Should we allow Infanticide?

[classical_hero]

Yes, according to some medical ethicists.
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the foetus' health. By showing that (1) both foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

This is just an amazing thought process, but they are at least consistent, since if an unborn child is not human, then why should those be born be considered human? The first step in this was to devalue human life and from there this is inevitable to happen.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Ah no ? Cause infanticide is lame . Just like the assumption that abortion is infanticide .

 

[useless]

So... what?

What would you prefer; Risky, Dangerous and potentially life-threatening back-street abortions, or abortions that were carried out in a safe environment? Banning abortion won't stop it, it'll merely drive it to the back alleys.

 

[Dachs]

 

[GoodSarmatian]

There's nothing inevitable nor particularly consistent about this.

Abortion =/=infanticide because fetus =/= infant.

Countries that allow abortion usually don't draw the line at 'one day before birth', the standard (at least in Europe) seems to be that abortion is legal if the fetus isn't older than fourteen weeks.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it depends on whether the parents want them, eh?

So you think it is better that they die a starvation death, since they have not way to provide for themselves? Either way, once you have removed their parents, it is a death sentence to the children, so it just depends on how you kill them. Either you make it quick, or you make it slow. Your method is a slow and painful death, whereas God's method is a quick one. There is no alternative in that situation.

Inspiration for the idea that is humane to kill infants in some circumstances.

Plus, there's the real risk that those babies will be the next Hitler. I mean, if they're sick or unwanted, who knows how they'll turn out?

I will ask again, which of these three option is the most humane option?
1. You kill the children right then and their, making their death quick and painless
2. You let them go and allow them to die out of sight and out of mind, but their death will be slow and very painful.
3. You let them go and they get captured by some other raiders and they sell the people for slaves and leave those who are not useful to die.
4. You let them survive and they somehow manage to survive and they manage to kill many more of you people in addition to the people that you have already lost.

Further inspiration.

So, in conclusion, the idea that it's humane to murder infants has already been discussed on these very forums. Very few people supported the idea, despite the arguments presented.

 

[Save_Ferris]

So... what?

What would you prefer; Risky, Dangerous and potentially life-threatening back-street abortions, or abortions that were carried out in a safe environment? Banning abortion won't stop it, it'll merely drive it to the back alleys.

Compare the number of women having abortions now to the number having abortions when the technology wasn't available.

 

[Leoreth]

Sorry, can't read the OP because there's a massive strawman blocking my sight.

 

[Patroklos]

There are posters on this board (and in this thread) that believe in abortion for rape and incest up to the very minute before birth. In order to be consitant they should support the killing of infants under the same circumstances.

How about it, you know who you are? Are you going to be logically consistant?

 

[useless]

I presume you're also against all forms of human death, right Pat?

 

[Leoreth]

There are posters on this board (and in this thread) that believe in abortion for rape and incest up to the very minute before birth.

Quote or it didn't happen.

 

[warpus]

The first step in this was to devalue human life and from there this is inevitable to happen.

Your thread started well, but then it devolved into hyperbole.

And no, we shouldn't be killing newborns.. unless they exit the womb speaking fluent Esperanto.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is just an amazing thought process, but they are at least consistent, since if an unborn child is not human, then why should those be born be considered human? The first step in this was to devalue human life and from there this is inevitable to happen.

Who argues that an unborn child is by definition not a person (which is what I assume you mean by "person", because "human" is not a category with any ethical content)? All that I have ever heard argued is that personhood emerges during pregnancy rather than at conception, which is a very different claim. Some may argue for abortion even after the development of personhood, but that's invariably on the basis of the woman's bodily autonomy, which is self-evidently a non-issue when the infant has left the woman's body.

Feeble strawman, I'm afraid to say, is embarrassingly feeble.

Quote or it didn't happen.

Is it even possible to have an abortion "the moment before birth"? Isn't that just a c-section?

Compare the number of women having abortions now to the number having abortions when the technology wasn't available.

What number? Are we supposed to go and dig these up for ourselves, as if it was our job to make your points for you? You can't expect us to take your argument seriously is you can't even be bothered to make it in the first place.

 

[kramerfan86]

Your comparison only holds true in late term abortion, which are particularly rare. To suggest aborting a brainless fetus is basically the same as killing an infant is at absolute best laughable.

 

[Murky]

I think it's funny that people who are supposedly "Pro-Life" are typically against universal healthcare.

 

[Mark1031]

Not in a society with sufficient resources to care for the infant.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

CH if I had the slightest hope you'd listen to an argument about this, I'd gladly would discuss this with you.

Vrwc, this is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Core Imposter]

So... what?

What would you prefer; Risky, Dangerous and potentially life-threatening back-street abortions, or abortions that were carried out in a safe environment? Banning abortion won't stop it, it'll merely drive it to the back alleys.

Thats fine. The back alleys have long been a place where murders are done.

 

[useless]

Why should women have to suffer going to a back alley to have an abortion and the risks that it brings?

 

[Core Imposter]

Your comparison only holds true in late term abortion, which are particularly rare. To suggest aborting a brainless fetus is basically the same as killing an infant is at absolute best laughable.

I guess you'd agree that a person with mental disabilites would be an acceptable candidate for euthanasia? We could save a lot of money eh?