The worldview of those who support abortion — the murder of the unborn — is morally bankrupt, but when you actually carry out such a position to it’s logical conclusion the depravity is horrifying and absolutely inhuman.
One of the main arguments that pro-abortion supporters use to justify the slaughter of babies in the womb at any time during the pregnancy is that the child is nothing more than a “clump of cells” that does not achieve personhood until he or she is able to care for themselves independently.
Now, it should be clear there are serious problems and disturbing implications of such a view, as even a child who comes to full term and is born is absolutely dependent on the mother for care.
Does this mean the individuals who use this argument support the “abortion” — murder — of kids who are outside of the womb too?
Most folks are too scared to follow their line of thinking to this logical end, but not a college student from the University of Tennessee.
A video was released from Students for Life of America showing this student arguing that it was perfectly acceptable to kill a two-year-old because they are unable to communicate.
LifeSiteNews is reporting:
In the short clip, the male student is asked what he thinks about the argument that children can be “aborted” until the age of two.
“I’ll buy that,” says the student although he proceeds to argue for the death of two-year olds, believing them to be incapable of communication.
“The fact of the matter is that without communication, we have no way of knowing if you’re sentient or not,” he says. “I mean, it’s no different than this tree. It’s alive, but is it sentient? I don’t know. I can’t communicate with it.”
He brushes off his interviewer’s, Brenna Lewis’s, observation that comparing a tree to a two-year-old child is “tough”.
“Can the two-year-old talk to me?” the student demands, rolling not only his eyes, but his head. “In some instances, I’m fairly certain that is. But generally speaking, the child still has in inability to communicate. And until we communicate that as such, at what point does sentience become an issue? We can’t really debate whether that is the situation or not.”
The views being expressed by this student are similar to those of Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher who is famous for supporting and advocating for the murder of disabled children.
Here’s a sample of his thinking from his 1979 work Practical Ethics:
The fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.
Not only is Singer’s thinking — and that of the student — absolutely horrifying, it’s deeply flawed both logically and morally.
For example, the college student is assuming that two-year-olds can’t communicate, yet even newborn babies learn that when they need something and make certain noises, their efforts bring results. By six months old children are able to recognize the basic sounds of their language and before they reach one year of age they understand basic words for everyday items. Clearly such a being is sentient.
This just goes to show you how utterly depraved the worldview of young pro-abortion supporters truly is, and what’s worse is this young man’s conscience is seared so severely he doesn’t even recognize how horrific his views actually are.
Much of this is stemming from the indoctrination going on in both public schools and major universities across the country and is just one more reason to reconsider sending your children to either of these educational institutions.
