Abortion and the left: a perverse extremism that labels those who reject it as 'extremists'

@ElentirENG ES 6·25·2023 · 17:47 0

The left has long experience trying to expel from the democratic game those who do not think like it.

Some truths about the abortion that no court can ever change
From abortion to gender ideology: the anti-scientific nonsense of the left wing

El País omits leftist violence when talking about extremism

This Sunday, the socialist newspaper El País publishes an article in which it tries to justify why it calls " ultra" to a democratic and conservative party like Vox, but not to a communist party like Podemos. In addition to blatantly lying about Vox, the article ignores the characteristic that most portrays extremists: the justification of violence against those who do not think like them. The omission is not accidental: Vox has never justified violence, in fact it is that party that is suffering the most from all kinds of attacks from the extreme left. Aggressions that Podemos ministers have justified, accusing those attacked of "provoking".

The pro-abortion newspaper affirms that rejecting its dogmas is undemocratic

In one of the most astonishing points of the article, El País affirms that "Vox is not a democratic party" and tries to justify this lie by lying about it, and also with the following statement: "< strong>Vox wants to impose on all citizens its moral conceptions about abortion, euthanasia or homosexual marriage". El País does not indicate where Vox refers to the so-called "homosexual marriage", but for the rest, the statement is a classic leftist fallacy, which consists of accusing those of us who disagree with the dogmas of the left of wanting to impose our morality on society, an imposition that the left makes with its dogmas constantly.

The left believes it has the exclusive right to impose its morality

That fallacy consists of presenting leftist dogmas as something that has no moral implications, but it is a lie. When a politician promotes a law, what he does is promote a norm to establish what is right and what is wrong, and whoever violates that law -unlike what happens in religions- is not a mere sinner, but can be classified as a criminal and be persecuted with all the resources of the State. So every time the left passes a law, what it does is impose its morality on everyone.

The difference is that the same left that believes itself legitimized to do that, by virtue of its superiority complex, denies that the rest have the same right if they obtain the necessary majority. Thus, the left considers that there is "democracy" when it has an exclusive power to impose its morality, but not when others do.

The anti-scientific nonsense of the left on abortion

The abortion case is a brutal example of this leftist sectarianism. Abortion consists, in scientific terms, of the act of killing a human being in its prenatal stage. And science shows that human life begins at conception, which is when its development begins a new human being with its own genetic identity and different from the genetic identity of its parents.

However, eleven years ago El País branded those of us who reject abortion as "anti-scientific", and did so by means of a flatly false statement: "The moment in which one can be considered human a being cannot be established by scientific criteria". The pro-abortion newspaper itself contradicted that statement two years later, stating: "From conception until the age of two, a person undergoes the greatest transformations of his life."

Defending as legitimate the act of killing innocent and defenseless human beings in the womb often leads to contradictions like these. For example, in 2011 El País dismissed abortion as "barbaric" and "murder", but only when it comes to selective abortions of girls. On the other hand, that same pro-abortion newspaper that questions the humanity of human beings in their prenatal stage, in 2013 it classified turtle eggs as "turtles". This is what happens when a debate is approached regardless of logic and scientific thought.

There are justified moral impositions and others that are aberrational

For the rest, it should be noted that not all moral impositions are the same. The prohibition of murder, rape, robbery, assault and other crimes defined in the Penal Code are justified moral impositions in any civilized society. However, denying unborn boys and girls their human dignity and their right to life is a perverse and monstrous moral imposition, the type of moral impositions that a left that abhors humanism likes. Christian and who considers that certain problems are solved by killing innocent people, be it unexpected pregnancies (with abortion) or diseases that entail a high cost for public health (with euthanasia).

Obviously, in a democracy any moral imposition should not be legitimate. There are limits to what a government or parliament is entitled to do with the support of a majority expressed at the polls. A majority does not justify racist laws, nor laws that allow theft, murder or slave ownership. Laws cannot be above human dignity. Laws cannot authorize human rights to be violated.

A majority is not entitled to deny their humanity to certain humans

That is the big difference between pro-life and pro-abortion. The pro-abortionists believe that a majority is entitled to deny human rights to certain human beings for being in the womb, and for this reason they approve laws that allow the killing of innocent human beings, laws based on lies such as that unborn children are not human beings or even living beings, lies parroted by pro-abortion extremists. And I say extremists because, as I said at the beginning, the most characteristic of an extremist is the justification of violence, and abortion is using violence against the weakest and most defenseless.

---

Foto: Hollie Santos / Unsplash.com.