Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

:iconblamethe1st: More from BlameThe1st


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
December 23, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,137 (1 today)
Favourites
18 (who?)
Comments
35
×
There is plenty of room for gray area in morality. But sometimes, some things are black and white with no ounce of gray in between. One of those things is infanticide, which is clearly black. And while one should always have a well-reasoned constructive argument against something, as blogger Matt Walsh explains, sometimes, no argument is needed:
I don’t know how else to explain this. Can I really formulate an argument that will explain why we shouldn’t murder disabled children? If you don’t immediately recognize the eugenic slaughter of handicapped babies as something severely troubling, I’m not sure that I can offer any insights to help you understand.

You see, this is the problem. This is why we can’t come to any agreements. This is why our arguments are fruitless. They don’t have to be — arguing could be a rather worthwhile activity. But a constructive argument, or debate, or dialogue, or whatever you want to call it, requires both parties to have some shared concept of right vs wrong and fact vs fiction. Without that, neither side can appeal to the other, because they both exist in entirely different universes.

So, me personally, I’m livin’ over here in a world where it’s never OK to execute a disabled baby, or any baby, for any reason. In fact, in my universe — a universe we might call “reality” — the murder of children could be, without hyperbole, classified as THE worst thing. It is the worst of all that is bad. It is the lowest of low. It is the ugliest of ugly. It is the Pinnacle of Wrong. If it isn’t wrong to kill children, then it can not be wrong to do anything else.
Again, there is always room for discussion and debate within morality. There is room for gray area, for nuance. But some things are clearly black and white. Some things are off the table. Killing a newborn baby, regardless of its health, is one of those things.

Infanticide is wrong--absolutely, always, 100 percent wrong. No exceptions. No excuses. No ifs, ands, or buts. No pros and cons. No compromise. No discussion. No debate. No elucidation. No rationalization.

You don't need an argument for that. You just need a conscience. If you can't understand that, you are a psychopath, plain and simple, and no argument will convince you otherwise. That doesn't make me closed-or-narrow-minded. That makes me human.

So what does it say of us as a species when scientists claim there is no difference between infanticide and abortion?
Add a Comment:
 
:icontuharbc:
tuharbc Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2014  New member
A baby can feel and think (to some degree).  A few month old fetus whose brain is still developing can not.  It's not really fair to compare the two.
Reply
:iconmissmuffintop:
MissMuffinTop Featured By Owner May 9, 2014   Writer
Hi! Would you rather reduce the number of abortions with left-wing policies, or perpetuate them with right-wing ones?

'cuz I have some interesting information for you if you can bother to be apolitical about means, just the ends, of this issue. 
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 9, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Can't really think of any left-wing policies that reduce abortions. Sorry.
Reply
:iconmissmuffintop:
MissMuffinTop Featured By Owner May 9, 2014   Writer
So, here's the premise: unwanted pregnancies are what cause abortions. Preventing unwanted pregnancy prevents abortions, because they become unnecessary in a lot of cases. 

So to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions...well, I don't see the right putting that together. Comprehensive, compulsory sex ed, family planning, ease of access to contraception...these are all things that prevent unwanted pregnancy. Less unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions. That's just common sense. 

From there, it's a matter of being able to afford your child. If maternity leave, subsidized childcare, universal health insurance for pregnant women and children, were priorities of the pro-life movement, I would maybe see how they care about children. It seems like you people stop caring once they're born, and would rather call people parasites than actually make it so abortions are less necessary in over three fourths of the cases.

The solution to the problem isn't in slut-shaming, it's in compassion and assistance for people in desperate situations. I do not know why the pro-life side has to resort to bombs (yeah yeah, it's rare, but there are pro-life terrorists, and they kill people, why would an ideology about the sanctity of life resort to ending lives?) when some policy solutions that would make child-rearing feasible for everyone would cause steep declines in abortion rates without all the violence, misogyny, and misinformation. 

For more information, read this

Oh, and I am surprised you, a libertarian, want the government getting between a woman and her doctor. I thought that was why you people hate Obamacare so much. Just feels inconsistent with all that liberty talk.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014
"some things are black and white with no ounce of gray in between."
That's called dogmatism.
"One of those things is infanticide, which is clearly black."
"But some things are clearly black and white."
"Infanticide is wrong--absolutely, always, 100 percent wrong."
Highly convincing argument bro

"You don't need an argument for that."
I guess you don't need to bother ever providing one then! ^_^


No difference between infanticide and abortion? What an interesting opinion which no amount of expertise or science can establish as fact.

"X is wrong--absolutely, always, 100 percent wrong. No exceptions. No excuses. No ifs, ands, or buts. No pros and cons. No compromise. No discussion. No debate. No elucidation. No rationalization.

You don't need an argument for that. You just need a conscience. If you can't understand that, you are a psychopath, plain and simple, and no argument will convince you otherwise. That doesn't make me closed-or-narrow-minded. That makes me human."

As an experiment, try replacing 'Infanticide' in those three lines with anything at all. See where it gets you. How do you expect to win any supporters if you can't even be bothered to present a rational argument, no matter how unconvincing? 
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm sorry if I allow no exceptions for killing babies. I would suspect most morally sound individuals would be like that.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014
Ok, but don't expect to win any support if you can't justify it rationally.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
What's there to justify? Killing an infant takes away the life of an innocent human being. There's no other justification than that!
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2014
Justifying your antipathy of abortion, I mean. That's what's to be justified. The abortion of an unborn foetus is not necessarily that of a person, because it has had no experiences, sensations or conscious feelings. A foetus cannot feel pain til the very last stages of a pregnancy. 
Reply
:iconkyrtuck:
kyrtuck Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Killing babies is sad because they are something you can actually see and hold and take care of, they are an individual being that need love and care.

You don't really get that with fetuses. I mean when its like 6 months along and you can feel it kicking, then yeah, caring about it would make sense. But otherwise, I just don't get people saying Abortian and infatcide are identical. I tried to make that point myself earlier.
Reply
Add a Comment: