As jack-o’-lanterns, scarecrows and inflatable Sponge Bob Square Pants adorn increasing numbers of lawns across America, Kerwin “I’m your average anti-gay, pro-theocracy classical liberal (with pumpkin meat for brains)” Brown continues to mount a concerted, two-pronged war on basic reason here and the English language there, with neither effort yet emerging as the more egregiously efficacious. The fact that I only bother addressing this guy’s madness about once a month — which is a dozen more such occasions a year than I can rationally justify — means that I can’t even come close to keeping up with his output, so prolific are his salvos fired from some tortured and semisophisticated ganglionic mass that in genetically typical humans would have developed into a fully functional brain. So I will focus on only one of his recent outpourings of malfeasance.
Kerwin is keeping a watchful eye on the great state of South Dakota, where an election next month will decide whether a draconian abortion ban not favored by most state residents but passed into law earlier this year will stand. South Dakota’s elected asscrats saw fit to render illegal every abortion that does not threaten the life of the mother (and even then were hesitant). That’s right; here is a pocket of the great nation of America in which the men in charge have declared that a woman impregnated by a relative or a rapist cannot legally terminate the pregnancy.
I’m pro-abortion. I used to say “pro-choice,” like most everyone else who doesn’t categorically regard therapeutic abortion (TA) as medieval barbarism, but Kerwin’s creativity with terminology has me thinking. If he can label abortion “genocide” and claim that the 1.2 million “babies” “killed” annually in the U.S. via TA represent a far greater price to society than the 3,000 sentient soldiers killed so far in Iraq — or any war, anywhere — then I can reasonably view every TA as a potential interdiction of slag-heap Kerwinian DNA and the forestalling of its propagation through further generations of innocent humanity. And If I ever discover that Kerwin is one of the hottie-flanked scrotes pictured here, I’m going to remark, “this is certainly a curiosity!” and shoot myself in the face with a Bofurs cannon.
That said, I can appreciate and entertain certain consequentialist arguments against abortion, even if I’m not likely to be persuaded by same. It is possible to construct an argument positing that a foetus can claim certain rights automatically afforded to those safely reaching the sunny side of the vagina. But Kerwin and his ilk don’t make such arguments. They don’t even play around on slippery slopes. They define abortion as murder, and having thus solved the whole problem to their own unkempt satisfaction, they close the door to considerations of biology, the likely postnatal disposition of the baby, and so forth.
Kerwin writes: “If we can keep mix our anger with reason and ask for God’s favor then there is a good chance, depending on God’s will, that we will win in the long run even if we loose a few fights along the way.” Despite the tortured syntax, it’s clear, for once, what he thinks — that his ideas mimic the aims of Christ.
In a sanely governed society, there are no faith-based arguments against abortion or anything else that merit anything besides derision in a legislative setting. Claiming that elective termination of pregnancy should be outlawed because a zygote is infused with something called a “soul” at the moment of gamete fusion is no better than saying the number 13 should not be allowed to appear on sports-team jerseys because it’s plain unlucky or that owners of ebony felines should be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for permitting their pets to wander beneath ladders. Yet this hardly stems the bleating of people with Bibles at the ready, and if anything, requesting that gods and goblins and eldritch vapors be left out of the discussion only galvanizes the parochial-minded ever the more. Attempting to reach these folks via reason is like trying to decapitate a hydra.
Barely trailing the “soul”-based anti-abortion view on the stupidity scale is the argument that abortion should be unconstitutional because it’s not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Based on this reasoning, televisions, motor vehicles, antibiotics, computers and countless other entities also not mentioned by the Founders by name would have to go as well. And why do many of these same shuffleheads think the Second Amendment guarantees everyone the right to own a Tec-9? Which leads me to propose my first possibly-false-but-lookin’-mighty-good trilemma of the day: Is Antonin Scalia a liar, crazy, or just a thoroughgoing asshole? All partisanship aside, I can’t believe a SCOTUS justice would say some of the things he did in his debate with Strossen.
