In The News...

The Geopolitical community has been having a devil of a time as of late in dealing with the recent outbreaks of genocide. The potential epidemic has been spurred on by pro-genocide arguments from high-ranking members in the Atheists for Genocide Coalition, or, AGC. What has caused the civilized world consternation is that the AGC's pro-genocide argument initially began as a pro-choice argument. AGC's chief spokesman, Dr. Zachary Moore, defended his pro-genocide argument before world leaders at the United Nations headquarters in New York today. Protestors gathered outside and could be heard chanting "No more Moore" as the conference went on inside. One demonstrator, who wished to be referred to by the pseudonym, Dawsonian Beethrack [sic], claimed that she was upset with Moore because he was "a proud and arrogant man" who would rather "defend his crappy pro-choice argument at all costs" rather than drop it and "use the hundred or so more respectable pro-choice arguments." Hundreds of other women protestors in fear of losing their right to choose due to Moore's insistence that his argument for pro-choice is the only logical one, and his subsequent insight that the being pro-genocide follows strictly from it, could be seen holding signs that read, "Moore's a Mooreon."

Inside, Moore demonstrated his almost impeccable logic when he relayed for world leaders how he came to hold his pro-genocide position. Moore quoted at length his comment to pro-lifer Paul Manata that initially got him thinking. Moore recalled the comment that inspired him t become pro-genocide in that now infamous debate,

"Let's analogize from sovereignty over one's body to sovereignty over one's habitat. Paul and his wife just bought a lovely new house- they have sovereignty over it, and can decide who stays in the house, and who does not. Let's imagine that their friend Craig comes to stay with them, and they give him a room, over which he has sovereignty (ability to decide who comes in the room, and who does not). Although in real life, Paul and Craig are great friends, let's say that he and Craig have a falling-out, and Paul wants him to leave. Craig, although enjoying sovereignty over his room, does not have the right to force Paul to allow him to stay in the house against his will. Paul's sovereignty is complete throughout the house, including Craig's room, and therefore Craig must vacate. Whatever challenges and threats Craig may face outside of Paul's house may be something for Paul to consider, but they do not infringe Paul's sovereignty or remove his right to kick Craig out the door."

Moore also spoke on how this above argument for abortion worked even if the unborn baby was "fully human." He waxed intellectual that the above argument, along with what Manata dubbed "the gimme," allowed home owners to remove their bothersome house guests with a vacuum strong enough to rip their arms and legs off, or burn them alive with chemicals, or perhaps pull just their legs and torso out of the house with a giant pair of forceps and then shove a spike into the back of their head. Moore claimed this logic was rigidly derived from his prior claims. He then said that it came to him like "a flash of light" one night while drinking Boddingtons beer (12 of them). He told the group of slack-jawed kings, presidents, prime ministers, and other dignitaries, that it was intellectual honesty that drove him to see that men who owned nations could do whatever they wanted to do whatever was in their nation. He said, "My analogy must hold if I am to answer Paul." He then used his power point presentation to make his point clear:

Analogy:

Body --> House --> Country

Meanwhile, world leaders discussed what to do about the killings. They claimed that while the logic was undeniable, genocide just wouldn't work. With this claim world leaders have driven a wedge between the logical and the pragmatic. Needless to say, this has sparked a new debate since pragmatism has been the de facto philosophy of the civilized nations since the early part of the 20th century. Nevertheless, some have questioned the former claim. So a new conference will be held to question what some think is a "no-brainer:" "Is Moore's argument really logical?" From this reporters perspective, it would appear not. Indeed, as I interviewed a prominent metaphysician at Notre Dame regarding this, he said that Moore was simply "An ignorant red neck."