Today the “best thing I read today” will be the worst thing I read today, because in it the signs which represent realities (words) have been deployed to represent the opposites of those realities.
I read an article entitled “I Love Abortion”.
The author’s thesis is that for the abortionist to say “keep abortion safe, legal, and rare,” is an unnecessary and even counter-productive effort to find common ground with the anti-abortionist. She insists that abortion is a good thing, even if women do not enjoy the experience of it, and she likens it to chemotherapy or dental work.
The combox there includes a clear and plain expression of the perfect inversion of words and the things they represent, which lies at the logical extremity of the propositions being discussed here:
One commenter asks:
Q: “How about after the birth? Would you draw a line at the birth, or would you (like a couple of medical ethics academics over here in the UK) feel that it should be ok for a woman to have her newborn terminated, entirely at her choice?”
A: “After birth, the infant can no longer have any effect on the woman’s physical health (unless she consents). Meaning, there is no reason for her to have an “abortion” (actually infanticide).
“We’re not medical ethics academics here. We just don’t like seeing womens’ human rights violated.”
Q: “If you would draw the line at birth, why would you?”
A: “Because that’s the point at which the entire reason why a woman should have the right to an abortion comes to an end. Kind of like drawing the line on life-saving medical intervention at death, or drawing the line on calling the fire department at the point when the fire has burned itself out.”
***KIND OF LIKE DRAWING THE LINE ON LIFE-SAVING MEDICAL INTERVENTION AT DEATH.***
According to this person, killing is “kind of like” “life-saving”, and the entrance of a new human being into the world is “kind of like” “death”.