But the worst, most ridiculous stance held by strict anti-abortionists is that the rights of a foetus can under any real or imaginable circumstance trump those of the mother. I want someone to explain to me — in legal, metaphysical, or even batshit crazyspeak terms — how it is that people perceive a tumor doubling as a potential human being as having more rights than its decidedly cognizant (if imperfect) substrate. While it is demonstrably true that an immature embryo cannot think, feel or suffer to any greater degree than can a rock, this is moot, for there is no question, ever, that the would-be mother is a fully sentient being. You can tell easily where most abortionist foes are coming from in this area, because when asked how a foetus’ rights could trump those of its escort they make no bones about the mother’s having an abortion — even when the father is a rapist or a relative — being nothing more than “punishment” of the “innocent” baby-to-be, even when circumstances imply that a punishing childhood is a near-certainty. And in the case of a mother becoming pregnant through exsanguineous consensual intercourse who simply does not want the baby, they make remarks which relate solely to a need to punish the mother, not a desire to consider the future infant’s future reality (see below).
Regarding the decision — unfathomable in this century — on the part of South Dakota to grant no abortion rights to victims of rape and incest, it’s one of those things that tempts me to unfairly purge an entire state from my operational memory and replace it with, say, New Brunswick. The whole idea that a foetus shouldn’t be “punished” (and how this is accomplished when the “victim” cannot see, hear, fee or think, much less learn) owing to the sins of the father is so short-sighted that I am convinced that an organism believing as much would not qualify for free-roaming status on a truly advanced planet and instead would be caged for the amusement of putative extraterrestrials. That the destruction of an insensate embryo could be deemed more ignoble than the impact on a pregnant woman’s present and future life is astonishingly backward. Medieval barbarism, indeed — if South Dakota voters do not set right this buncomble in two and half weeks, the visages of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln should be blasted off the face Mount Rushmore and replaced with those D. James Kennedy, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
There is no way people like Kerwin Brown can justify such ideas rationally, so they don’t even try. Instead, they merely yell more and more loudly that abortion is murder and hope that if a sufficient number of brainwashed God-humpers take up the battle cry, enough of this faction will make a frantic zombie-stalk to the nearest voting booth to guarantee another malignant result. The whole “abortion is murder of children” intonation itself is perverse, reminding me of the scene in Fight Club in which a room full of mindless sycophants start chanting “His name is Robert Paulson” and are addled and discomfited when Ed Norton’s character implores them to knock it off.
These are not caring or concerned human beings. They are stupid human beings whose only recourse when faced with a problem more difficult than a word search on the back of a Lucky Charms box is to frame their “arguments” strictly in black and white terms, as they do in other areas. Note that the one and only respondent to Kerwin’s first South Dakota post was this f*cktard of faith, who wrote this enthrallingly inept and bitter diatribe about “dumb feminists” who “should keep [their] damn legs closed.”
Kerwin’s concerned about something he terms “medieval torture,” yet is unconcerned about drawing his morals from a pre-medieval source rooted in a fictional celestial overlord. If I were a woman, I think I’d stalk around the American heartland with a bat knocking on doors and asking, “Is your name Kerwin Brown, Jay from Stop the ACLU, or Highboy?” until I found the right domicile (most likely a halfway house with DSL), which I would then disconnect from the Internet by Albert Pujols-style force majeure. Then I’d leave a huge turd in the front yard.
As a side note, it’s damned funny to see the staunchly homophobic (or pseudohomophobic) Kerwin say with regard to the Mark Foley scandal, “a mountain is created out of a molehill for political reasons.” See how easy political punditry is when you’re at the spastically crab-walking, coprophagic level? All you have to do to esnure the truth of falsity of something is make a statement about it, preferably one involving a cliche you don’t understand. Wheeeeeeeee!