliferation of this kind of practice? Possibly. But, I have been noticing a lot of this logic floating around in the great seas of cheese, and I'm taking a passive, insignificant stand right here and now, brotherfuckers. Don't give me this fucking shit, don't shovel me a load full of your homemade, corn-speckled shit and expect me to quietly and politely, with an inexplicable British accent, ask, please sir, for more.
     What this means, and what it comes down to, is that people are either: (a) dirty liars, (b) raging hypocrites, or (c) unable to connect distinct and visible dots between their beliefs. If the only reason you don't support abortions is because taking life is wrong, don't come back a few hours, days, weeks later spouting off about how people need to be brought to true justice and life-imprisonment isn't enough, how we should go back to hanging people in the town squares or whatever. Why, no, I would not like a heaping plateful of your brand of idiotic logic, I'm pretty sure the icing is your ejaculate, sir. (A fourth option, of course, would be: (d) all of the above, by the by.)

     Okay, so, you don't like abortion but it's for more than just the reason that you're not comfortable with lives being taken, even at an embryonic stage? This isn't about you, then, and you're probably just throwing in that little piece of the "every life is lovely" platitude so you can coat over your true, less swallowable beliefs with sugary sweetness. I can deal with this, because I'm used to people being unable to fucking make their minds up about how they Goddamn feel. On the other hand, who wants to argue with even an idiot that babies sure are garsh darn cu-ute, hyuck. Right, ignoring the social and medical implications of the entire situation, if you want to boil it down to that God, or the giant head made of Tofu that lives in your backyard, or Vishnu, Krishna, or Harry Carey's ghost says life is beautiful, then I am not going to argue nor complain about you.

     If I find you holding the "No Abortions, Love Life" trumpet in the "Kill The Bastards" parade, though, I believe I will ram that instrument of political hypocrisy so far into your ear that I can play it out the other side. I will gladly fucking play a little ditty entitled, "Keep Yourself Straight, Make Goddamn Sense." Are they contradicting ideas? Yes, period.
     Given the idea that an unformed, undeveloped, sometimes unsexed blob of proto-person can be accepted as a real, valid person, then why am I supposed to bend over and accept that someone who has committed a heinous crime is no longer worthy of being considered viable? Both ideas are reaching way into the realm of abstraction here, and I don't think anyone can present me with a good argument that two ideas dealing with the philosophical point of the beginning and end of life can be weighed against one another and prove anything. Sure, I will gladly debate the points until I die of an asthma attack, but I'm not even referring to my own, personal views in this instance. I am not going to retardedly plop myself definitively on either side of a fence that is constructed entirely out of fluffy, happy, imaginary, hypothetical clouds of morality.
     What I will gladly do, though, is state that there's no fucking chance you can validate the mutual existence of two viewpoints so fucking paradoxical as "Don't abort 'cause it's life" and "Kill the living 'cause they're ungood, doubleplus even!" It doesn't take a lot of literal dissection to discover how throbbing the wound is on that argument.

     You know what, you masturbatory, moral-majority circle-jerkers? Kiss my fucking ass, because I do support the exhuming of the guilty in the public, and I am partially against frivolous abortions, but does that mean I will lay down such a thick line as "Nobody should take any life, ever, 'cause that's God's job/'cause it's icky." Fuck, no. I would never leave myself so Goddamn open to attack from anyone with common sense.
     How many times have I heard this argument, that it's wrong to take the life of unborn children and it's fine to take the life of convicted felons, immediately before some form of support for war? Do I think war is right? No. Never. War has never been—will never be—right; "necessary," though, is a different subject to be explored. It has come to my attention that the survival of the species does necessitate some revocation of morals at certain times. Maybe you skipped that day in Life Class (God, that is the lamest analogy I've ever made, but it's not a food-related one, at least), but I noticed a long fucking time ago that some shit that gets shit done ain't so shit-hot. In other not-so-vulgar words, people are not always reasonable, and that is the primary and number-one cause of the need to shirk morals in the face of overwhelming, evil-minded opposition.
     What I'm trying to say—or type, or what-have-you—is that your unreasonable and unjustified beliefs share a direct proportionality with the need to lose morality to be productive as a race. That's correct, you heard—read?—me right, I'm saying that your so-called moral stance on these two issues, when held hand -in-hand, are not nearly as "moral" as you may have been lead to believe by your local Baptist priest, and that you, yourself, are contributing to a deterioration of morality in this country, in this world. Everytime someone has to be sat down to paint the picture that one can not say, "Life is precious," then turn around and exclaim, "Hang 'em!" means that another fucking fluffy, cute kitten died, you bastard son of Conservatives and Hypocrisy. If that doesn't make you frown, then, instead, it means another tax loophole that deducts hundreds of thousands from the taxes you owe America is patched—there's an upset, huh, shit-for-fists? (Shit-for-fists . . . Think on that image, momentarily.)

     Can one legitimately defend the death penalty, in my eyes? Certainly, but it involves the acceptance of an idea of the ability to devalue human life based upon an arbitrary, albeit moral, foundation of crime and punishment. And once you have adjusted to that idea, then the defense of Pro-Life based on the selective and unprovable definition of how one can qualify life is out the door. Are unborn children innocent? Technically speaking, sure. So, the leap being made here, which I fervently disagree with, is the correlation of guilt and innocence to "false" and "real" life. The less innocent one is, then the more right we, as a society, have to end their life?
     Morality, too often, is used as a dynamic and manipulative means to a selfish end. "Oh, um, we think it's wrong to kill innocents, but it's cool wit' us if we have to bomb a few children on the way to Saddam's hizzy, fo' shizzy, mah nizzy. Dat's jus' hows we roll, dawg." The justification of taking lives based on innocence makes no sense in the context of war, so it's just fucking ludicrous to not only oppose abortion based on the immorality of taking innocent lives, support the taking of lives based on the justice of punishing the guilty, but also promote the practice of forcibly, violently invading a country because of a potential threat from people entirely unassociated with the impoverished, underprivileged citizens we're going to be shoving missiles down via their throats and, occasionally, anuses. Did I support the Iraqi War? In a way, so I don't want to hear that I'm just a peace-loving hippy. See above statement regarding the need for war, at times.
     My personal views, however, will never serve to undermine the objective and logical stance that Pro-Life, Pro-Capital Punishment, and Pro-War don't mix well. If you can't see what I'm saying, then I'm not certain how exactly you made it this far into this impromptu essay of mine.

     Everything you believe, think, propagate, understand and hold dear and true should cooperate together, work in cahoots, and not be able to be sliced apart by simple, logical analysis. I strive to ensure that my philosophies, principles, and morals don't blaringly clash with one another to form a steaming pile of fucking hypocrisy. Sure, they change, because we change as a race—as a whole, even. Get over it, that doesn't justify outdated beliefs that are past-due for extermination. "Old dogs don't learn new tricks?" Vets practice euthanasia, last I checked . . . Oh, oh, so every life is precious, beautiful, wonderful and lovely, right? Another clause, though, is that the life has to be intelligent (fetuses don't have minds, man)—No, I meant sentience, obviously. Pardon my backtracking and reverse-engineering. You fucking roach-faced maggot-suckers, I ought to pump your ears so full of crickets and locusts that it's like a biblical plague right in your Goddamned face.

I've either made my point, or unmade yours, by now, I hope. Conclusion: bomb Baghdad babies.

Adios