Reductio ad (Maybe Not So Historically) Absurdum

On Tuesday, in his column at Townhall.com, Mike Adams noted a sentiment that one of his liberal acquaintances shared with him:

I would rather have hundreds of my tax dollars used to abort an unwanted child now than have hundreds of thousands used for public assistance later.

To refer back to an old punchline – now that we have established what this liberal is, the rest is just haggling.

Where’s the break-even point for this anti-life and frankly eugenicist policy statement?

“I would rather have exactly $28,642.68 of my tax dollars used to abort an unwanted child now than have $28.642.70 used for public assistance later?”

At some point this policy resolves to an equilibrium point – in this hypothetical case $28,642.69 –  where there is the same economic value in killing an unborn child before he or she becomes a burden on society versus doing the same after it’s happened.

I feel like I’m forgetting something here…maybe it will come to me.

Anyway, what the original sentiment demonstrates is one liberal’s sentiment about the relative value of a human life.  For both cases, born and unborn, this liberal has expressed their opinion that the value of life is finite, and it can be measured in dollars.

Oh!  Wait!  Got it!

This liberal’s pronouncement makes a fallacious generalization.  This liberal assumes that the unwanted child’s potential future value is exactly the same as the current value of the burden on society who does not deserve the liberal’s hundreds of thousands of tax dollars in support. The implied assumption is absurd on its face. Also, typically liberal, but why repeat myself?

The prospect of what lies in wait in the mud at the bottom of this slippery slope of liberal compassion is both familiar and terrifying. If you’re confused, slap a swastika on it and it will become much more clear.

Like(5)Dislike(0)