The only difference between abortion and infanticide

Is point of view

The only difference between life and death

Is the measurement we make

The only difference between obedience and malfeasance

Is perceived intent

The only difference between vitriol and compassion

Is the time that we take

In the end, only the individual can be the master of reality.

False Innocence ... Everyone Kills
The Psychopathic Conservative


  1. says

    “Infanticide” is killing a baby after he’s been born. Abortion is ending a pregnancy before birth occurs. Not a point of view. It’s an objective difference.

    • Jessica Kelly says

      Nah. If you can kill your own, it doesn’t matter what word you put on it. That’s the point.

      • MA32 says

        Your vision seems to be similar to that of an acquaintance of mine. The one that the distinctions we make is at least in part arbitrary between say an embryo and a “baby”. That it’s just a distinction scientists make. Is that it? Honestly I’m in favor of authorizing abortion legally because of public health issues. But I don’t think the state (say the portuguese state) should pay for abortion, especially when it comes to rich people abusing the system to abort at the expense of the state when they have resources to pay for it in a private practice.

        • Jessica Kelly says

          It’s the beauty of language, is it not? We give ourselves words that are inherently more or less charged to shield ourselves from reality – a reality that only the individual can truly experience and understand. It makes sense that our defense mechanisms would try to absolve us of our pain, but in the end, in this particular case, when nearly all unborn children can see the light of day if given the chance, I find it highly amusing that we can call some life trash and some truly alive when the distinction is fuzzier than ever. But hey, the common person truly believes they are no murderer.

          • says

            At first I didn’t agree much with that, but after talking to him for a while i changed my mind. However, my main reason to be “pro-choice” so to speak is a totally different matter.

          • FNP says

            What’s even more amusing is that I’ve been called both trash and a good person for my stance on abortion. I take a pragmatic view on abortion (like many other topics), in which I fully agree that abortion should exist for low-agency people who can’t keep it in their pants otherwise, but I’m pro-life in the cases where it’s likely that the result will be a productive member of society. Both sides of the aisle have called me both trash and a good person, often without knowing anything else about me.

          • says

            I’m pretty pragmatic too, in the sense that if it is well implemented /which hasn’t been yet – here at least) it may rid the system of unwanted children, and it may save a few women’s lives. However, the system should not be abused, and in places with NHS, people above a certain salary shouldn’t be offered <abortion for free – in fcat it should never be totally for free, but it should be paid entirely by the people making the abortion by people above a certain monthly income.

  2. Anonymous says

    I was genuinely amazed to see comments discuss the validity of the point made about killing children. To me it’s always been such an arbitrary distinction. Even people capable of affective empathy argue at what stage the creature in the womb becomes a person.
    Or I think a similar one, what animals are considered sentient? Are fish Vegetarian? Are mushrooms Vegetarian? Is yeast Vegetarian? You could go on a while coming up with other examples that are not universally agreed upon.

Leave a Reply