Should we allow Infanticide?

[Incodcito]

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.

Talk about a weak strawman...

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'd prefer dangerous ones:

1. The government isn't endorsing them.

2. Since abortion is murder anyway, dying during one is natural capital punishment.

(Note: I'm not wishing for people considering abortion to die, I'm wishing they would not consider it. As abortion is murder, actually doing it warrants a death sentence anyway.)

I was initially happy when the site came back on line....then this

 

[useless]

It sounds disturbingly misogynistic, what with the desire to punish women for exerting bodily autonomy and believing that dyimg because of it is somehow good.

 

[bathsheba666]

I think infanticide should be allowed, as long as people can opt out by painting the outside of their house red so that the angel passes over.

 

[aelf]

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.

Oooch, that's pretty scary! Those are c&p of previous posts by Classical Hero justifying the slaughter of newborns, kids, and pregnant women. There're a few people on this board who've justified infanticide, but most of them don't fall into the 'pro-choice' category

I believe that the killing of infants to be obviously wrong, and someone arguing otherwise has a fairly large uphill battle. The difference between infant sentience and toddler sapience is one of degrees, of gradients. It's nothing like the difference between an early fetus and a late fetus, which is an absolute cognitive difference.

But yeah, in my post I linked to older C_H posts where he gave his reasons why it was a good idea to stab babies.

I actually think it's internally consistent. I mean, I vociferously disagree and I'm a bit offended at the idea, but I think that it's a logical moral stance given certain inputs.

It shows that the inputs are incorrect, not that the thinking is incorrect..

I find the switch interesting, given previous pro-infanticide comments from Ghostwriter16. Where he agreed that slaughtering babies is sometimes okay, even if it's totally convenient to take care of them instead.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9464179&postcount=111

or here

It's the same argument that Classical_Hero makes. It's okay to kill babies if you think they might be the next Hitler.

I find it somewhat ironic that in a thread started by a pro-life person decrying abortion as basically the same as infanticide, it's the pro-lifers themselves who have been demonstrated to have actually expressed any kind of support for infanticide. Good work

 

[GhostWriter16]

Classy, GhostWriter. Real classy.

I try NOT to be politically correct. Intentionally. I try to tell the truth, no matter how painful it is.

It's dehumanising and horrible, and as per usual you fail to understand that there are valid situations in which AN ABORTION IS REQUIRED TO SAVE THE MOTHERS LIFE.

Red herring. Abortions which are necessary to save the mother's life are only a very small subset of abortions. In that particular case the question becomes much more nuanced.*

I'm talking about abortion in general.

*And I'm not answering it here.

I actually think it's internally consistent. I mean, I vociferously disagree and I'm a bit offended at the idea, but I think that it's a logical moral stance given certain inputs.

It shows that the inputs are incorrect, not that the thinking is incorrect..

I find the switch interesting, given previous pro-infanticide comments from Ghostwriter16. Where he agreed that slaughtering babies is sometimes okay, even if it's totally convenient to take care of them instead.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9464179&postcount=111

or here




It's the same argument that Classical_Hero makes. It's okay to kill babies if you think they might be the next Hitler.

Not sure where the context of that statement is. In any case, I made it over a year and a half ago, so I'm not even sure if I still agree with it now. In fact, the wording on the post doesn't seem to make sense. Come to think of it, most of my posts from 2010 don't. Its called being young

In all seriousness, to quote me from a year and a half ago (When I have admitted many times I've learned a lot since then) is a bit unfair, and without any context to go by its VERY unfair.

 

[Traitorfish]

I try NOT to be politically correct. Intentionally. I try to tell the truth, no matter how painful it is.

The white supremacist avatar makes that rather clear, yes.

 

[aelf]

The white supremacist avatar makes that rather clear, yes.

Nah, in his case it stands for liberty or something. But, have hope, he might look back in a few years' time and realise that the Confederate libertarian thing makes no sense. It's called being young, though I'd use a different adjective.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The white supremacist avatar makes that rather clear, yes.

I completely oppose all racism, and Lincoln, who was on the North side, did not oppose all racism. Assumptions much?

The Civil War was fought over state's rights, which happened to include, but was not exclusively based on, the issue of slavery. But of course, nobody remembers the other issues, especially non-Americans.

The Confederate flag today is frequently flown in the US South, as a symbol of Southern culture. It generally is not used as a racist symbol.

 

[useless]

You're still punishing women for having sex Ghostwriter essentially.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You're still punishing women for having sex Ghostwriter essentially.

Not really.

The father still has to pay child support (And in my opinion there should be a highly enforceable system for them to do so.)

Birth control USUALLY works to stop pregnancy. I know there are exceptions, but, you know, being responsible, usually works without having to resort to an abortion.

While there isn't much we can do about the woman having to give birth to the child, she's still allowed to put it up for adoption.

Even if that weren't enough, I'd rather punish women for having sex than killing a baby.

 

[Patroklos]

Need I take you to task in this thread too? We all know your women's rights angle is bogus useless, you have failed to support it in every instance.

