THE Global Justice Movement Website

THE Global Justice Movement Website
This is the "Global Justice Movement" (dot org) we refer to in the title of this blog.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

One, Two, Three: You’re Out

Wearing our “for-profit hats” (Equity Expansion International, Inc.), with a couple of nods to CESJ, we returned last week from a “retreat” in Cleveland, Ohio, meeting with members of a new start-up company who seem very interested in implementing the Just Third Way.  We also met with a professor at John Carroll University . . . getting caught in a hailstorm with tornado warnings, but that’s another story. . . .

Anyway, it turned out that the wife of the president of the new company volunteers as a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center, or pregnancy crisis center, or something like that.  We were talking, and it turned out that (at least according to her) she was prohibited by law from saying or implying that an abortion kills a baby or anything else.

Now, this doesn’t seem right to me.  The “pro-choice” people are permitted to make all kinds of statements regarding the presumption that a baby can endanger and even kill the mother.  This allegedly justifies killing the baby first, apparently in self-defense against the bloodthirsty beggar.

And that’s when the murderous tyke is unarmed.  Can you imagine what the ferocious fetus would do if he or she got hold of an assault rifle?  Or a bayonet or machete?  Probably carve his or her way out through a wall of living flesh.  Can’t trust those little devils.

Anyway, the counselor mentioned an incident where a woman who had four children was pregnant again, and said she couldn’t handle another child.  So I asked about a potential loophole in the law.  She couldn’t mention that an abortion kills a baby (just endangers or kills a mother), . . . but did that cover slaughtering any of the post-birth kiddies?  Could the counselor just happen to mention that if the mother bumped off one of the children she had allowed to be born, she would still have only four children?

This actually raises some interesting issues.  Slaying children after the third trimester might sound a little messy, possibly even cold, but consider the advantages.  A pre-born infant is full of potential.  A post-born child is, frankly, usually a mess, especially if he or she is the oldest.  The parents often haven’t gotten the hang of the thing yet, and the kid shows it.

Post-birth abortions would go a long way toward solving this problem.  Parents should consider having a few practice swings, as it were; sight in the rifle, so to speak.  If one or two of them turn out okay, great.  Those are keepers, but you just might do better on the third, fourth, or fifth try.  If parents have the energy, they can even keep trying until they have the perfect family.

Then there’s the salutary effect the discard pile can have on the surviving children’s behavior.  Piss off Mommy or Daddy, and you’ll get a new brother or sister . . . to replace a loser like you.  Parents won’t have to nag the rug rats to do chores or work hard in school.  Knowing what happened to Stevie or Cindy-Lou will provide all the incentive they require to mow the lawn or keep those grades up.

It’s at least worth considering.

Isn’t it?