Well done. When I started reading, I was ready to defend the position that no one in this discussion is a monster, but now, you've given me reason to pause and think.
Your definition of the word 'monster' is absolutely spot-on—it refers to someone who deviates from normal, acceptable human behavior so strongly that it shocks the conscience.
I like that you maintain that the mother who chooses to have an abortion is NOT a 'monster' (only a human who has done something immoral)—the monster is the person who acts as though infanticide doesn't matter at all, and convinces others to believe the same.
It kind of becomes a semantics game at this point, because the word 'monster' implies evil intentions, and I don't think most people who minimize the consequences of abortion really understand what they are doing. You mention this yourself—this is done under the guise of empathy. Can someone who truly believes themselves to be acting with empathy really be a monster?
In other words, I think the word is unfairly harsh (ironic, as I'm the one who first used it in my post).
However, if we conceptualize 'monster' simply as a deviation from human morality, then the assertion holds up. Murdering our own children is counter to our true nature.
I can think of a counter-argument: that 'monsters' are people who do what they do even when the whole of society is outraged by their actions. The 'pro-infanticide' camp does not have this negative stigma to hint that there might be something wrong (and if they did, they would probably adjust their position, as the spread of this idea is largely due to liberal virtue signaling).
Once again, we're left with semantics (and more moral absolutism/relativism stuff). If a 'monster' is someone who acts against their true nature as defined by a universal moral code, then 'pro-infanticiders' are monsters. If a 'monster' is someone who acts against socially-defined morality, then they are not.
Thanks for writing this; I really enjoyed reading it and working through the argument. Let me know what you think!
Ok, so, just to clarify… and I will look back at the post to edit it. It isn’t that I’m not saying that some women who murder their children aren’t ‘monsters’.
To the extent that we use that word (which, obviously, I rejected in the article) a woman who has her own child murdered is a ‘monster’. Some of them may have been deceived, many not, but they all did murder their children.
But as with all human beings, merely because you have committed a great evil doesn’t mean that you have to stay in that spot. That doesn’t have to define your whole life. You can ask for forgiveness and strive to do better.
But particularly before the child has been killed, the ‘pro-life’ position is to treat that woman as a human being, with agency, and to appeal to her conscience and attempt to get her to NOT murder her child. To point out that she is a mother, that the child is her child.
The Scriptures define this evil as ‘without natural affection’ (Greek: astorgos). Even in the animal kingdom mothers sacrifice themselves for their children, and strive to keep them alive in all sorts of horrendously difficult circumstances. But we speak of a woman as ‘not ready for motherhood’ and, despite the fact that she is a mother, encourage her to kill her child.
As opposed to rallying the society around her. And, on the opposite end, to encourage her not to give herself sexually until she, and the father, are married.
Now, as to the ‘semantics game’, I believe that the semantics are very important, because they help determine how people will hear the issue. Semantics can clarify, and they can deceive. It is important we use clear and accurate words.
Good to see someone speaking so clearly about this stuff. I'm still not quite sure I paid enough attention to detail to find the difference here between pro-life and abolition, but in any case, it should be no surprise that those who dehumanize the baby also dehumanize the mother.
I would be happy to see all the abortion "doctors" get the death penalty in prison. No appeal necessary with that body count.
Well done. When I started reading, I was ready to defend the position that no one in this discussion is a monster, but now, you've given me reason to pause and think.
Your definition of the word 'monster' is absolutely spot-on—it refers to someone who deviates from normal, acceptable human behavior so strongly that it shocks the conscience.
I like that you maintain that the mother who chooses to have an abortion is NOT a 'monster' (only a human who has done something immoral)—the monster is the person who acts as though infanticide doesn't matter at all, and convinces others to believe the same.
It kind of becomes a semantics game at this point, because the word 'monster' implies evil intentions, and I don't think most people who minimize the consequences of abortion really understand what they are doing. You mention this yourself—this is done under the guise of empathy. Can someone who truly believes themselves to be acting with empathy really be a monster?
In other words, I think the word is unfairly harsh (ironic, as I'm the one who first used it in my post).
However, if we conceptualize 'monster' simply as a deviation from human morality, then the assertion holds up. Murdering our own children is counter to our true nature.
I can think of a counter-argument: that 'monsters' are people who do what they do even when the whole of society is outraged by their actions. The 'pro-infanticide' camp does not have this negative stigma to hint that there might be something wrong (and if they did, they would probably adjust their position, as the spread of this idea is largely due to liberal virtue signaling).
Once again, we're left with semantics (and more moral absolutism/relativism stuff). If a 'monster' is someone who acts against their true nature as defined by a universal moral code, then 'pro-infanticiders' are monsters. If a 'monster' is someone who acts against socially-defined morality, then they are not.
Thanks for writing this; I really enjoyed reading it and working through the argument. Let me know what you think!
Ok, so, just to clarify… and I will look back at the post to edit it. It isn’t that I’m not saying that some women who murder their children aren’t ‘monsters’.
To the extent that we use that word (which, obviously, I rejected in the article) a woman who has her own child murdered is a ‘monster’. Some of them may have been deceived, many not, but they all did murder their children.
But as with all human beings, merely because you have committed a great evil doesn’t mean that you have to stay in that spot. That doesn’t have to define your whole life. You can ask for forgiveness and strive to do better.
But particularly before the child has been killed, the ‘pro-life’ position is to treat that woman as a human being, with agency, and to appeal to her conscience and attempt to get her to NOT murder her child. To point out that she is a mother, that the child is her child.
The Scriptures define this evil as ‘without natural affection’ (Greek: astorgos). Even in the animal kingdom mothers sacrifice themselves for their children, and strive to keep them alive in all sorts of horrendously difficult circumstances. But we speak of a woman as ‘not ready for motherhood’ and, despite the fact that she is a mother, encourage her to kill her child.
As opposed to rallying the society around her. And, on the opposite end, to encourage her not to give herself sexually until she, and the father, are married.
Now, as to the ‘semantics game’, I believe that the semantics are very important, because they help determine how people will hear the issue. Semantics can clarify, and they can deceive. It is important we use clear and accurate words.
Good to see someone speaking so clearly about this stuff. I'm still not quite sure I paid enough attention to detail to find the difference here between pro-life and abolition, but in any case, it should be no surprise that those who dehumanize the baby also dehumanize the mother.