Michael Ejercito
2024-03-15 03:07:50 UTC
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/03/14/ethics-alarms-points-out-how-terrible-rfk-jr-s-vp-short-list-is-kamala-harris-says-hold-my-beer/
Ethics Alarms Points Out How Terrible RFK Jr.’s VP “Short List” is;
Kamala Harris says “Hold My Beer!”
MARCH 14, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL
What a shameless demagogue.
I am immediately torn, because every Kamala Harris head-exploding
utterance raises a Julie Principle issue: OK, an elected official who
has conclusively proven herself to be dumb, irresponsible and ethically
inert says something that is dumb, irresponsible and ethically alert.
Why is that worth complaining about or criticizing? Nevertheless, some
of Harris’s outbursts are just too despicable to be ignored. Like this
one, today, as she visited abortion providers and staff members at a
clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota to cheer on women putting the unborn to
death for the crime of complicating their mothers’ lives:
“These attacks against an individual’s right to make decisions about
their own body are outrageous and, in many instances, just plain old
immoral,” she thundered. “How dare these elected leaders believe they
are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women
what is in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.”
Nice. Kamala had previously used the “How dare they!” stunt to condemn
the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to do their jobs, which includes
striking down bad decisions that made up constitutional rights that
didn’t exist. The abortion-fanatic’s dishonest defense has always relied
on pretending that only one life is involved in an abortion, though the
state has a valid interest in protecting all lives, including unborn
humans who their mothers want to kill. When does an abortion in Harris’s
world suddenly involve more than just the woman’s body? Six weeks? 15
weeks? 9 months? Never, if her words mean what they appear to mean.
“Plain old immoral” has always included “Thou shalt not kill”: what
weird definition of “immoral” is Harris alluding to? It must be really
old; Sumarian, maybe? Ancient Aztec?
And what is the right to do whatever you want with your own body? Does
it have any limits? Could Kamala please state this right simply and
concisely? The concept would seem to be an endorsement of anarchy, and
an assertion that the rule of law is itself “immoral,” which is ironic,
since legal codes are moral codes. Government and law necessarily
dictate what a citizen can or cannot to “with their own body,” and
Harris’s party has grand designs on that area even beyond its harsh
measures to force Americans to get mysterious chemicals injected into
their bodies as well as their children. It also wants to find ways to
stop citizens from saying, writing and hearing words, ideas and opinions
that progressives find “hateful” or “misinformation.”
Doesn’t using our mouths and brains to do what we want them to do bodily
autonomy too?
The claim that abortion is opposed because elected officials feel it
isn’t in a woman’s best interests is a flat-out lie. Abortion’s ethical
conflict is that it pits a woman’s best interests against another human
being’s right to exist. Fine: making the nascent life you carry
disappear may be in your best interests, just as murdering your cheating
spouse or stealing your sister jewels might be in your best interests.
But the rule of law is about balancing valid interests, and making the
hard choices that create an ethical society.
Isn’t Kamala supposed to know this? She went to law school, right?
“We have to be a nation that trusts women”—what does Harris think that
means? Should women be subject to no legal restraints at all, since we
trust these heavenly creatures? Women can’t be trusted to do the right
thing when they have an interest in opposition to that conduct; in this
respect, they’re no different from anyone else. Should we trust women
not to get pregnant when they can’t care for or support a child? And if
a woman violates that trust, what are the consequences? Should they be
borne by her, or the innocent life her conduct created? We can trust
women to be highly tempted to choose the latter, not because they aren’t
trustworthy, but because they are human, and humans are frequently
guided by non-ethical motives and consideration.
A complex ethics conflict like abortion can only be addressed by
examining all factors and competing interests, and what we get from the
Vice-President of the United States is hypocrisy, straw man arguments ,
appeals to emotion and “How dare they!”
An untrustworthy woman is calling for women to be trusted.
Ethics Alarms Points Out How Terrible RFK Jr.’s VP “Short List” is;
Kamala Harris says “Hold My Beer!”
MARCH 14, 2024 / JACK MARSHALL
What a shameless demagogue.
I am immediately torn, because every Kamala Harris head-exploding
utterance raises a Julie Principle issue: OK, an elected official who
has conclusively proven herself to be dumb, irresponsible and ethically
inert says something that is dumb, irresponsible and ethically alert.
Why is that worth complaining about or criticizing? Nevertheless, some
of Harris’s outbursts are just too despicable to be ignored. Like this
one, today, as she visited abortion providers and staff members at a
clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota to cheer on women putting the unborn to
death for the crime of complicating their mothers’ lives:
“These attacks against an individual’s right to make decisions about
their own body are outrageous and, in many instances, just plain old
immoral,” she thundered. “How dare these elected leaders believe they
are in a better position to tell women what they need, to tell women
what is in their best interest. We have to be a nation that trusts women.”
Nice. Kamala had previously used the “How dare they!” stunt to condemn
the U.S. Supreme Court for daring to do their jobs, which includes
striking down bad decisions that made up constitutional rights that
didn’t exist. The abortion-fanatic’s dishonest defense has always relied
on pretending that only one life is involved in an abortion, though the
state has a valid interest in protecting all lives, including unborn
humans who their mothers want to kill. When does an abortion in Harris’s
world suddenly involve more than just the woman’s body? Six weeks? 15
weeks? 9 months? Never, if her words mean what they appear to mean.
“Plain old immoral” has always included “Thou shalt not kill”: what
weird definition of “immoral” is Harris alluding to? It must be really
old; Sumarian, maybe? Ancient Aztec?
And what is the right to do whatever you want with your own body? Does
it have any limits? Could Kamala please state this right simply and
concisely? The concept would seem to be an endorsement of anarchy, and
an assertion that the rule of law is itself “immoral,” which is ironic,
since legal codes are moral codes. Government and law necessarily
dictate what a citizen can or cannot to “with their own body,” and
Harris’s party has grand designs on that area even beyond its harsh
measures to force Americans to get mysterious chemicals injected into
their bodies as well as their children. It also wants to find ways to
stop citizens from saying, writing and hearing words, ideas and opinions
that progressives find “hateful” or “misinformation.”
Doesn’t using our mouths and brains to do what we want them to do bodily
autonomy too?
The claim that abortion is opposed because elected officials feel it
isn’t in a woman’s best interests is a flat-out lie. Abortion’s ethical
conflict is that it pits a woman’s best interests against another human
being’s right to exist. Fine: making the nascent life you carry
disappear may be in your best interests, just as murdering your cheating
spouse or stealing your sister jewels might be in your best interests.
But the rule of law is about balancing valid interests, and making the
hard choices that create an ethical society.
Isn’t Kamala supposed to know this? She went to law school, right?
“We have to be a nation that trusts women”—what does Harris think that
means? Should women be subject to no legal restraints at all, since we
trust these heavenly creatures? Women can’t be trusted to do the right
thing when they have an interest in opposition to that conduct; in this
respect, they’re no different from anyone else. Should we trust women
not to get pregnant when they can’t care for or support a child? And if
a woman violates that trust, what are the consequences? Should they be
borne by her, or the innocent life her conduct created? We can trust
women to be highly tempted to choose the latter, not because they aren’t
trustworthy, but because they are human, and humans are frequently
guided by non-ethical motives and consideration.
A complex ethics conflict like abortion can only be addressed by
examining all factors and competing interests, and what we get from the
Vice-President of the United States is hypocrisy, straw man arguments ,
appeals to emotion and “How dare they!”
An untrustworthy woman is calling for women to be trusted.