I chose Pinker vs. Chapman.
“Why they kill their newborns” vs. “A Modest Proposal”
Pinker advances his view in “Why they kill”, that we must understand why mothers commit neonatacide. He begins his article with very emotionally charged language, using words to describe the act like “depraved”, and using verbs like “murder” and “destroy”. He speaks of “helpless” babies abandoned in “trash cans” and “dumpsters.” Very emotionally charged. He does this to firmly establish that he recognize what he is dealing with, that it is no small matter. Pinker then goes on to give history of neonatacide. According to his research, cavewomen and the first humans often killed their newborn, or left them to die. Though he explores the history, he brings forth his main point: in order to figure out whether this is ultimately right or wrong, we must “define a boundary” in his words. Pinker is careful to examine and understand without excusing the act outright. In the end, he posites that we kill our newborn as a throwback to our ancestors habit of doing so. Their reason for this was to remain detached from their newborn until they had a good chance at survival.
As a contrast, Bruce Chapman writes in “A Modest Proposal” as a rebuttal to Pinker’s aforementioned article in the New York Times Magazine. He starts out with a similarly emotional plea as Pinker, though immediately takes it over the top to grab your attention and bring you into the article. He is emotionally outraged on paper. He attacks defense attorneys who try and represent baby killers in court vigorously over the course of a paragraph. While Chapman appears over the top, he does make a few valid points against Pinker. The first being Pinker’s dealings with Evil. As Chapman says, midway through the article there is no other mentiohn of it. The written exposition turn from questioning the morality of neonatacide becomes a rationalization of the act. Chapman also confronts Pinker on his definition of life; suggesting that emotionally detached babies may as well be mice. While he may be making a valid point, Chapmans over the top rehtoric will lose all but the staunchest Pro-life reader. Chapman’s ending is very clever. He ultimately gets at the fact that the obscure instincts of our ancient ancestors doesn’t excuse our behavior in this modern society where life is so highly valued both in and outside the womb.
