How can you humanize infanticide of the evil-tainted?











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












The world is surrounded by an alternate realm called the spirit world. Humans existed as separate physical entities, but maintain an attachment to the spirit realm due to their connection with god. When a child is ready to be born, it must pass through the spirit world into the physical.



There are malevolent spirits in the other world that seek to corrupt the child while it is developing. Runes are placed on the mother to act as a barrier of protection to prevent this. However, runes must be reapplied periodically and are not foolproof. Therefore, it is possible for a fetus to be affected by these spirits and develop deformities (extra eyes, tentacles for arms, horns, etc). These children can be born prematurely, and risk killing the mother.



These children are not born evil, but are treated with suspicion by the world due to their "impure" taint. In the few places they are tolerated, they exist on the fringes and often become a self fulfilling prophecy. In many other places, such as this democratic nation, they are simply killed after being examined.



Killing children is a taboo, and people reading it may say "author thinks we should kill deformed kids because reasons". How can you portray this in a less negative or at least sympathetic, light to avoid this?










share|improve this question




















  • 5




    This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it the more it echoes current bigotries; like racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-islam or anti-arab or anti-immigrant and real-life demonization of those that look, sound, or believe differently, as an excuse to exclude them or go to war with them. I think the risk is more than "killing deformed kids because reasons", I think the risk of writing this in the current political climate is the author can be vilified for metaphorically endorsing violence and ostracization for all kinds of "not like us" bigotries "for reasons".
    – Amadeus
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    In fact, there are tribes in Central Africa (don't remember more specific details) who kill children whose lower teeth grow before their upper teeth. Those children are considered "demon children" who "bring bad luck to all the village". It's just as horrendous as it sounds - nothing sympathetic about it. There's a recent initiative to take those children away instead, but there's already been attacks on those who try this route - just having the children alive somewhere is considered potential for "bad luck" for the whole tribe.
    – Galastel
    11 hours ago






  • 14




    There's a really crucial distinction to make here: do you want readers to be on-board with the practice, or do you want them going omg that's awful, although I do understand these people are misguided rather than evil? Those are two vastly different reactions.
    – Standback
    10 hours ago






  • 3




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Worldbuilding.SE
    – user57423
    6 hours ago






  • 3




    @user57423 I disagree. This question is asking how to humanize, not how to rationalize the killings, so it clearly has some writing aspect.
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago















up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












The world is surrounded by an alternate realm called the spirit world. Humans existed as separate physical entities, but maintain an attachment to the spirit realm due to their connection with god. When a child is ready to be born, it must pass through the spirit world into the physical.



There are malevolent spirits in the other world that seek to corrupt the child while it is developing. Runes are placed on the mother to act as a barrier of protection to prevent this. However, runes must be reapplied periodically and are not foolproof. Therefore, it is possible for a fetus to be affected by these spirits and develop deformities (extra eyes, tentacles for arms, horns, etc). These children can be born prematurely, and risk killing the mother.



These children are not born evil, but are treated with suspicion by the world due to their "impure" taint. In the few places they are tolerated, they exist on the fringes and often become a self fulfilling prophecy. In many other places, such as this democratic nation, they are simply killed after being examined.



Killing children is a taboo, and people reading it may say "author thinks we should kill deformed kids because reasons". How can you portray this in a less negative or at least sympathetic, light to avoid this?










share|improve this question




















  • 5




    This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it the more it echoes current bigotries; like racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-islam or anti-arab or anti-immigrant and real-life demonization of those that look, sound, or believe differently, as an excuse to exclude them or go to war with them. I think the risk is more than "killing deformed kids because reasons", I think the risk of writing this in the current political climate is the author can be vilified for metaphorically endorsing violence and ostracization for all kinds of "not like us" bigotries "for reasons".
    – Amadeus
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    In fact, there are tribes in Central Africa (don't remember more specific details) who kill children whose lower teeth grow before their upper teeth. Those children are considered "demon children" who "bring bad luck to all the village". It's just as horrendous as it sounds - nothing sympathetic about it. There's a recent initiative to take those children away instead, but there's already been attacks on those who try this route - just having the children alive somewhere is considered potential for "bad luck" for the whole tribe.
    – Galastel
    11 hours ago






  • 14




    There's a really crucial distinction to make here: do you want readers to be on-board with the practice, or do you want them going omg that's awful, although I do understand these people are misguided rather than evil? Those are two vastly different reactions.
    – Standback
    10 hours ago






  • 3




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Worldbuilding.SE
    – user57423
    6 hours ago






  • 3




    @user57423 I disagree. This question is asking how to humanize, not how to rationalize the killings, so it clearly has some writing aspect.
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago













up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1






1





The world is surrounded by an alternate realm called the spirit world. Humans existed as separate physical entities, but maintain an attachment to the spirit realm due to their connection with god. When a child is ready to be born, it must pass through the spirit world into the physical.



There are malevolent spirits in the other world that seek to corrupt the child while it is developing. Runes are placed on the mother to act as a barrier of protection to prevent this. However, runes must be reapplied periodically and are not foolproof. Therefore, it is possible for a fetus to be affected by these spirits and develop deformities (extra eyes, tentacles for arms, horns, etc). These children can be born prematurely, and risk killing the mother.



These children are not born evil, but are treated with suspicion by the world due to their "impure" taint. In the few places they are tolerated, they exist on the fringes and often become a self fulfilling prophecy. In many other places, such as this democratic nation, they are simply killed after being examined.



