Should we allow Infanticide?

[useless]

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".

But you see, a fetus is a person and it isn't at all sexist to put the "life" of something that has yet to reach personhood, before a womans.

 

[Patroklos]

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.

I don't see how quoting you verbatim is personal. Do you have a problem with people knowing your position being known? Why do you consistency fail to inform people that you are a supporter of allowing what every reasonable person considers cold blooded murder?

Don't you think That may be important to know when you wax on about being avaunt infanticide, that you support what reasonable poeple consider infanticide in the first place?

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

Feel free to point us to one. Any poster whatsoever. Find us one who is down for deliberate killing a child moments before birth.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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

Prove that I am a person.

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.

I believe in the basic principle of state's rights, which lost most of its power after the Civil War because of the Northern side, who really attacked the South first and started a war of aggression that, constitutionally, was not allowed, since the Constitution allows secession. THAT is what I'm trying to convey with my avatar.

I absolutely abhor slavery and racism. Assuming I support these things because of the flag on my avatar is... assuming.

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

Great arguing skills there!

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".

I did not say it was a good thing. I rejected the idea that, if women will get abortions anyway, doing it legally is "Better" simply because its safer, an idea that, from a true pro-life perspective, should be abhorrent. The right thing is not that more women will die on operating tables, but that more women will NOT seek to kill their own children, which hopefully banning abortions would do.

Also, while the truly determined would possibly seek the back-alley, a lot of women wouldn't. Which would result in the saving of many more innocent lives.

Finally, I'm envisioning a society where the fetus' right to live was actually taken seriously. Can you imagine the outcry if, in ancient Rome, a senator proposed a capital punishment for infanticide? Yet (In some states of the US) it happens now. Reform would take a long time, if it will happen at all. Unfortunately, abortion being legal makes most people assume it cannot be as bad as murder.

 

[useless]

Again more baseless assertions on your part. You're being incredibly dishonest Pat, and it really does make me wonder why you continue on this vendetta of yours against me.

It's not a goddamn baby untill it has been born.

 

[Patroklos]

But you see, a fetus is a person and it isn't at all sexist to put the "life" of something that has yet to reach personhood, before a womans.

There you go, being disingenuous again. You see useless when you say things like that reasonable people assume you are talking about first or even second trimester abortions. They do this because they don't realize you are an extremist, you go out of your way to avoid exposing that.

Why don't you just say you are talking about a child minutes from birth? Why don't you explain you don't consider that a person. Do you think you would have support for that?

The simple fact is you don't care whether the child is a person one way or the other. Person or not, as most people believe is the case in instances where you claim you do not, you would STILL claim the women has a right to kill. And that's why your sexist arguement falls flat, because even in an equal to equal human decision you still pick the women. THAT is sexist useless.

Perhaps you should have answered those questions earlier? You would have then understood how you have undermined yourself.

Again more baseless assertions on your part. You're being incredibly dishonest Pat, and it really does make me wonder why you continue on this vendetta of yours against me.

I am just quoting you useless, again I ask why you are so disturbed by people knowing you true position?

What is actually dishonest is you participating in a thread like this without disclosing your particularly extreme opinion on the matter.

It's not a goddamn baby untill it has been born.

Don't quibble. Say it. You have no problem with allowing the aborting of a child with the intent to kill itminutes before birth.

Once again, what is a difference between a child a minute before birth and a minute after? The difference that is so substantial that we can kill one but not the other?

 

[useless]

Oh man pat, i've really tried. I've tried to patient and civil, but now i am wondering if it was worth it at all. You've constantly implied that i am okay with murder, yet when called out on it you claim that you are "pro-choice" (which i do not believe for one second).

Want to know what I consider a person? Someone that has left the goddamn confines of a woman's body. Is that an "extreme" position?

 

[useless]

Oh and an abortion around 1-2 weeks before birth is actually pretty dangerous, so it would only occur in the circumstances in which an abortion is needed to save the mothers life. But I didn't realise that trying to save an actual person "extreme".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh man pat, i've really tried. I've tried to patient and civil, but now i am wondering if it was worth it at all. You've constantly implied that i am okay with murder, yet when called out on it you claim that you are "pro-choice" (which i do not believe for one second).

Want to know what I consider a person? Someone that has left the goddamn confines of a woman's body. Is that an "extreme" position?

I don't recall to Pat actually saying he is either pro-life or pro-choice (I'm sure he has, but not in this thread AFAIK) all he has said is that what you believe is akin to legalizing murder. Its possible to be pro-choice and still oppose abortions after a certain point.

Oh and an abortion around 1-2 weeks before birth is actually pretty dangerous, so it would only occur in the circumstances in which an abortion is needed to save the mothers life. But I didn't realise that trying to save an actual person "extreme".[/B[/]QUOTE]

Quit the rambling. Its not getting you anywhere since you haven't proved your point yet. In addition, you did not say "Late term abortions are not OK unless the life of the mother is threatened" you said such abortions were actually OK and that banning them at all is infringing on "Female bodily freedom." Frankly, that position is either sadistic or stupid, take your pick.

 

[useless]

Frankly, that position is either sadistic or stupid, take your pick.

Didn't you say you wanted (and hope for) women to die during abortions? Who are you to question me on "sadistic" or "stupid" opinions?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Didn't you say you wanted (and hope for) women to die during abortions? Who are you to question me on "sadistic" or "stupid" opinions?

Actually read my posts next time, as well as my explanations of said posts.

 

[useless]

You didn't really explain why it was acceptable for you to wish death upon women who get abortions or for them to be executed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It has to do with two of my beliefs being logically combined:

1. Abortion is murder

and

2. The proper penalty for murder is death

If you agree with both of those, you should think abortion should be a Capital offense.

 

[useless]

And the wishing of death for those having abortions?

 

[Traitorfish]

Prove that I am a person.

Is it my job to make your points for you?

I believe in the basic principle of state's rights, which lost most of its power after the Civil War because of the Northern side, who really attacked the South first and started a war of aggression that, constitutionally, was not allowed, since the Constitution allows secession. THAT is what I'm trying to convey with my avatar.

I absolutely abhor slavery and racism. Assuming I support these things because of the flag on my avatar is... assuming.

I didn't say that you support racism and slavery (I'm quite convinced that you're merely indifferent), I said that you seem quite ready to support racists and slave-owners. In the strictest sense, yes, that's an "assumption", but if you didn't, well- why would you wear their flag as an avatar?

Great arguing skills there!

I wasn't arguing, I was contemptuously dismissing.

I did not say it was a good thing. I rejected the idea that, if women will get abortions anyway, doing it legally is "Better" simply because its safer, an idea that, from a true pro-life perspective, should be abhorrent. The right thing is not that more women will die on operating tables, but that more women will NOT seek to kill their own children, which hopefully banning abortions would do.

Then what were your comment about "capital punishment" in aid of? You clearly regard the violent death of women seeking abortion as desirable. Taking your comments at face value, you're are on the cusp of suggesting that you would be entitled to take their deaths into your own hands, should you feel the need.

Also, while the truly determined would possibly seek the back-alley, a lot of women wouldn't. Which would result in the saving of many more innocent lives.

Given the by now rather blatant between the pro-life and anti-contraception movement? I don't know if that's actually realistic. It's a bit like talking about "if unicorns farted chocolate"; you might not be wrong, but, really, what does it matter?

Finally, I'm envisioning a society where the fetus' right to live was actually taken seriously. Can you imagine the outcry if, in ancient Rome, a senator proposed a capital punishment for infanticide? Yet (In some states of the US) it happens now. Reform would take a long time, if it will happen at all. Unfortunately, abortion being legal makes most people assume it cannot be as bad as murder.

Do you have any basis at all for believing that this is the case? Because it quite frankly sounds like something that you just made up.

 

[civ_king]

And the wishing of death for those having abortions?

His argument is that the proper punishment for murder is death therefore if a murderer does while murdering someone then justice has been served since the punishment has been dealt. Feel free to attack his assumptions, but when starting from those two assumptions his conclusion is reasonable.


If one works from the assumption that human life has value from the ability to reason then since a fetus can not reason it is morally permissible to kill it, similarly an infant since it is dumb is also morally permissible to kill, heck the term infant derives from infans meaning incapable of speech.

 

[Traitorfish]

If one works from the assumption that human life has value from the ability to reason then since a fetus can not reason it is morally permissible to kill it, similarly an infant since it is dumb is also morally permissible to kill, heck the term infant derives from infans meaning incapable of speech.

How did we get from "incapable of reason" to "dumb", exactly?

 

[civ_king]

How did we get from "incapable of reason" to "dumb", exactly?

There is a reason dumb means both "silent; unable to speak" and "stupid". For the Romans one's ability to reason was expressed through speech and so one who lacks the ability to speak or convey one's thoughts also lacked the ability to reason hence why they found infanticide morally permissible. I think it would be reasonable to use the modern definition of speech such as in "freedom of speech" as "speech" so nonverbal communications such as sign language and the written word count.

 

[El_Machinae]

Prove that I am a person.

Taking the debate in this direction causes an unending spiral. Obviously, I cannot "prove" you're a person, but we can certainly agree that you are. You cannot "prove" that a tree has no sentience, but we can agree that it doesn't.

In the abortion debate, I think each 'side' has sufficiently proven their point, except the morals. I mean, pro-choice (mostly) agrees that the fetus is a human organism. Pro-life (mostly) agrees that an early fetus has zero sentience.

The debate really should expand beyond that. How do you "prove" that non-sentient organisms have equivalent moral value to sentient ones? It's certainly an uphill battle, and simple jibes won't do it. But the pro-sentience people have a different hurdle, because they have to justify things like meat-consumption, etc.

If one works from the assumption that human life has value from the ability to reason then since a fetus can not reason it is morally permissible to kill it, similarly an infant since it is dumb is also morally permissible to kill, heck the term infant derives from infans meaning incapable of speech.

Honestly, I don't know where you're going with this. Even if the Romans thought that speech was a significant landmark (morally), I see no reason why we should care (other than due to curiosity).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The debate really should expand beyond that. How do you "prove" that non-sentient organisms have equivalent moral value to sentient ones? It's certainly an uphill battle, and simple jibes won't do it. But the pro-sentience people have a different hurdle, because they have to justify things like meat-consumption, etc.

That's true. Or even worse, when I notice that meat I bought has passed it's expiration date. I do feel like a complete and utter bastard and moron when through my idiocy an animal has died for nothing.

 

[GoodGame]

Not to be funny but tornadoes do it. So I guess society would have something in common with tornadoes then.