Should we allow Infanticide?

[Traitorfish]

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?

That's a bizarre non sequitur even for you.

 

[useless]

No you don't understand Traitorfish, aborting a fetus which at best has a tenuous grasp on personhood, is literally the same as gathering up the mentally disabled and slaughtering them (regardless of reason).

You know actual, established people.

What's more offensive is how he's comparing a mentally disabled person to that of a fetus (a being that has yet to become a person).

 

[Narz]

A newborn has less "consciousness" and awareness than ever a cat. If the parents don't want it & nobody wants it & it's going to live a miserable life due to that I think it should be legal (obviously done with a painless shot or solution in the mouth or something.

There's over 7 billion clamoring humans on this planet, many of them lost, f-ed up, lonely & miserable. It takes a lot of time & effort & love to raise a child, if that is lacking & for whatever reason (reasonable or stupid) the parents didn't nip that sucker in the bud before it was too late they still should be able to.

I figure they should allow infanticide up to two months of age. Once the baby starts smiling it's kind of hard to justify killing it (yes, some will say that's totally arbitrary but so is 17 for sex, 18 for being a pawn of the US military & 21 for drinking).

Of course this would never happen so it's just silly talking about it. Even in starving countries where the kid will die anyway I imagine it's very hard for women to kill their own babies (though I'm sure they do anyway, and get rewarded for trying to save their child suffering later with scorn & demonization).

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

Resources =/ solely food, water & shelter. If it's going to grow up severely neglected or abused its more humane to let the parents show some wisdom by choosing to avoid all that.

BTW, this thread quality is awful. So far only nobody except ElMac has given the question any real consideration. We have enough abortion debates on here.

 

[Akka]

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


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.

Your quote talk about foetus, while most of pro-choice people talk about embryo.
Try again.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Oh yay, another abortion debate. Because we certainly haven't gone over that enough.

No, killing infants is not the same as killing a month-old embryo. These people, who are obviously just trying to prove a point, are failing miserably.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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?

I talked about terminology in the other thread and this is the reason why. It's to avoid deliberate obfuscation of trolls to make pro-choice look barbaric. In other words to prevent trollish bull like this.

Nobody claims an unborn child is not human. It's as human as a fertilised egg, an un-fertilised egg, or a sperm. Is it a human though? Is it a person? An unborn child grows into a person. In my opinion it becomes one when it becomes sentient. Which is way before the child is born. Those of the religious persuasion believe it's a person at conception. There lies the contention. That is where the debate has to take place.

People like the person I am quoting are not looking to debate this issue, which is apparent by use of conversation stoppers. They do not care to try and understand the other's position. Which you can do without agreeing with it. If you don't understand the argument you're arguing against, and continue to misrepresent that argument, while being corrected again and again, then what is the point?

edit: Disclaimer, the reason I made this personal is to not paint the entire pro-life movement with the same brush.

 

[Snorrius]

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

Well, it have some rational reasoning: by abolition of universal healthcare you make less obstacles for natural selection.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, it have some rational reasoning

Ah, but does it any logical logic, sensible sense or coherent coherence?

 

[Patroklos]

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

We can tackle that eniterly irrelevant presumption of yours that can't possibly follow logically from anything I have said here thus far, or in any thread fir that matter this, when its not off topic.

For now, since you decided to show up, why don't you just tell us how you logically disallow infanticide but still advocate unrestricted late term abortion in regards to rape and incest (perhaps regardless of circumstance?).

Quote or it didn't happen.

In due time, in due time.

For now he is here to tell us himself, no need to resort to that. If he doesn't I will post his comments from his Santorium rape baby thread.

 

[Domen]

since if an unborn child is not human, then why should those be born be considered human?

But who says that an unborn child is not human? It clearly is human. If not human then what - monkey? Fish? Elephant?

You cannot deprive unborn child (nasciturus) of humanity by legalizing abortion.

Legalizing something doesn't make it "morally perfect and morally beautiful", unlike some Westerners think.

Yet Romans "confirmed" humanity of unborn children by recognizing their rights: nasciturus pro iam nato habetur, quotiens de commodis eius agitur.

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?