Killing children is a taboo, and people reading it may say "author thinks we should kill deformed kids because reasons". How can you portray this in a less negative or at least sympathetic, light to avoid this?










share|improve this question















The world is surrounded by an alternate realm called the spirit world. Humans existed as separate physical entities, but maintain an attachment to the spirit realm due to their connection with god. When a child is ready to be born, it must pass through the spirit world into the physical.



There are malevolent spirits in the other world that seek to corrupt the child while it is developing. Runes are placed on the mother to act as a barrier of protection to prevent this. However, runes must be reapplied periodically and are not foolproof. Therefore, it is possible for a fetus to be affected by these spirits and develop deformities (extra eyes, tentacles for arms, horns, etc). These children can be born prematurely, and risk killing the mother.



These children are not born evil, but are treated with suspicion by the world due to their "impure" taint. In the few places they are tolerated, they exist on the fringes and often become a self fulfilling prophecy. In many other places, such as this democratic nation, they are simply killed after being examined.



Killing children is a taboo, and people reading it may say "author thinks we should kill deformed kids because reasons". How can you portray this in a less negative or at least sympathetic, light to avoid this?







creative-writing ethics






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Monica Cellio

13.3k22975




13.3k22975










asked 12 hours ago









Incognito

6941311




6941311








  • 5




    This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it the more it echoes current bigotries; like racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-islam or anti-arab or anti-immigrant and real-life demonization of those that look, sound, or believe differently, as an excuse to exclude them or go to war with them. I think the risk is more than "killing deformed kids because reasons", I think the risk of writing this in the current political climate is the author can be vilified for metaphorically endorsing violence and ostracization for all kinds of "not like us" bigotries "for reasons".
    – Amadeus
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    In fact, there are tribes in Central Africa (don't remember more specific details) who kill children whose lower teeth grow before their upper teeth. Those children are considered "demon children" who "bring bad luck to all the village". It's just as horrendous as it sounds - nothing sympathetic about it. There's a recent initiative to take those children away instead, but there's already been attacks on those who try this route - just having the children alive somewhere is considered potential for "bad luck" for the whole tribe.
    – Galastel
    11 hours ago






  • 14




    There's a really crucial distinction to make here: do you want readers to be on-board with the practice, or do you want them going omg that's awful, although I do understand these people are misguided rather than evil? Those are two vastly different reactions.
    – Standback
    10 hours ago






  • 3




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Worldbuilding.SE
    – user57423
    6 hours ago






  • 3




    @user57423 I disagree. This question is asking how to humanize, not how to rationalize the killings, so it clearly has some writing aspect.
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago














  • 5




    This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it the more it echoes current bigotries; like racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-islam or anti-arab or anti-immigrant and real-life demonization of those that look, sound, or believe differently, as an excuse to exclude them or go to war with them. I think the risk is more than "killing deformed kids because reasons", I think the risk of writing this in the current political climate is the author can be vilified for metaphorically endorsing violence and ostracization for all kinds of "not like us" bigotries "for reasons".
    – Amadeus
    11 hours ago






  • 4




    In fact, there are tribes in Central Africa (don't remember more specific details) who kill children whose lower teeth grow before their upper teeth. Those children are considered "demon children" who "bring bad luck to all the village". It's just as horrendous as it sounds - nothing sympathetic about it. There's a recent initiative to take those children away instead, but there's already been attacks on those who try this route - just having the children alive somewhere is considered potential for "bad luck" for the whole tribe.
    – Galastel
    11 hours ago






  • 14




    There's a really crucial distinction to make here: do you want readers to be on-board with the practice, or do you want them going omg that's awful, although I do understand these people are misguided rather than evil? Those are two vastly different reactions.
    – Standback
    10 hours ago






  • 3




    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Worldbuilding.SE
    – user57423
    6 hours ago






  • 3




    @user57423 I disagree. This question is asking how to humanize, not how to rationalize the killings, so it clearly has some writing aspect.
    – Alexander
    5 hours ago








5




5




This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it the more it echoes current bigotries; like racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-islam or anti-arab or anti-immigrant and real-life demonization of those that look, sound, or believe differently, as an excuse to exclude them or go to war with them. I think the risk is more than "killing deformed kids because reasons", I think the risk of writing this in the current political climate is the author can be vilified for metaphorically endorsing violence and ostracization for all kinds of "not like us" bigotries "for reasons".
– Amadeus
11 hours ago




This is a difficult question to answer, the more I think about it the more it echoes current bigotries; like racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-islam or anti-arab or anti-immigrant and real-life demonization of those that look, sound, or believe differently, as an excuse to exclude them or go to war with them. I think the risk is more than "killing deformed kids because reasons", I think the risk of writing this in the current political climate is the author can be vilified for metaphorically endorsing violence and ostracization for all kinds of "not like us" bigotries "for reasons".
– Amadeus
11 hours ago




4




4




In fact, there are tribes in Central Africa (don't remember more specific details) who kill children whose lower teeth grow before their upper teeth. Those children are considered "demon children" who "bring bad luck to all the village". It's just as horrendous as it sounds - nothing sympathetic about it. There's a recent initiative to take those children away instead, but there's already been attacks on those who try this route - just having the children alive somewhere is considered potential for "bad luck" for the whole tribe.
– Galastel
11 hours ago




In fact, there are tribes in Central Africa (don't remember more specific details) who kill children whose lower teeth grow before their upper teeth. Those children are considered "demon children" who "bring bad luck to all the village". It's just as horrendous as it sounds - nothing sympathetic about it. There's a recent initiative to take those children away instead, but there's already been attacks on those who try this route - just having the children alive somewhere is considered potential for "bad luck" for the whole tribe.
– Galastel
11 hours ago