 

[useless]

By asking loaded questions? I really don't understand your weird obsession with me but fine if you must...

Even if that weren't enough, I'd rather punish women for having sex than killing a baby.

Except a fetus isn't a baby nor is it a person. That's pretty telling.

 

[Traitorfish]

I completely oppose all racism, and Lincoln, who was on the North side, did not oppose all racism. Assumptions much?

Lincoln didn't spend quite as much of his time talking about how much he loved violent racists as you do, so I'm going to have to express a certain scepticism about this comparison.

But, we're getting off topic; the point is that your avatar makes it quite clear that you're not one to feel bound by such fetters as political correctness, tact, or decency, so pointing out is just a little redundant.

 

[Patroklos]

By asking loaded questions? I really don't understand your weird obsession with me but fine if you must...



Except a fetus isn't a baby nor is it a person. That's pretty telling.

Just so we all know where useless is coming from on this topic...

If a woman wants to have an abortion at around 1-2 weeks, fine. I wouldn't feel great about it, but then again i don't feel good about any abortion. The point is that I wouldn't limit abortions because it isn't for me (a man) to tell a woman how she should or should not deal with her own body.

As long as the abortion isn't happening as she is literally giving birth.

Does anyone want to throw in with useless on this one?

 

[GhostWriter16]

By asking loaded questions? I really don't understand your weird obsession with me but fine if you must...

He's not obsessed with you. You simply haven't managed to make sense thus far in any of your discussions (That I've read) with him.

Except a fetus isn't a baby nor is it a person. That's pretty telling.

Proof? (And a law-book isn't proof, unless you admit to being a government-worshipper.)

Lincoln didn't spend quite as much of his time talking about how much he loved violent racists as you do, so I'm going to have to express a certain scepticism about this comparison.

When have I claimed to love violent racists?

But, we're getting off topic; the point is that your avatar makes it quite clear that you're not one to feel bound by such fetters as political correctness, tact, or decency, so pointing out is just a little redundant.

Not even necessarily true, its a common thing in the Southern USA, its just not common on a worldwide scale.

That said, there's a difference between decency and political correctness. Political correctness is all about masking or watering-down more extreme views to make them APPEAR to be "Reasonable" to the majority of people. I don't bother with that. I do try to be decent to people, though I will freely admit that I do get angry at people sometimes.

 

[useless]

I don't know why you keep on insisting on making this personal, Pat. I don't think my position is extreme at all, especially given that I am not insisting that women should or should not have abortions because of my views on it.

And I'll think you'll find (maybe not in here) that there are others that share this view.

Proof? (And a law-book isn't proof, unless you admit to being a government-worshipper.)

So basically a statist?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Just so we all know where useless is coming from on this topic...



Does anyone want to throw in with useless on this one?

I've tried. It usually results in mod infractions at me for insulting him (See the above about "I get angry sometimes".)

Useless is obviously using the political correctness approach (Trying to focus on the EARLIER abortions that more people are OK with) while masking his views about later term abortions (Also OK, in his opinion.)

I'm not interested in that game. If you ask me a question, I'll answer it bluntly. To debate a waffler is simply pointless.

I don't know why you keep on insisting on making this personal, Pat. I don't think my position is extreme at all, especially given that I am not insisting that women should or should not have abortions because of my views on it.

And I'll think you'll find (maybe not in here) that there are others that share this view.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are OK with abortion. Very few would draw the line inside of a week of birth. In fact, most people want third trimester abortions banned, with the exception of when it endangers the mother's life to do otherwise. Emprically, your position is on the extreme side.

As is mine, I will willingly admit. However, my position is logically the right one. It is illogical to say that the offspring of two humans is not human until "Point X."

 

[useless]

As opposed to your "all abortions are wrong" stance? I'm not the one with abhorrent views on abortion.

 

[Traitorfish]

Proof? (And a law-book isn't proof, unless you admit to being a government-worshipper.)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it is a person, surely? That's the positive claim, not Useless'.

When have I claimed to love violent racists?

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your claim to be a "Confederate"? I mean, if someone were to declare themselves a "Bolshevik", one could only assume that they quite admired Lenin and Co., and if someone dubbed themselves a "Jacobin", one would assume that they had a broadly positive view on Robespierre, Marat and the gang. So if you declare yourself a "Confederate", it seems only reasonable to assume that you regard the various militant pro-slavers who comprised that political movement as something to be looked up to.

Not even necessarily true, its a common thing in the Southern USA, its just not common on a worldwide scale.

That said, there's a difference between decency and political correctness. Political correctness is all about masking or watering-down more extreme views to make them APPEAR to be "Reasonable" to the majority of people.

Ha ha, what? You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I don't bother with that. I do try to be decent to people, though I will freely admit that I do get angry at people sometimes.

You said that you think women dying horribly on the operating table is a good thing, and that you would like to see more of it. Only in the most diseased imagination could that be considered "decent".