The Infallible Logic of a Feminazi

Today's column:

Disgraced blogger Amanda Marcotte, who “resigned” from the Edwards campaign after he was alerted to a few of her ramblings not re-printable in a paper like the Lode, is up to her usual. Miss Marcotte has decided to summon all of her faculties to argue that abortion, far from being simply a necessary evil, is a moral good. She writes:

To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value. When a woman chooses abortion... she is probably thinking about her family’s well-being and yes, her own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called “selfish” by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female... Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.

Actually, I would argue that the forty-five million aborted American babies who died nameless and disgracefully so that women could assert a right to choose would agree with me that women seldom accurately weigh their choices and thus seldom make the most moral one. No surer proof of the folly of the nineteenth amendment exists than the littered corpses whose number far surpass those of Hitler and his Nazi Party. As Vox Day once observed, “Calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to National Socialism.”

Back to Marcotte's argument. Abortion is moral on the grounds that it “helps women and families” and that “valuing yourself is a moral good”. There are two problems with this line of thinking, if we may deign to call it such.

First, her two premises are false. Killing a member of one's family will make it easier to pay the bills and so forth, but only the cretins who judge everything in economic terms, like the plutocrats and the Communists, would be so silly as to fall for such a monstrosity. And while valuing oneself is a moral good, it should never be treated as the supreme moral good. Any moral code which begins and ends with self-valuation ends in nihilism and despair, as did Nietzsche with his will-to-power. The foundation of any good moral system must include some provision for the treatment of others; and no, aborting others is not a moral good.

But even if we pretend that the premises are true, it will be easy to find hundreds of examples which allow for other “moral” acts. A rapist need only explain that he values himself, and that raping someone—especially a feminist—is good for him and his family and he shall be allowed to rape away.

An even more exact parallel exists. Let us take a typical American father, happily married to his wife, who works hard to support their three children. One day, he is laid off from work. Upon arriving home, he calls a family meeting. No longer able to support his family, even with his wife's salary, he decides that they must off one of the children. It is, admittedly, an unfortunate thing for the boy—or girl—who draws the short straw, but the family will be better off with one less mouth to feed. The two lucky children promise to keep the grave adorned with fresh flowers.

Amanda, like most feminists, is a sophist through and through. She wants to be able to have sex whenever she wishes, and she wants to be able to choose when, if ever, she has children. But when birth control doesn't control birth, something must be done. Thus abortion must exist. The moral construction which allows for this is actually irrelevant. Childish and immature, Amanda wants what she wants, and will allow nothing, certainly nothing so silly as reason, to prevent her from getting her way.

Debating with those who think like Amanda, who care not for truth, is nothing more than a waste of breath. It is of as much use as arguing with a National Socialist. Open derision is the best and only dish to serve feminazis. And Caina awaits those treacherous to kin.