14




14




There's a really crucial distinction to make here: do you want readers to be on-board with the practice, or do you want them going omg that's awful, although I do understand these people are misguided rather than evil? Those are two vastly different reactions.
– Standback
10 hours ago




There's a really crucial distinction to make here: do you want readers to be on-board with the practice, or do you want them going omg that's awful, although I do understand these people are misguided rather than evil? Those are two vastly different reactions.
– Standback
10 hours ago




3




3




I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Worldbuilding.SE
– user57423
6 hours ago




I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Worldbuilding.SE
– user57423
6 hours ago




3




3




@user57423 I disagree. This question is asking how to humanize, not how to rationalize the killings, so it clearly has some writing aspect.
– Alexander
5 hours ago




@user57423 I disagree. This question is asking how to humanize, not how to rationalize the killings, so it clearly has some writing aspect.
– Alexander
5 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
9
down vote













You won't be able to portray it in a less negative way, unless you try to really force your hand on the "good vs evil" theme, and even then you would raise eyebrows.



You stated that those children are not born evil, so we are already on a different track.



First of all, consider that one of the common and (imho) best practices is to prioritize the wellbeing of the mother over the wellbeing of the newborn (opinions may differ, but we're not here to discuss this).
If those mutated newborns are a danger for the mother, you've got a problem before the actual birth. The best you can do in those cases is to read how/when termination of pregnancy is done in our society, and compare with how/when it could be done in your alternate setting.
Another thing you have to consider is the actual survival rate of the mutated children; are they generally lower or higher? Do those mutated humans experience severe lack of phisical skills, or chronic pain? Is there a way for the doctor to estimate it? It's relevant since at this stage it does weight on the decision.

You already mentioned runes, so I imagine they could be further applied to this delicate area.



After the babies are born, you'll have an harder time making their killing "sympathetic". While in another time the killing of newborn babies was somewhat a last resort practice in other eras (think about the classical "leaving a baby in the woods" when a family could not feed him), the more modern you'll go and the more the reader will confront your in-world ethics with ours.
Moreover, there will be always the risk of readers seeing an allegory where there is none, and that's a problem in itself.



What you can do is to show how the ethics in your society are different, and yet problematic. To do this well, you have to present different arguments and counter-arguments to the topic, without clearly parading from one of them.




  • The parents will bond with their child, no matter if it's deformed. They will suffer the decision of killing it, even if their society always taught them not to.

  • Some of the corrupted babies reach adulthood. Some are "evil". Some will likely campaign about how harder is for them to live at the margin of society.

  • Some humans will find the practice of killing babies barbaric, no matter what.

  • Some others will have strong hate (from xenophobic reasons to religious to personal) towards the corruption, and will defend even harsher measures against it.

  • Some of the corrupted babies will live a life in pain. Some will be able to live normally. Some will act "evil", some won't.


As a writer, you have the duty to present every side of the issue fairly, without parading for one or the other. You may be tempted to reach out to the reader and say: "Look, I know killing newborns is bad, but here they have reasons". The reader will understand why it happens in your setting if you show it, but they won't like be schooled or spoonfeeded about it.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    6
    down vote













    Infanticide has been a part of many cultures and children seen as deformed or unlikely to survive would be left to die of exposure. It was a fact of life that no one need like, but it was done as there was no real alternative. The series Vikings had an episode where Ragnar takes his crippled infant son out to leave him, but has second thoughts and brings him back.



    The weak were rarely permitted to drain the resources of the family. In the scenario you describe, such tainted children could be seen as potential connections to a darker god and a danger to all.



    In Zelanzny’s This Immortal, the protagonist was left to die because of the day on which he was born, which according to his culture made him dangerous. Not all infants left to die do as others sometimes encounter them and adopt them - Oedipus for example.



    Show the parents fear of the infant and fear for the harsh life he or she would have if left to live. A potential threat to society and marginalized - essentially a leper. It could be seen as a desperate act of love - ‘Can’t let this sweet babe suffer, so goodbye and better luck next time’ and then the parent kills the child to prevent his future suffering.



    The doctor or whoever examined the infant to determine if they are worthy of life can be shown to dislike this aspect of life, but understand that preventing pain is a good thing. Living on the margins, looking like some kind of demon, the child was damned from the start.



    Statistics showing the propensity for such a child to go dark - because of ostracism - would be given and mention of some of the more dangerous among them whose parents had hidden them away rather than do the responsible thing. Society demands what it demands.



    In China, under the one child rule, many daughters were left to die so the parents could have a son to pass on the family name. Such sons had difficulty finding wives as many hadn’t been allowed to live.



    Life can be dark and almost anything can have a reason or rationalization. Make it necessary and the reader will accept it.






    share|improve this answer






























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Killing babies is taboo for us, but not for them



      Modern first world societies can "afford" to pay the costs of physically/mentally disabled children and adults. There is enough excess resources to support those who may not be able to support themselves. Special programs for handicapped children help teach them life skills. Modern Western society also benefits secularism that looks for scientific, rather than supernatural explanations for phenomena. However, in a society where resources are very tight, or secularized science doesn't exist, the ability to "afford" the extra costs of a handicapped child may not be possible.



      Many human societies throughout history have practiced systematic infanticide. A quick reading through the Infanticide Wikipedia entries shows that it's a very old practice.



      Humanizing Infanticide



      The easiest way to humanize something is to show why it's done. Many people live in circumstances that never have to ask whether a baby should live or die. In crafting the story, if the author can adequately describe the circumstances that contribute to infanticide then that will help lead the reader to the same conclusions that the character arrives at.



      The babies are being killed because of resource constraints, then describe in a vivid detail as possible those constraints. If they are killed because of cultural traditions/misunderstandings then describe that culture.



      There is a fine line to walk on this topic. Advocating infanticide is different than describing it. The author will need to be very careful to describe the practice of infanticide and the reasoning of those who do it, without condoning that behavior.



      You want the reader to say, "Oh, I get why you would do that. It's horrific in the extreme but I get why you do it."






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.

























        up vote
        -7
        down vote













        Well, ask your average Christian or Muslim apologist; they work really hard to justify infanticide and genocide. Their general tactic is to emphasise context over and over again, or claim that somehow the killings were a favour to the children (sending them 'straight to heaven').



        If it can happen in the real world and at least 40% of Americans (occupants of a developed nation) can swallow the claims as the actions of a perfectly good god, then I assure you, some of your readers will be able to swallow the excuse. Though you may have to get them invested in the world you're writing (just as Christians and Muslims are very invested in the Bible/Quran), once you have their attention, you can convince people that just about anything is moral.






        share|improve this answer

















        • 2




          I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
          – eyeballfrog
          9 hours ago












        • @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
          – Matthew Dave
          9 hours ago








        • 2




          @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
          – F1Krazy
          1 hour ago













        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "166"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40667%2fhow-can-you-humanize-infanticide-of-the-evil-tainted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        9
        down vote













        You won't be able to portray it in a less negative way, unless you try to really force your hand on the "good vs evil" theme, and even then you would raise eyebrows.



        You stated that those children are not born evil, so we are already on a different track.



        First of all, consider that one of the common and (imho) best practices is to prioritize the wellbeing of the mother over the wellbeing of the newborn (opinions may differ, but we're not here to discuss this).
        If those mutated newborns are a danger for the mother, you've got a problem before the actual birth. The best you can do in those cases is to read how/when termination of pregnancy is done in our society, and compare with how/when it could be done in your alternate setting.
        Another thing you have to consider is the actual survival rate of the mutated children; are they generally lower or higher? Do those mutated humans experience severe lack of phisical skills, or chronic pain? Is there a way for the doctor to estimate it? It's relevant since at this stage it does weight on the decision.

        You already mentioned runes, so I imagine they could be further applied to this delicate area.



        After the babies are born, you'll have an harder time making their killing "sympathetic". While in another time the killing of newborn babies was somewhat a last resort practice in other eras (think about the classical "leaving a baby in the woods" when a family could not feed him), the more modern you'll go and the more the reader will confront your in-world ethics with ours.
        Moreover, there will be always the risk of readers seeing an allegory where there is none, and that's a problem in itself.



        What you can do is to show how the ethics in your society are different, and yet problematic. To do this well, you have to present different arguments and counter-arguments to the topic, without clearly parading from one of them.




        • The parents will bond with their child, no matter if it's deformed. They will suffer the decision of killing it, even if their society always taught them not to.

        • Some of the corrupted babies reach adulthood. Some are "evil". Some will likely campaign about how harder is for them to live at the margin of society.

        • Some humans will find the practice of killing babies barbaric, no matter what.

        • Some others will have strong hate (from xenophobic reasons to religious to personal) towards the corruption, and will defend even harsher measures against it.

        • Some of the corrupted babies will live a life in pain. Some will be able to live normally. Some will act "evil", some won't.


        As a writer, you have the duty to present every side of the issue fairly, without parading for one or the other. You may be tempted to reach out to the reader and say: "Look, I know killing newborns is bad, but here they have reasons". The reader will understand why it happens in your setting if you show it, but they won't like be schooled or spoonfeeded about it.






        share|improve this answer

























          up vote
          9
          down vote













          You won't be able to portray it in a less negative way, unless you try to really force your hand on the "good vs evil" theme, and even then you would raise eyebrows.



          You stated that those children are not born evil, so we are already on a different track.



          First of all, consider that one of the common and (imho) best practices is to prioritize the wellbeing of the mother over the wellbeing of the newborn (opinions may differ, but we're not here to discuss this).
          If those mutated newborns are a danger for the mother, you've got a problem before the actual birth. The best you can do in those cases is to read how/when termination of pregnancy is done in our society, and compare with how/when it could be done in your alternate setting.
          Another thing you have to consider is the actual survival rate of the mutated children; are they generally lower or higher? Do those mutated humans experience severe lack of phisical skills, or chronic pain? Is there a way for the doctor to estimate it? It's relevant since at this stage it does weight on the decision.

          You already mentioned runes, so I imagine they could be further applied to this delicate area.



          After the babies are born, you'll have an harder time making their killing "sympathetic". While in another time the killing of newborn babies was somewhat a last resort practice in other eras (think about the classical "leaving a baby in the woods" when a family could not feed him), the more modern you'll go and the more the reader will confront your in-world ethics with ours.
          Moreover, there will be always the risk of readers seeing an allegory where there is none, and that's a problem in itself.



          What you can do is to show how the ethics in your society are different, and yet problematic. To do this well, you have to present different arguments and counter-arguments to the topic, without clearly parading from one of them.




          • The parents will bond with their child, no matter if it's deformed. They will suffer the decision of killing it, even if their society always taught them not to.

          • Some of the corrupted babies reach adulthood. Some are "evil". Some will likely campaign about how harder is for them to live at the margin of society.

          • Some humans will find the practice of killing babies barbaric, no matter what.

          • Some others will have strong hate (from xenophobic reasons to religious to personal) towards the corruption, and will defend even harsher measures against it.

          • Some of the corrupted babies will live a life in pain. Some will be able to live normally. Some will act "evil", some won't.


          As a writer, you have the duty to present every side of the issue fairly, without parading for one or the other. You may be tempted to reach out to the reader and say: "Look, I know killing newborns is bad, but here they have reasons". The reader will understand why it happens in your setting if you show it, but they won't like be schooled or spoonfeeded about it.






          share|improve this answer























            up vote
            9
            down vote










            up vote
            9
            down vote









            You won't be able to portray it in a less negative way, unless you try to really force your hand on the "good vs evil" theme, and even then you would raise eyebrows.



            You stated that those children are not born evil, so we are already on a different track.



            First of all, consider that one of the common and (imho) best practices is to prioritize the wellbeing of the mother over the wellbeing of the newborn (opinions may differ, but we're not here to discuss this).
            If those mutated newborns are a danger for the mother, you've got a problem before the actual birth. The best you can do in those cases is to read how/when termination of pregnancy is done in our society, and compare with how/when it could be done in your alternate setting.
            Another thing you have to consider is the actual survival rate of the mutated children; are they generally lower or higher? Do those mutated humans experience severe lack of phisical skills, or chronic pain? Is there a way for the doctor to estimate it? It's relevant since at this stage it does weight on the decision.

            You already mentioned runes, so I imagine they could be further applied to this delicate area.



            After the babies are born, you'll have an harder time making their killing "sympathetic". While in another time the killing of newborn babies was somewhat a last resort practice in other eras (think about the classical "leaving a baby in the woods" when a family could not feed him), the more modern you'll go and the more the reader will confront your in-world ethics with ours.
            Moreover, there will be always the risk of readers seeing an allegory where there is none, and that's a problem in itself.



            What you can do is to show how the ethics in your society are different, and yet problematic. To do this well, you have to present different arguments and counter-arguments to the topic, without clearly parading from one of them.




            • The parents will bond with their child, no matter if it's deformed. They will suffer the decision of killing it, even if their society always taught them not to.

            • Some of the corrupted babies reach adulthood. Some are "evil". Some will likely campaign about how harder is for them to live at the margin of society.

            • Some humans will find the practice of killing babies barbaric, no matter what.

            • Some others will have strong hate (from xenophobic reasons to religious to personal) towards the corruption, and will defend even harsher measures against it.

            • Some of the corrupted babies will live a life in pain. Some will be able to live normally. Some will act "evil", some won't.


            As a writer, you have the duty to present every side of the issue fairly, without parading for one or the other. You may be tempted to reach out to the reader and say: "Look, I know killing newborns is bad, but here they have reasons". The reader will understand why it happens in your setting if you show it, but they won't like be schooled or spoonfeeded about it.






            share|improve this answer












            You won't be able to portray it in a less negative way, unless you try to really force your hand on the "good vs evil" theme, and even then you would raise eyebrows.



            You stated that those children are not born evil, so we are already on a different track.



            First of all, consider that one of the common and (imho) best practices is to prioritize the wellbeing of the mother over the wellbeing of the newborn (opinions may differ, but we're not here to discuss this).
            If those mutated newborns are a danger for the mother, you've got a problem before the actual birth. The best you can do in those cases is to read how/when termination of pregnancy is done in our society, and compare with how/when it could be done in your alternate setting.
            Another thing you have to consider is the actual survival rate of the mutated children; are they generally lower or higher? Do those mutated humans experience severe lack of phisical skills, or chronic pain? Is there a way for the doctor to estimate it? It's relevant since at this stage it does weight on the decision.

            You already mentioned runes, so I imagine they could be further applied to this delicate area.



            After the babies are born, you'll have an harder time making their killing "sympathetic". While in another time the killing of newborn babies was somewhat a last resort practice in other eras (think about the classical "leaving a baby in the woods" when a family could not feed him), the more modern you'll go and the more the reader will confront your in-world ethics with ours.
            Moreover, there will be always the risk of readers seeing an allegory where there is none, and that's a problem in itself.



            What you can do is to show how the ethics in your society are different, and yet problematic. To do this well, you have to present different arguments and counter-arguments to the topic, without clearly parading from one of them.




            • The parents will bond with their child, no matter if it's deformed. They will suffer the decision of killing it, even if their society always taught them not to.

            • Some of the corrupted babies reach adulthood. Some are "evil". Some will likely campaign about how harder is for them to live at the margin of society.

            • Some humans will find the practice of killing babies barbaric, no matter what.

            • Some others will have strong hate (from xenophobic reasons to religious to personal) towards the corruption, and will defend even harsher measures against it.

            • Some of the corrupted babies will live a life in pain. Some will be able to live normally. Some will act "evil", some won't.


            As a writer, you have the duty to present every side of the issue fairly, without parading for one or the other. You may be tempted to reach out to the reader and say: "Look, I know killing newborns is bad, but here they have reasons". The reader will understand why it happens in your setting if you show it, but they won't like be schooled or spoonfeeded about it.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 11 hours ago









            Liquid

            4,785941




            4,785941






















                up vote
                6
                down vote













                Infanticide has been a part of many cultures and children seen as deformed or unlikely to survive would be left to die of exposure. It was a fact of life that no one need like, but it was done as there was no real alternative. The series Vikings had an episode where Ragnar takes his crippled infant son out to leave him, but has second thoughts and brings him back.



                The weak were rarely permitted to drain the resources of the family. In the scenario you describe, such tainted children could be seen as potential connections to a darker god and a danger to all.



                In Zelanzny’s This Immortal, the protagonist was left to die because of the day on which he was born, which according to his culture made him dangerous. Not all infants left to die do as others sometimes encounter them and adopt them - Oedipus for example.



                Show the parents fear of the infant and fear for the harsh life he or she would have if left to live. A potential threat to society and marginalized - essentially a leper. It could be seen as a desperate act of love - ‘Can’t let this sweet babe suffer, so goodbye and better luck next time’ and then the parent kills the child to prevent his future suffering.



                The doctor or whoever examined the infant to determine if they are worthy of life can be shown to dislike this aspect of life, but understand that preventing pain is a good thing. Living on the margins, looking like some kind of demon, the child was damned from the start.



                Statistics showing the propensity for such a child to go dark - because of ostracism - would be given and mention of some of the more dangerous among them whose parents had hidden them away rather than do the responsible thing. Society demands what it demands.



                In China, under the one child rule, many daughters were left to die so the parents could have a son to pass on the family name. Such sons had difficulty finding wives as many hadn’t been allowed to live.



                Life can be dark and almost anything can have a reason or rationalization. Make it necessary and the reader will accept it.






                share|improve this answer



























                  up vote
                  6
                  down vote













                  Infanticide has been a part of many cultures and children seen as deformed or unlikely to survive would be left to die of exposure. It was a fact of life that no one need like, but it was done as there was no real alternative. The series Vikings had an episode where Ragnar takes his crippled infant son out to leave him, but has second thoughts and brings him back.



                  The weak were rarely permitted to drain the resources of the family. In the scenario you describe, such tainted children could be seen as potential connections to a darker god and a danger to all.



                  In Zelanzny’s This Immortal, the protagonist was left to die because of the day on which he was born, which according to his culture made him dangerous. Not all infants left to die do as others sometimes encounter them and adopt them - Oedipus for example.



                  Show the parents fear of the infant and fear for the harsh life he or she would have if left to live. A potential threat to society and marginalized - essentially a leper. It could be seen as a desperate act of love - ‘Can’t let this sweet babe suffer, so goodbye and better luck next time’ and then the parent kills the child to prevent his future suffering.



                  The doctor or whoever examined the infant to determine if they are worthy of life can be shown to dislike this aspect of life, but understand that preventing pain is a good thing. Living on the margins, looking like some kind of demon, the child was damned from the start.



                  Statistics showing the propensity for such a child to go dark - because of ostracism - would be given and mention of some of the more dangerous among them whose parents had hidden them away rather than do the responsible thing. Society demands what it demands.



                  In China, under the one child rule, many daughters were left to die so the parents could have a son to pass on the family name. Such sons had difficulty finding wives as many hadn’t been allowed to live.



                  Life can be dark and almost anything can have a reason or rationalization. Make it necessary and the reader will accept it.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    6
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    6
                    down vote









                    Infanticide has been a part of many cultures and children seen as deformed or unlikely to survive would be left to die of exposure. It was a fact of life that no one need like, but it was done as there was no real alternative. The series Vikings had an episode where Ragnar takes his crippled infant son out to leave him, but has second thoughts and brings him back.



                    The weak were rarely permitted to drain the resources of the family. In the scenario you describe, such tainted children could be seen as potential connections to a darker god and a danger to all.



                    In Zelanzny’s This Immortal, the protagonist was left to die because of the day on which he was born, which according to his culture made him dangerous. Not all infants left to die do as others sometimes encounter them and adopt them - Oedipus for example.



                    Show the parents fear of the infant and fear for the harsh life he or she would have if left to live. A potential threat to society and marginalized - essentially a leper. It could be seen as a desperate act of love - ‘Can’t let this sweet babe suffer, so goodbye and better luck next time’ and then the parent kills the child to prevent his future suffering.



                    The doctor or whoever examined the infant to determine if they are worthy of life can be shown to dislike this aspect of life, but understand that preventing pain is a good thing. Living on the margins, looking like some kind of demon, the child was damned from the start.



                    Statistics showing the propensity for such a child to go dark - because of ostracism - would be given and mention of some of the more dangerous among them whose parents had hidden them away rather than do the responsible thing. Society demands what it demands.



                    In China, under the one child rule, many daughters were left to die so the parents could have a son to pass on the family name. Such sons had difficulty finding wives as many hadn’t been allowed to live.



                    Life can be dark and almost anything can have a reason or rationalization. Make it necessary and the reader will accept it.






                    share|improve this answer














                    Infanticide has been a part of many cultures and children seen as deformed or unlikely to survive would be left to die of exposure. It was a fact of life that no one need like, but it was done as there was no real alternative. The series Vikings had an episode where Ragnar takes his crippled infant son out to leave him, but has second thoughts and brings him back.



                    The weak were rarely permitted to drain the resources of the family. In the scenario you describe, such tainted children could be seen as potential connections to a darker god and a danger to all.



                    In Zelanzny’s This Immortal, the protagonist was left to die because of the day on which he was born, which according to his culture made him dangerous. Not all infants left to die do as others sometimes encounter them and adopt them - Oedipus for example.



                    Show the parents fear of the infant and fear for the harsh life he or she would have if left to live. A potential threat to society and marginalized - essentially a leper. It could be seen as a desperate act of love - ‘Can’t let this sweet babe suffer, so goodbye and better luck next time’ and then the parent kills the child to prevent his future suffering.



                    The doctor or whoever examined the infant to determine if they are worthy of life can be shown to dislike this aspect of life, but understand that preventing pain is a good thing. Living on the margins, looking like some kind of demon, the child was damned from the start.



                    Statistics showing the propensity for such a child to go dark - because of ostracism - would be given and mention of some of the more dangerous among them whose parents had hidden them away rather than do the responsible thing. Society demands what it demands.



                    In China, under the one child rule, many daughters were left to die so the parents could have a son to pass on the family name. Such sons had difficulty finding wives as many hadn’t been allowed to live.



                    Life can be dark and almost anything can have a reason or rationalization. Make it necessary and the reader will accept it.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 10 hours ago

























                    answered 10 hours ago









                    Rasdashan

                    2,419725




                    2,419725






















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        Killing babies is taboo for us, but not for them



                        Modern first world societies can "afford" to pay the costs of physically/mentally disabled children and adults. There is enough excess resources to support those who may not be able to support themselves. Special programs for handicapped children help teach them life skills. Modern Western society also benefits secularism that looks for scientific, rather than supernatural explanations for phenomena. However, in a society where resources are very tight, or secularized science doesn't exist, the ability to "afford" the extra costs of a handicapped child may not be possible.



                        Many human societies throughout history have practiced systematic infanticide. A quick reading through the Infanticide Wikipedia entries shows that it's a very old practice.



                        Humanizing Infanticide



                        The easiest way to humanize something is to show why it's done. Many people live in circumstances that never have to ask whether a baby should live or die. In crafting the story, if the author can adequately describe the circumstances that contribute to infanticide then that will help lead the reader to the same conclusions that the character arrives at.



                        The babies are being killed because of resource constraints, then describe in a vivid detail as possible those constraints. If they are killed because of cultural traditions/misunderstandings then describe that culture.



                        There is a fine line to walk on this topic. Advocating infanticide is different than describing it. The author will need to be very careful to describe the practice of infanticide and the reasoning of those who do it, without condoning that behavior.



                        You want the reader to say, "Oh, I get why you would do that. It's horrific in the extreme but I get why you do it."






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          Killing babies is taboo for us, but not for them



                          Modern first world societies can "afford" to pay the costs of physically/mentally disabled children and adults. There is enough excess resources to support those who may not be able to support themselves. Special programs for handicapped children help teach them life skills. Modern Western society also benefits secularism that looks for scientific, rather than supernatural explanations for phenomena. However, in a society where resources are very tight, or secularized science doesn't exist, the ability to "afford" the extra costs of a handicapped child may not be possible.



                          Many human societies throughout history have practiced systematic infanticide. A quick reading through the Infanticide Wikipedia entries shows that it's a very old practice.



                          Humanizing Infanticide



                          The easiest way to humanize something is to show why it's done. Many people live in circumstances that never have to ask whether a baby should live or die. In crafting the story, if the author can adequately describe the circumstances that contribute to infanticide then that will help lead the reader to the same conclusions that the character arrives at.



                          The babies are being killed because of resource constraints, then describe in a vivid detail as possible those constraints. If they are killed because of cultural traditions/misunderstandings then describe that culture.



                          There is a fine line to walk on this topic. Advocating infanticide is different than describing it. The author will need to be very careful to describe the practice of infanticide and the reasoning of those who do it, without condoning that behavior.



                          You want the reader to say, "Oh, I get why you would do that. It's horrific in the extreme but I get why you do it."






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            Killing babies is taboo for us, but not for them



                            Modern first world societies can "afford" to pay the costs of physically/mentally disabled children and adults. There is enough excess resources to support those who may not be able to support themselves. Special programs for handicapped children help teach them life skills. Modern Western society also benefits secularism that looks for scientific, rather than supernatural explanations for phenomena. However, in a society where resources are very tight, or secularized science doesn't exist, the ability to "afford" the extra costs of a handicapped child may not be possible.



                            Many human societies throughout history have practiced systematic infanticide. A quick reading through the Infanticide Wikipedia entries shows that it's a very old practice.



                            Humanizing Infanticide



                            The easiest way to humanize something is to show why it's done. Many people live in circumstances that never have to ask whether a baby should live or die. In crafting the story, if the author can adequately describe the circumstances that contribute to infanticide then that will help lead the reader to the same conclusions that the character arrives at.



                            The babies are being killed because of resource constraints, then describe in a vivid detail as possible those constraints. If they are killed because of cultural traditions/misunderstandings then describe that culture.



                            There is a fine line to walk on this topic. Advocating infanticide is different than describing it. The author will need to be very careful to describe the practice of infanticide and the reasoning of those who do it, without condoning that behavior.



                            You want the reader to say, "Oh, I get why you would do that. It's horrific in the extreme but I get why you do it."






                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            Killing babies is taboo for us, but not for them



                            Modern first world societies can "afford" to pay the costs of physically/mentally disabled children and adults. There is enough excess resources to support those who may not be able to support themselves. Special programs for handicapped children help teach them life skills. Modern Western society also benefits secularism that looks for scientific, rather than supernatural explanations for phenomena. However, in a society where resources are very tight, or secularized science doesn't exist, the ability to "afford" the extra costs of a handicapped child may not be possible.



                            Many human societies throughout history have practiced systematic infanticide. A quick reading through the Infanticide Wikipedia entries shows that it's a very old practice.



                            Humanizing Infanticide



                            The easiest way to humanize something is to show why it's done. Many people live in circumstances that never have to ask whether a baby should live or die. In crafting the story, if the author can adequately describe the circumstances that contribute to infanticide then that will help lead the reader to the same conclusions that the character arrives at.



                            The babies are being killed because of resource constraints, then describe in a vivid detail as possible those constraints. If they are killed because of cultural traditions/misunderstandings then describe that culture.



