Relying upon empty arguments when attempting to defend the indefensible: baby killing

Baby Killing

To all those who support and attempt to defend the indefensible: baby killing, also known by the euphemism: “abortion on demand”:

“For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue mutters wicked things. No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.” (Isaiah 59: 3-4)

The bloody dismemberment of an innocent child in her mother’s womb is “defended” by these heartless people with such “arguments” as: “My body my choice!” “No one has the right to intervene between a woman and her doctor!” “It’s not a child until it’s born!” And “It’s none of your business!

These tired shibboleths have been put forth by the Left for the past 38 years, in the criminal attempt to justify baby dismemberment at the cost of over 50,000,000 dead, bloody, and dismembered human beings — small though they are. Such arguments, intended to defend the indefensible – baby killing – are the very definition of “rely[ing] on empty arguments and speak[ing] lies.”

A better “defense” of this indefensible slaughter of innocents has come from Professor Peter Singer, who advocates the right of women to slaughter their offspring up to two years of age, once they have decided, for whatever reason, they don’t want the little brats around anymore. This would certainly justify Casey Anthony’s suspected (but unproven) murder of her two-year old daughter.

“[T]he potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics – not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant – disabled or not – has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”

“Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self-conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy.”

Source: see:—-.htm

Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … “My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the  image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.”

Source: see:

See also:

Baby Killing

About ajmacdonaldjr

writer, author, blogger
This entry was posted in Activism, Government, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Relying upon empty arguments when attempting to defend the indefensible: baby killing

  1. Mitchell McDonald says:

    Um… So what? Why should I care if it didn’t and now can’t happen to me? For all we know, a baby that was aborted could either have been the next Ghandi or the next Hitler. We kill adult dolphins all the time and they are about as intelligent as a toddler, and that’s just on AVERAGE. Unless it can care about AS WELL AS understand what it means to exist, it has no rights greater than a piece of property or a pet. Potential to become something does not mean it basically should be treated as what it will become. An infant son of a king and queen does not get to rule a kingdom right away if the parents die. Any baseball has a chance to be signed by a famous baseball player, who would care if it was thrown in the trash before it could be signed?

  2. Mitchell McDonald says:

    Answer: No one, there are plenty of other unsigned baseballs that you can use instead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s