Infanticide

[Spinrad]

My point is that unwanted children can live just as important and fulfilling lives as wanted and loved children, thus advocating killing them because they are unloved or unwanted is pointless.

And regardless of what you say, it's a good point.

And I am talking about killing babies from birth to six months, not concerning abortion.

It's a miserable point. Arguing from potential always is. Either the thing has the right to exist or it doesn't. Whether it will grow up to kill or save billions is emotionally charged garbage.

 

[Spinrad]

I have 2 children, and one on the way and I disagree with you, they develop personalities long before 9 months.

My dogs have personalities too. As does my turtle. And when I had a Tarantula it had one.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

It's a miserable point. Arguing from potential always is. Either the thing has the right to exist or it doesn't. Whether it will grow up to kill or save billions is emotionally charged garbage.

Well, as my point seems to be miserable in your opinion, your point is pretty stupid in my opinion.

The OP is arguing that we should be able to kill babies up to six months in age because they are unloved or unwanted. I think that's a miserable point because just because they are unloved or unwanted doesn't mean they won't live fulfilling lives. How you can claim that's a miserable is beyond me.

 

[Spinrad]

Because the things either have a rioght to live or they don't. Potential is not relevant. If it is then harmful potential is just as relevant. And an unloved and unwanted child is FAR more likely to be a stress on society. It's MISERABLE for that damned reason. You will LOSE based on that argument.

 

[HappyHousewife]

I think that his point is that if you decide that people should live because their life could be fulfilling, you unwittingly open the door that implies if people do not lead fufilling lives we should just kill them, and that the standard of life shouldn't be determined by the arbitrary measure of who's life is fulfilling or not.

If we were to take a survey I would bet that there is at least one person out there who does not think our various lives are fulfilling. Does that mean, by your standard of fufilling life is the standard for being alive, that it's OK for us to be killed? If a feminist desided my life as a stay at home wife was not fufilling, would it be OK to kill me? If somebody decided a Christian life isn't fulfilling, could Christians be killed? If somebody decided that having a career as a janitor or K-Mart cashier was not fulfilling, could they be killed?

Your standard of life should be granted to those who have fufilling lives is a slippery and somewhat arbitrary point.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

You know, nevermind. There's really no point in arguing this. You have your opinion on the subject and I have mine. I will be nice enough to respect your opinion because I believe you're entitled to it whether I agree with it or not.

 

[Spinrad]

I explained my childish point. Explain yours. Unwanted children are more likely to harm society. Therefore, based on potential, unwanted children should be killed.

OK, go.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

I think that his point is that if you decide that people should live because their life could be fulfilling, you unwittingly open the door that implies if people do not lead fufilling lives we should just kill them, and that the standard of life shouldn't be determined by the arbitrary measure of who's life is fulfilling or not.

If we were to take a survey I would bet that there is at least one person out there who does not think our various lives are fulfilling. Does that mean, by your standard of fufilling life is the standard for being alive, that it's OK for us to be killed? If a feminist desided my life as a stay at home wife was not fufilling, would it be OK to kill me? If somebody decided a Christian life isn't fulfilling, could Christians be killed? If somebody decided that having a career as a janitor or K-Mart cashier was not fulfilling, could they be killed?

Your standard of life should be granted to those who have fufilling lives is a slippery and somewhat arbitrary point.

THis is called taking everything I said out of context. Every child born should have the chance to live a fulfilling life. I never said if there life was unfufilling, they should be killed. It's all about the chance. Everyone born should have a chance to pursue life and some form of happiness. It's not going to work for everyone, and maybe not even the majority of people, but they should have the oppurtunity.

 

[Spinrad]

THis is called taking everything I said out of context. Every child born should have the chance to live a fulfilling life. I never said if there life was unfufilling, they should be killed. It's all about the chance. Everyone born should have a chance to pursue life and some form of happiness. It's not going to work for everyone, and maybe not even the majority of people, but they should have the oppurtunity.

WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THIS TO BEGIN WITH!?

 

[HappyHousewife]

I'm sorry, but you said:

My point is that unwanted children can live just as important and fulfilling lives as wanted and loved children, thus advocating killing them because they are unloved or unwanted is pointless.[/quote}

This is far different than saying "every child born should have the chance to live a fufilling life." One statment says that people should live because they could live a fufilling life, while the other says that because they could have a fulfilling life they are worthy of being alive. You are using the potential of having a fulfilling life as a yardstick for being worthy to live. If having a fulfilling life is the standard used to justify life, it's also a means to justify death. The point is, if people are worthy of life inherently, then if they have a fulfilling life ahead of them or not is not a concern. If we only allow life to people who have fulfilling lives, then you are advocating the same point the original poster was making, only in reverse.

If you think that "everybody should have a chance at life" then if their life is fulfilling or not should not matter to you. So again, your point that people should live because their life could be fulfilling does not imply that "everybody should have a chance at life," it implies that everybody who has the potential to lead a fulfilling life should have a chance at life. It implies that you do not believe that people have an inherent right to life, and that what you're saying and what the other poster are saying is the same thing.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

I'm sorry, but you said:

My point is that unwanted children can live just as important and fulfilling lives as wanted and loved children, thus advocating killing them because they are unloved or unwanted is pointless.[/quote}

This is far different than saying "every child born should have the chance to live a fufilling life." One statment says that people should live because they could live a fufilling life, while the other says that because they could have a fulfilling life they are worthy of being alive. You are using the potential of having a fulfilling life as a yardstick for being worthy to live. If having a fulfilling life is the standard used to justify life, it's also a means to justify death. The point is, if people are worthy of life inherently, then if they have a fulfilling life ahead of them or not is not a concern. If we only allow life to people who have fulfilling lives, then you are advocating the same point the original poster was making, only in reverse.

If you think that "everybody should have a chance at life" then if their life is fulfilling or not should not matter to you. So again, your point that people should live because their life could be fulfilling does not imply that "everybody should have a chance at life," it implies that everybody who has the potential to lead a fulfilling life should have a chance at life. It implies that you do not believe that people have an inherent right to life, and that what you're saying and what the other poster are saying is the same thing.

Well, I am sorry I didn't phrase myself in such a way that satisfactory to you, HappyHouseWife. I'll take great pains to not do it again in the future.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Besides, I am neither the first nor will I be the last person to ever mess up what I am trying to say on a message board. Now that I have found the correct wording that I was looking for, I am leaving it at that.

 

[Spinrad]

It wasn't what you said. It was the self righteous way you put it. Quit making the same mistake. You have a valid point to make, but if you think you are clever people like me are always going to be waiting.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

If you found my posts self righteous, I apologize, because I am sure most people would agree that I am in no way like that. I apologize for the incorrect phrasing or use of words I use.

 

[Spinrad]

Just consider the reality of your words. I agree with you in the main, which is why I got so angry.

 

[ApocryphaNow]

I don't think that the original poster is saying that children should have a trial period of about 6 months and if it doesn't work out, the child be put down. I think he's saying that if a parent found they had a child with an illness or condition that was irreversable, painful, and would only result in a decrease of life and dignity to standards that we don't see in third world countries, that the parent should be allowed to gently let their child go, sparing them a short life full of long pain. If that's what he's saying, I'd have to say I support that. God knows if I had a child with some of these illnesses (what is the one that is rather uncommon now, but runs through families of Jewish background where a certain gene is present?), as a parent I wouldn't want to subject my child to that. What kind of parent would I be if I kept an innocent child alive through pain only to satisfy my selfish need to have the child with me for a second longer that equals an unbelievable second of agony for my child?

You put this so much better than I possibly could have. This is a very delicate issue, and I am just a bull in a china shop.

 

[xAtheistx]

A cell with 46 chromosomes that was produced by two humans (as opposed to hares, which also have 46 chromosomes) is as much human as you or I...
Yes. A zygote, a single cell, is a living being. How else could it multiply?

 

[ApocryphaNow]

A cell with 46 chromosomes that was produced by two humans (as opposed to hares, which also have 46 chromosomes) is as much human as you or I...
Yes. A zygote, a single cell, is a living being. How else could it multiply?

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you hold a funeral when you skin your knee?

 

[Athene]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you hold a funeral when you skin your knee?

A better analogy would be, should a woman have a funeral everytime she has a period?

 

[Febe]

I guess it all depends of what You count as a human life!

I count conception - so any abortion is murder, for me...
And I do not think it is allright to murder...

I could get rid of an appendix, but not a baby.

I also believe, that unborn children can feel a lot...