                            There is a fine line to walk on this topic. Advocating infanticide is different than describing it. The author will need to be very careful to describe the practice of infanticide and the reasoning of those who do it, without condoning that behavior.



                            You want the reader to say, "Oh, I get why you would do that. It's horrific in the extreme but I get why you do it."







                            share|improve this answer








                            New contributor




                            Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer






                            New contributor




                            Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.









                            answered 4 hours ago









                            Green

                            1012




                            1012




                            New contributor




                            Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.





                            New contributor





                            Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






                            Green is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                            Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                up vote
                                -7
                                down vote













                                Well, ask your average Christian or Muslim apologist; they work really hard to justify infanticide and genocide. Their general tactic is to emphasise context over and over again, or claim that somehow the killings were a favour to the children (sending them 'straight to heaven').



                                If it can happen in the real world and at least 40% of Americans (occupants of a developed nation) can swallow the claims as the actions of a perfectly good god, then I assure you, some of your readers will be able to swallow the excuse. Though you may have to get them invested in the world you're writing (just as Christians and Muslims are very invested in the Bible/Quran), once you have their attention, you can convince people that just about anything is moral.






                                share|improve this answer

















                                • 2




                                  I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
                                  – eyeballfrog
                                  9 hours ago












                                • @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
                                  – Matthew Dave
                                  9 hours ago








                                • 2




                                  @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
                                  – F1Krazy
                                  1 hour ago

















                                up vote
                                -7
                                down vote













                                Well, ask your average Christian or Muslim apologist; they work really hard to justify infanticide and genocide. Their general tactic is to emphasise context over and over again, or claim that somehow the killings were a favour to the children (sending them 'straight to heaven').



                                If it can happen in the real world and at least 40% of Americans (occupants of a developed nation) can swallow the claims as the actions of a perfectly good god, then I assure you, some of your readers will be able to swallow the excuse. Though you may have to get them invested in the world you're writing (just as Christians and Muslims are very invested in the Bible/Quran), once you have their attention, you can convince people that just about anything is moral.






                                share|improve this answer

















                                • 2




                                  I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
                                  – eyeballfrog
                                  9 hours ago












                                • @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
                                  – Matthew Dave
                                  9 hours ago








                                • 2




                                  @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
                                  – F1Krazy
                                  1 hour ago















                                up vote
                                -7
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                -7
                                down vote









                                Well, ask your average Christian or Muslim apologist; they work really hard to justify infanticide and genocide. Their general tactic is to emphasise context over and over again, or claim that somehow the killings were a favour to the children (sending them 'straight to heaven').



                                If it can happen in the real world and at least 40% of Americans (occupants of a developed nation) can swallow the claims as the actions of a perfectly good god, then I assure you, some of your readers will be able to swallow the excuse. Though you may have to get them invested in the world you're writing (just as Christians and Muslims are very invested in the Bible/Quran), once you have their attention, you can convince people that just about anything is moral.






                                share|improve this answer












                                Well, ask your average Christian or Muslim apologist; they work really hard to justify infanticide and genocide. Their general tactic is to emphasise context over and over again, or claim that somehow the killings were a favour to the children (sending them 'straight to heaven').



                                If it can happen in the real world and at least 40% of Americans (occupants of a developed nation) can swallow the claims as the actions of a perfectly good god, then I assure you, some of your readers will be able to swallow the excuse. Though you may have to get them invested in the world you're writing (just as Christians and Muslims are very invested in the Bible/Quran), once you have their attention, you can convince people that just about anything is moral.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered 11 hours ago









                                Matthew Dave

                                5,681738




                                5,681738








                                • 2




                                  I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
                                  – eyeballfrog
                                  9 hours ago












                                • @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
                                  – Matthew Dave
                                  9 hours ago








                                • 2




                                  @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
                                  – F1Krazy
                                  1 hour ago
















                                • 2




                                  I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
                                  – eyeballfrog
                                  9 hours ago












                                • @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
                                  – Matthew Dave
                                  9 hours ago








                                • 2




                                  @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
                                  – F1Krazy
                                  1 hour ago










                                2




                                2




                                I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
                                – eyeballfrog
                                9 hours ago






                                I'm not aware of any Christian apologists for infanticide, though I'm aware of plenty who are not only extremely against it, but consider abortion to be equivalent to it. (I know nothing of Islam, but they don't seem particularly in favor of it.) Do you have some examples of this?
                                – eyeballfrog
                                9 hours ago














                                @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
                                – Matthew Dave
                                9 hours ago






                                @eyeballfrog So you've never heard Christian Apologists excuse the genocide of the Mideonites exquisitely detailed in the Bible (with God himself commanding no pity for anyone but virgin females, who were to be kept as chattel to be married). Here's but one example: carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites They seem to consider genocide as being 'very harsh' punishment for idol worship. To call that underplaying is itself an understatement. And Christians can and will eat this excuse up like kibble.
                                – Matthew Dave
                                9 hours ago






                                2




                                2




                                @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
                                – F1Krazy
                                1 hour ago






                                @MatthewDave I dare say a lot of Christians have never heard of the genocide of the Mideonites, let alone believe it to be justified. I've certainly never heard one talk about it before. And with all due respect, this answer reads like you're using the question as an excuse to rant about the evils of Christianity and Islam, rather than actually trying to help the OP.
                                – F1Krazy
                                1 hour ago




















                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40667%2fhow-can-you-humanize-infanticide-of-the-evil-tainted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Trompette piccolo

                                Slow SSRS Report in dynamic grouping and multiple parameters

                                Simon Yates (cyclisme)