Kill The Infants! - Page 4

[Imakcerka]

alright one more time,
 

Originally Posted by Smokering 

OK, trying to keep on topic here....

How then do you respond to the argument I made in my original post? To recap

"A woman should have every right to her body" - I assume you mean "every right to do what she wants with her body"? But abortion and infanticide obviously involve someone else's body as well - the baby's - so that should really be phrased as "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else" (or at least, sign the consent form allowing someone else to do the killing).

Yes, if she's KILLING her unborn child it's her right.  I'm using words you probably would appreciate as they're the ones you're already using and I refuse to sugar coat.  Yes she may kill her own in utero child.  One crappy aspect about being a woman is that the fault/blame/responsibility will always fall on her shoulders.

If you believe that wholesale, then you eventually descend into complete anarchy - if we can all do whatever we want with our bodies, even if harms others, then rape and murder and theft and genocide are all OK. I'm going to assume you don't believe that. :p So presumably you mean "A woman should have every right to do what she wants with her body, even if what she wants to do with it is kill someone else, under specific circumstances". Right?

Under no specific circumstances.  When there are "circumstances" in place there is always room to invade the mind and soul of the woman with guilt and unnecessary medical procedures as they are doing now here in the states.

So what are those circumstances, and how do the circumstances of abortion (which you think should be legal) and infanticide (which you find "disturbing", although I don't believe you commented on whether you felt it should be legal or not) differ? A PP mentioned that a baby in the womb can only be looked after by one specific mother, whereas a baby outside the womb could be looked after by others; but that distinction would seem to assign moral worth to babies solely on the basis of convenience. If it were impossible for a mother to hand over her baby for fostering/adoption; if she were the only person available to care for it; would not infanticide be permissible, under that paradigm? If her "moral compass" were OK with it, and she wanted to use her body as she pleased (ie not feeding and caring for a helpless baby - or I suppose, by extension, an invalid or otherwise helpless person)... would you believe we didn't have the right to force her to do it, and that therefore she could order the death of the baby, or even perform it herself if she wanted to use her body that way?

You know what would be ideal.  Education.  We currently have some states refusing to allow any education but abstinence in the school system until the student is 18.  There are no avenues for these kids to learn about the proper way to care for themselves other than their parents and more times than not the parents will not teach them either. 

Do I honestly think babies should die due to a possible special needs outcome, no.  Do I really think babies need to die at all?  No absolutely not.  However in the times we're dealing with it's NOT black and white at all.  I don't like the idea of abortion and I wish there was never a need for it.  However I do believe the right to make that decision for yourself is important.  Nobody should be able to make it for you.

In other words: you seem to be pro-choice but anti-infanticide, but what's your reasoning that finds a moral distinction between the two?

I suppose it's because I see the child who is born to be just that a child and the one in utero a possibility. 

[Smokering]

Yes, if she's KILLING her unborn child it's her right.  I'm using words you probably would appreciate as they're the ones you're already using and I refuse to sugar coat.  Yes she may kill her own in utero child.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Next question: why?

Under no specific circumstances.  When there are "circumstances" in place there is always room to invade the mind and soul of the woman with guilt and unnecessary medical procedures as they are doing now here in the states.

I don't think you understood me. The "under specific circumstances" phrasing was meant to rule out women killing just anyone, for the sake of precision; as in, a woman may kill her unborn child, but not, say, her teenage daughter.

You know what would be ideal.  Education.  We currently have some states refusing to allow any education but abstinence in the school system until the student is 18.  There are no avenues for these kids to learn about the proper way to care for themselves other than their parents and more times than not the parents will not teach them either. 

Do I honestly think babies should die due to a possible special needs outcome, no.  Do I really think babies need to die at all?  No absolutely not.  However in the times we're dealing with it's NOT black and white at all.  I don't like the idea of abortion and I wish there was never a need for it.  However I do believe the right to make that decision for yourself is important.  Nobody should be able to make it for you.

That's a complete non sequiter. I doesn't answer my question at all!

I suppose it's because I see the child who is born to be just that a child and the one in utero a possibility.

There scientific evidence is against you. A "possibility" doesn't have a heartbeat, brainwaves, DNA, pain receptors, organs etc. Whether or not a fetus is a person is a matter for philosophical debate, but a fetus is most definitely, absolutely a being, not a concept.

[TiredX2]

This is completely a debate about abortion at this point.  I would like to leave the discussion up but the debate about abortion must end.

If you would like to go back to the original topic, feel free to do so.

[suzywan]

The government cannot compel a human being to use their body to keep another human alive against their will, unless of course they categorize the former as a different kind of human which certain factions tend to do.  Women as a class can get pregnant, so their bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty is not nearly as sacred as those who cannot get pregnant.  It's very simple.

Religion is the red herring.  It may inform your personal beliefs, but has no business informing legislation (in the US, anyway).  Most conservative US religions think life starts at conception.  Many non-mainstream Eastern religions do not.  Many other religions don't care either way.  Who's right?  Who cares?

[Viola]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Next question: why?

To keep it from becoming a human being and having legal rights, because things become more complicated at that point.  I'm not a slippery slope person, so I see a difference in infanticide vs. the killing of a zygote through an IUD or BCP just as a I see a difference in abortions in the early weeks vs. in the later weeks.  But if every zygote is a human, and I admit it's easier just to take the absolute position, then having to use your hand to fill out a tax form is the same as having to use your body to carry a pregnancy through to birth.  But as Suzywan points out, the government cannot compel you, which just means they can't make you complete the tax form and they can't make you carry the pregnancy--they can prosecute you if you don't.  

But I think that if you have to act as your conscience dictates, and push for making it illegal for a woman to terminate a potential pregnancy, if that is what you believe is morally right.  And the people who disagree with this will push for their own agenda.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by Viola 

To keep it from becoming a human being and having legal rights, because things become more complicated at that point.

But I think that if you have to act as your conscience dictates, and push for making it illegal for a woman to terminate a potential pregnancy, if that is what you believe is morally right.  And the people who disagree with this will push for their own agenda.

To clarify, there is a human being in question.  A human being exists from the zygotic phase of development onward.  There is no other species to which this separate organism can belong.  Perhaps you're referring to the legal and philosophical term "person," which courts have arbitrarily divied out throughout history to grant or deny legal rights to various demographics. 

Also, could you clarify for me what you mean by "terminat[ing] a potential pregnancy?"  If you're potentially pregnant, you're not pregant.  So wouldn't terminating that condition require getting pregnant? 

But to move this slightly away from the abortion issue, this article touches on one of the last socially acceptable forms of discrimination in our culture--discrimination against the disabled.  Historically, the phenomenon has always been present.  The Romans fed disabled babies to the wolves.  And subsequent Western cultures have had an extremely tainted history of parading them around in circuses, shackling them in chains and throwing them into dungeons with the "insane," declaring them "unfit" and "feeble-minded" (as the early 20th century eugencists did), performing dangerous scientific experiments on them without their knowledge or informed consent, and even forcing them into sterilization. 

None of this is to minimize what other oppressed populations have endured; however, this is the only population that I have seen philosophers in a major academic journal consider so "disposable."  (And please keep in mind that these authors are arguing that it's OK to kill the non-disabled infants, as well, provided that they are "unwanted.")  As another current example of of this discrimination, has anybody been following this story? 

Could you imagine if the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia denied life-saving treatment to somebody because of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc.?  Cornell West and Al Sharpton would be all over the media about it.  But obviously, the intellectually disabled have no Ivy League scholars or eloquent leaders from their own population to speak for them, and few people have even heard about this story.  I would be very--VERY!--interested to see this topic (the link in the OP) cross-posted in MDC's Special Needs forum.  I'm sure that those mamas would have a lot to say about this issue...

[branditopolis]

Originally Posted by Smokering 

Please explain how your link is at all relevant to my argument? I've seen that page before, and it doesn't address either of my points; all it does is point out the hypocrisy of some "pro-life" (although obviously not) individuals, which isn't really the issue at hand.

As for the rest of my post, I disagree that it's inflammatory (certainly no more so than your original statements, to which I was responding) and it certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack; but if you feel it warrants reporting, report it. Otherwise, feel free to point out any errors of reasoning in my argument, or respond rationally to it.

I am, in fact, "inflamed".

[branditopolis]

Originally Posted by suzywan 

The government cannot compel a human being to use their body to keep another human alive against their will, unless of course they categorize the former as a different kind of human which certain factions tend to do.  Women as a class can get pregnant, so their bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty is not nearly as sacred as those who cannot get pregnant.  It's very simple.

Religion is the red herring.  It may inform your personal beliefs, but has no business informing legislation (in the US, anyway).  Most conservative US religions think life starts at conception.  Many non-mainstream Eastern religions do not.  Many other religions don't care either way.  Who's right?  Who cares?