Socialist’s lack morality and intellectual ability

When Is a Person Not a Person?

By Barry Napier—— Bio and Archives--January 23, 2010

Cover Story | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Socialists have the most incredible lack of intellectual ability, and they lack the most basic tenets of morality. Why is this? It is because their lives are predicated on political philosophy rather than on facts and truth. That is how the Kenyan, Obama, came to be the Great Pretender in the White House. In essence, he spoke well, but didn’t have an ounce of truth about him. Yet, people voted for him, to the astonishment of more rigorous minds.


The current position on the killing of babies is yet another example of this lack of moral and intellectual ability, not just on the part of those who kill, but also those inept persons who judge. It is not that they are unintelligent. They have intelligence sufficient to judge properly. What they lack is the intellectual attitude and moral uprightness to tackle the situation.

The Loophole

Recently, a young mother in Virginia delivered her baby in her own home, and then smothered it with a pillow. Any young mother, unmarried and unsupported, can panic and become emotionally fragmented. But, she still knows what she is doing and knows murder is wrong. The judge who heard the case decided not to prosecute.

Any judge should show compassion in certain cases. It is quite possible the girl felt alone and was filled with despair. Judges can always show mercy in cases of manslaughter. But, where the killing is deliberate murder, it should attract the death penalty. Liberals, however, are shocked by such a thing! And so the worth of human life is cast into the mud. There is also the Christian angle, where murder requires the death penalty according to God, no matter what state the mind is in. But, even if we ignore the Biblical answer, there is still the matter of human contempt for life.

The judge who refused to penalise the mother for murder, spoke of a loophole in the law. The ‘loophole’ is that a mother can do whatever she likes with her baby, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached. Why not have a bit of fun? Why not swing the baby by the umbilical cord around your head and bounce it off the walls until the cord severs and the baby is just a bloodstained lump of dead pulp? I think this illustration proves the invalidity of the umbilical cord idea!

This repugnant ‘loophole’ remained even after an earlier mother shot her baby whilst it was still in her womb. Police sought action, but liberals did not act; they said they didn’t want to be ‘involved’ because it was “too close to the abortion issue.” In other words, they didn’t want to invoke the wrath of immoral atheists, which is no excuse to avoid making just decisions.

Not Failure – Just Repugnant Thinking

Many groups legitimately see this as a failure in law. It is far worse than that – it is a deliberate policy decision to allow for killing, by socialist governments and law-makers. And, because it is based on philosophy, no person should have the right to impose it on others, who may have other philosophical or religious beliefs on the matter.

Section 18.2 of the Virginia penal code says it is only a crime to kill the ‘fetus of another’. This is a very deliberate and obvious avoidance of the abortion issue, the hot potato of all liberals, who, like Roman emperors, want to see the streets lined with dead babies they insist on calling ‘fetuses’.

The idea to refer to an unborn baby as a ‘fetus’ is arbitrary. It has no actual basis in fact. Rather, its basis is philosophical. Once a legal decision is based on philosophy alone, it will contain ‘loopholes’, kept there so that those of liberal mind can use it to their own advantage… both perpetrator and judge.

It is a stark and glaringly awful fact that to say one can be taken to court for killing the fetus of another, is to create precedence for the killing of one’s own child. It also creates the precedence for killing any person of any age.

Lane v Commonwealth of Virginia

In 1978, this case led a judge to make an unjustified decision – that one cannot call a baby a ‘person’ unless it can live independently of its mother. This was both immoral and extremely philosophical, not legal. Yet, it set the precedent we see today, and so abortion-on-demand is rife.

In the Lane case, the judge said that because the umbilical cord was still connected, the mother could kill the baby, even though it was breathing. This was stunningly outrageous, and it was amazingly stupid. The judge was liberal and decided to swing the law in the direction of socialist theory. That is what it was all about. Any first year law student could have pronounced on its illogicality and its consequences! But, these were factored-in by the judge, because it was a desired socialist end – to allow murder, or, an extended form of abortion.

Illinois and Missouri states have now corrected that loophole. Five other states have cases pending but will not prosecute, because they keep the loophole in place. This is probably because the czars appointed by Obama will overturn their decisions anyway, if they go against the idea of abortion. Obama wants abortions of any variety, in large numbers. It is what communists do.

Virginia Senator Newman is trying to get the law changed, regardless of umbilical attachment: Bill SB602. We will know the results in a few days time.

Who Is ‘Independent’?

The loophole will be widened if Obama gets his way, because he is an open fan of infanticide. But, those who are prepared to support him are backing other applications of that law. For example, how to determine who is independent of their mother? It is a short legally-possible step from umbilical cord to dependence in other ways, and any sharp lawyer can create his own precedents from it.

What of a toddler? Can he live independently of his mother? Maybe for a few weeks until he starves to death! What about an older child with physical deformities or ailments that require constant attention? He is totally dependent. What if he comes down with a serious illness? What of middle-aged people who have dementia and who depend on their elderly parents? What of a husband who has a stroke and his wife leaves him… and he is cared for by his mother? The precedents can stretch to all of life. And that is why the ‘loophole’, a deliberate one left there by liberal socialists, must be plugged. An umbilical cord is not the only form of dependency!

A baby at any age is another life. To deny it is to be intellectually inept and morally defunct. Precedents would swing on what is a ‘person’ and what is meant by ‘independence’. As today’s societal degeneration proves, immoral decisions will be based on an unethical definition made by socialists, whose mindset is atheistic.

The apparently unconnected issue of umbilical cords can easily transfer in principle to any form of dependence, whether on mother, state or some other newly-defined condition. What of dependence on the state? Or on drugs? Any of these seemingly unconnected conditions can be used by an unscrupulous lawyer who wants to create precedent in support of his political or philosophical stance. Watch out for this kind of law-changing when Obama’s czars get into full swing!

Relativism – The Dud Approach to Life

When legal decisions come down to philosophical theories, it means there is no fixed answer. That is why most socialist ideas rely on ‘relativism’. It is an attitude to life that refuses morality, refuses to penalise murder, and refuses to acknowledge that anyone other than yourself has a right to life.

It also refuses to accept there are absolutes, which, in itself, is an absurdity. In a debate long ago, a socialist atheist said to me: “ There are no absolutes.” I replied “But that very statement is an absolute!” He could not answer!! This is because, to deny the existence of absolutes, socialists have to force other absolutes upon us.

This is what makes the socialist vision of abortion and killing of others a farce of justice, thought and morality. They cannot, by intellectual or moral means, defend their position. But, as always, someone with the power can make atheistic decisions and no-one can do anything about it, at least not in the short-run. (Raw ‘power’ is not the same as deserved ‘authority’).

It has been said that morality only exists where there is Christianity. This is not correct, for every person knows what is generally right and wrong. It is this inward knowledge that causes them to be so violent and abusive in their defense. They hate to have their arrogant choices shown for what they are. Yet, relativism is without defence in truth, even though ‘truth’ does not exist in relativism!

Because of socialism, we now have a pandemic of HIV and AIDS, ever rising STD’s, pregnancies amongst young girls, overwhelming illegal immigration, a lowering of educational standards, more violence and murders, economic failure, intolerance of Christianity, deaths of older people living alone, overarching green policies, immoral and wicked youth, and more. Socialism is the cult of less and harm to more. Babies are only a start for liberals!

We are in this mess because we allowed lunatics to take over the asylum. Too many people are scared to voice their views, so socialists gain ground and spread their absurd ideas everywhere, without need to explain themselves. They then claim right-thinkers are foolish. Garbage!

Don’t be afraid of liberals, socialists and atheists (who are usually the same person) – they are only expressing stupid ideas! Your view is just as valid, if not more so. Pursue them relentlessly, just as they have tried to pursue you. They are bullies without ability to use their brains. And it shows in the decisions they make.

Barry Napier runs christiandoctrine.com.
The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Guest Column Barry Napier -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Items of notes and interest from the web.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: