Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ethical Infanticide

is as much a paradox as icy fire. 

From The Blaze: " that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” "
Note carefully the attempt to change the terms of the discussion. As a wise father and friend once told me, once you can define the terms of the debate, victory is almost assured. Similar to the historical aversion to call the slaughter of innocent children genocide, murder or infanticide, this argument insults the intelligence of the hearer and debases the English language. Words mean things, and we have words to use for a reason. The word 'murder' is perfectly accurate to describe an abortion, as is the word 'infanticide' a precise accounting of the killing of children both while in the womb and outside of the womb. Once you use less precise, and correspondingly less appalling language to describe an action, the distinction between right and evil is easily abused. 
Literary people, I point you to Ernest Hemingway's 'Hills like White Elephants', in which a fictional couple has an entire discussion about killing their child, but speak only in euphemisms and vague terms, unable to cope with the reality of what exactly they are proposing to do, but still desirous of removing the complication from their life. 
With the importance of definitions in mind. let us proceed to the pulsing heart of this counter-ethical theory:
"Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."
The Orwellian double speak is remarkable, as once again is the abuse of language. By considering babies both in and out of the womb to be human beings, the discussion in regards to the validity of their murder should be finished. It is wrong to premeditate the murder of a human for merely existing. 
To present and hold the concept of a 'potential person' is in exact conflict with this reality. The child in the womb, or even the child who has been born, is a human being. Potential, eg, has yet to become, undermines the very humanity of babies, allowing us to mentally pare away the objections to this infanticide. To hinge the definition of 'person' upon the ability to attach value to, and experience loss of some value is equally vapid. To exist as a human is reason enough to have a moral right to continue with that existence, regardless of the ability to assign value and suffer loss. 
Let us recall that a baby will suffer loss in the event of his or her murder. This is a simple fact that will stand it's ground for generations to come as this manner of malarkey continually purloined. 
"Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."
Here we find the very marrow of this revolting stunt. That being a human and existing is not enough, in and of itself, to have a right to life. At this point of contention, those in favor of infanticide will often point to both the current existence of infanticide by abortion and capital punishment as moral grounds upon which a stand can be based. It is amusing to see serious people base arguments upon such sandy soil. In no case is the current legality of abortion a sanction for the morality of murdering children in womb. It is in fact the single most obvious example of the failings of this nation, as we freely destroy our children with reckless abandon. In the case of capital punishment, there is at least the strength of the argument that it is justice. While I disagree with the state ending the life of it's own citizens (which may well be it's own post later), it is a far more logical argument to make then the appropriateness of infanticide of children in an out of the womb. 
The baby in womb did not ask to be put there, he or she was brought forth by the action of two parties. (Wait for it, we will soon have objections of rape and incest, which are clearly superfluous to this discussion. In any event, there is no reason a child should be murdered for the wrongs of others.) I know it has become a cliche since it was spoken, but everyone who is for abortion and infanticide has already been born. 
The baby exists, and no matter what perceived harms or damages are, has a right to his or her continued existence by the very dint of having existed in the first place. This is a dark and dangerous world and universe we live in, and to trifle and destroy the small lives that come behind us is a abhorrent development in the minds of men. 

Remember that the root of the pro-infanticide argument lies in a redefining of the terms. Do not fear to present the real terms of the discussion, that we are talking of real people who are real children who are real babies, and we are talking of rationalizing the unjust murder of babies. 

No comments: