In the story “Desiree’s baby” by Kate Chopin, Desiree has heard the life altering news that her and her baby are biracial. Desiree then proceeds to kill both of them in a swamp. I believe this was the wrong call on desiree's part. Although some might argue it was good of her to end their lives, I don’t believe this because it ended the life of the baby, and because she could of had a decent life with the Valmonde.
My first claim is that it is just inhumane to kill an infant. A contradicting claim to that of mine is that the baby's life was of no value because he would have ended up like the quadroon boy, a slave with no life to look forward to, even though he is more white than he is black. I believe that it is just silly to believe in …show more content…
My evidence to substantiate my claim is that even when she announced to the valmondes that she was not of white ethnicity, Mrs. valmonde still replied to her stating, “My own Desiree: come home to valmonde; back to your mother who loves you. Come with your child.” Basically what this telling me is that Mrs. Valmonde does not care whether she is black or white, she will love her and her baby for who they are. Even though the baby does not grow up with a father figure in there house, he will live a very comfortable life at the valmondes. The counterclaim to this argument is that what she did was of reasonable sorts, and that lying in a swamp where her and her baby would die slowly and horribly is better than staying with her mother, that just sounds absurd. She should have at least first gave the baby to it’s grandmother so he could live a happy life, and as said before, now that armond knows he is the biracial one, the baby could have tons of wealth and happiness.
In conclusion I think desiree’s decision to take the life of her own and that of an infant was morally wrong in every sense of the word. I hoped I have brought my views to the table, and maybe even that they have rubbed of on
My first claim is that it is just inhumane to kill an infant. A contradicting claim to that of mine is that the baby's life was of no value because he would have ended up like the quadroon boy, a slave with no life to look forward to, even though he is more white than he is black. I believe that it is just silly to believe in …show more content…
My evidence to substantiate my claim is that even when she announced to the valmondes that she was not of white ethnicity, Mrs. valmonde still replied to her stating, “My own Desiree: come home to valmonde; back to your mother who loves you. Come with your child.” Basically what this telling me is that Mrs. Valmonde does not care whether she is black or white, she will love her and her baby for who they are. Even though the baby does not grow up with a father figure in there house, he will live a very comfortable life at the valmondes. The counterclaim to this argument is that what she did was of reasonable sorts, and that lying in a swamp where her and her baby would die slowly and horribly is better than staying with her mother, that just sounds absurd. She should have at least first gave the baby to it’s grandmother so he could live a happy life, and as said before, now that armond knows he is the biracial one, the baby could have tons of wealth and happiness.
In conclusion I think desiree’s decision to take the life of her own and that of an infant was morally wrong in every sense of the word. I hoped I have brought my views to the table, and maybe even that they have rubbed of on