You are getting dangerously close to Uncle Hitler. But Uncle Hitler also considered homosexuals as acceptable candidates for euthanasia. After all being gay or lesbian means that you will most likely not procreate children with your partner - so you are less useful for the society than heterosexual families, who can procreate children = future taxpayers. That's quite similar to having mental disability (in the sense that a person with mental disability is also "less useful").

Of course I am just following your logic. This is not what I think. Actually I find your proposition disgusting, if you was serious.

 

[useless]

Where did I advocate unrestricted late term abortion?

We've spoken about this before Pat, perhaps you should look back at our conversations, in which we established that I drew a moral line at a week-immediate birth.

Also, I have no idea why you don't just come out and say it's me Pat, it's kind of creepy and somewhat disconcerting.

Why don't you play your hand bro?

 

[kochman]

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

Compare the percentages being permanently scarred or even dying from abortions now to when they had to get back alley abortions...

 

[Domen]

FFS, "The server is too busy at the moment. Please try again later" all the time...

You also have this?

===========

useless - who are you referring to as "Pat"?

===========

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?

You are getting dangerously close to Uncle Hitler. But Uncle Hitler also considered homosexuals as acceptable candidates for euthanasia. After all being gay or lesbian means that you will most likely not procreate children with your partner - so you are less useful for the society than heterosexual families, who can procreate children = future taxpayers. That's quite similar to having mental disability (in the sense that a person with mental disability is also "less useful").

Of course I am just following your logic. This is not what I think. Actually I find your proposition disgusting, if you was serious.

BTW - since Christianity and Renaissance in Europe / Western Civilization we tend to think that individuals > community.

And since welfare state we tend to think that well-being (not just in financial terms) of entire society = (not <) economic growth.

Thus your argument with mental disabilities and saving a lot of money maybe would be valid in China, but not here.

 

[Kozmos]

Only if we can turn their body weight into stem cells and infuse their mewling souls with satanic black magic to cure diseases.

 

[Snorrius]

Ah, but does it any logical logic, sensible sense or coherent coherence?

We were talking about rational reasoning, not about reasonable reason or rational ration.

 

[Traitorfish]

But who says that an unborn child is not human? It clearly is human. If not human then what - monkey? Fish? Elephant?

You cannot deprive unborn child (nasciturus) of humanity by legalizing abortion.

Legalizing something doesn't make it "morally perfect and morally beautiful", unlike some Westerners think.

In what sense is "human" an ethically substantial category? As far as I can tell, it's simple taxonomy, and while it might provide the basis for some convenient ethical generalisations, it carries no weight in itself.

We were talking about rational reasoning, not about reasonable reason or rational ration.

"Reasonable", in this sense, is just the Anglo-Saxon form of "rational", so that still doesn't work.

 

[Domen]

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.

Since incest is about just as much, if not less, morally controversial as / than abortion (at least abortion done for reason different than threat of woman's life or health) - I can't see how can incest pregnancy be a premise for late abortion. It has been proven that incest breeding carries no more danger for child's health than pregnancy after 30 (and since pregnancy after 30 is not a premise for late abortion, why should incest pregnancy be?).

In what sense is "human" an ethically substantial category? As far as I can tell, it's simple taxonomy

Since ethics is relevant mainly to humans - not to (other) animals (most of ethic rules apply to interactions between humans).

So yes, it is ethically substantial category, not "just" simple taxonomy.

 

[Leoreth]

Legalizing something doesn't make it "morally perfect and morally beautiful", unlike some Westerners think.

Who thinks that? Most pro-choice people view it as an unfortunate, yet necessary weighing of several factors. You make it sounds as if people are running around bragging about their abortions.

Oh, and thanks for showing us once again that you're a walking Godwin's Law proof machine.

 

[Traitorfish]

Since ethics is relevant mainly to humans - not to (other) animals (most of ethic rules apply to interactions between humans).

So yes, it is ethically substantial category, not "just" simple taxonomy.

That's begging the question rather obscenely.

 

[Dachs]

Oh, and thanks for showing us once again that you're a walking Godwin's Law proof machine.

Uh, the dude's Polish. You can't possibly be surprised.