« The end of the Waffle House | Main | Who Says There's No Good News? »

November 3, 2013

It’s time to end the stigma of infanticide

Make infanticide legal. Do you know why? Because we don’t deserve to prohibit it.
We can’t sit here, ignoring the silent screams of millions of murdered children, and pretend that we have ethical standards. We can’t do that. We don’t get to do that. We can’t celebrate the genocide of 50 million human infants and then pretend to be horrified because a girl stashes her dead baby in her handbag, or a psychotic sociopath drowns all of her kids in the bathtub. And Gosnell? What in the hell is he doing in a prison cell? He did exactly what every other abortionist does, he just didn’t dress it up and try to make it look pretty. He murdered children in a drab, run down building, and put the corpses in the fridge. Non-jailed abortionist murder children in nicer buildings, and throw the bodies in the hazardous waste dumpster out back. So one is in prison, and the others aren’t due to, what, aesthetic differences? | The Matt Walsh Blog

Posted by gerardvanderleun at November 3, 2013 12:50 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

I can almost forgive the ancients for sacrificing a child to a Baal or a Huitzilopochtli -- almost. Sacrifice a life to keep the rains falling or the the sun rising in the east -- sacrifice a little of right now to ensure that the future shows up tomorrow.

But they were wrong. Prophets, priests, and missionaries gave their lives to stamp out human sacrifice. We rarely hear of the ancient practice anymore.

By practicing infanticide on industrial scales, we have inverted pagan thought and are sacrificing our future for our present. We rip page after page out of the Book of Life and throw them into bonfires to light our raves and gluttonous feasts through the darkest of nights. Even a Canaanite priest would have been appalled. How much greater will be His wrath?

Posted by: el baboso at November 3, 2013 3:42 PM

The same culture that condemns pregnant women for smoking and drinking shrugs at killing the baby. Figure that one out. Its up there with screaming at tobacco smokers for their evil second hand death while fighting to legalize smoking pot.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 3, 2013 6:58 PM

Christopher, agree with you about killing the babies, but pot does not cause cancer or infect others with second hand smoke. Come on, lets get off the "reefer madness" meme, it only diminishes your argument against against baby killing with a faulty syllogism.

Posted by: tripletap at November 4, 2013 4:41 AM

tripletap. I agree with Mr. Taylor on the pot/cig complaint. Personally I don't care if somebody smokes either, but I can't stand the smell of either. Please don't say the pot smoke doesn't cause second hand smoke problems. Sit in a car with everyone smoking pot except for you. See if you get stoned from the second hand smoke.
You are also inhaling smoke, and that isn't good for any reason.
Again, go ahead and do it, I don't care but don't pretend pot doesn't cause any problems.

Posted by: Pop at November 4, 2013 5:37 AM

Okay, try this one.

The same Libertarians who have spent the last 50 years screaming about "Less Government!" are now doing everything they can to to make marijuana legal on the grounds that a new government bureaucracy will balance the budget by regulating and taxing the use of pot.

Figure that one out.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at November 4, 2013 5:37 AM

Wheat, chaff and fire. Interesting times we're living in. Brian Gail's insightful trilogy, "Fatherless", "Motherless", and "Childless", provides a unique and compelling viewpoint viz the contraception/abortion Zeitgeist.

Posted by: Richard at November 4, 2013 6:33 AM

Rob De Witt, I will explain it to you. As a l)ibertarian I questioned the same thing. There is a bigger problem with the drug laws, the judicial system and crime associated with ridiculous drug laws. There is huge amounts of spending on the war on drugs and the problems have only gotten worse. There would be smaller government and more freedom with legalized drugs even if they are regulated by the government.
It would take less money to help someone with a drug problem then it does fighting the drug problem.

Now that it has been explained to you, you should be able "Figure that one out."

The war on poverty is a huge government program and colossal waste of money.
The war on drugs is also a huge government program and colossal waste of money.
and so is the war on terror.
The only thing these war ons do is move tax payer money around but they don't solve the problem.

Posted by: Potsie at November 4, 2013 7:48 AM

Pots

None of your arguments are new to me; I did, after all, smoke weed for 40 years.

"Wars" on various problems have nothing to do with whether or not a substance or behavior is illegal; they are, rather, merely transparent excuses for more government structure and greater intrusion into the lives of private citizens. Marijuana legalization in its current guise is exactly the same thing - not to mention that it's the very definition of a Potemkin solution, since nobody I ever heard of has had any difficulty buying marijuana since at least the early '60s.

Since the early '70s various state and civil governments have spent (yup) taxpayer money on "Get Out Of Jail Free" programs for the specific purpose of forgiving marijuana offenses in order to empty out the jails. I have, as a matter of fact, participated in one such almost exactly 40 years ago. Nobody cares about pot smokers, and that message has been loudly transmitted for decades.

Does anyone believe that programs like California's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting has done anything but spend a lot of money in a real public fashion? Is anyone naive enough to believe that legalizing/regulating/taxing marijuana will have any greater effect on illegal growers, given that their revenue stream is at present several times that of California's wine industry?

Please.

There would be smaller government and more freedom with legalized drugs even if they are regulated by the government.

Like Reagan put it, Government programs, once launched, never disappear - and inevitably grow. Further, I predict that you in your lifetime will see a demonization of pot smokers equivalent to the current tobacco scare. It'll get convenient, or more to the point somebody like Algore will see a way to make money off it, and here we go.

The G will, 5 years, from now, have the identity of every pot smoker in the country, and to believe they'll never use that leverage is, you should pardon the expression, a pipe dream.

I won't address the "marijuana is harmless" issue; I've long since realized that discussion is a waste of electrons.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at November 4, 2013 9:13 AM

Libertarians...The article is about killing babies on an industrial scale and the discussion devolves to, wait for it, pot smoking.

Posted by: JimBobElrod at November 4, 2013 10:57 AM

Yeah, I should have never mentioned the word. Its the one topic that all Libertarians agree on and can't shut up about.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 4, 2013 2:17 PM

Maybe they would settle for Chesterton's answer to abortion: let all the babies be born and then kill the one's you don't like.

Posted by: james wilson at November 4, 2013 11:05 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)