Peter Singer supports infanticide.

[Phaedros]

Is infanticide the logical next step to so-called "pro-choice"?

YouTube - Part 1 - Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer

 

[SwordoftheLord]

alot of people say he is a Nazi......looks like it doesnt it.

 

[lux et lex]

Infanticide is the practice of intentionally killing an infant. This is a completely separate issue from abortion. Please do not confuse the two.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Infanticide is the practice of intentionally killing an infant. This is a completely separate issue from abortion. Please do not confuse the two.

No one is confusing this issue.

 

[Phaedros]

Wow lux et lex you never cease to amaze me with your clarity of thought. That said Peter Singer supports abortion without limit AND the killing of INFANTS up to 28 days old. Although, you would have known that had you bothered to watch just a few minutes of that video. Thoughtful responses would be nice.

 

[lux et lex]

Is infanticide the logical next step to so-called "pro-choice"?

First I was responding to this. Secondly, I did watch the video. I wanted to make clear that abortion and infanticide are NOT related, and thus are out of the realm of what would be considered something a Pro Choice person would support as a Pro Choice person. Therefore, not the logical next step to Pro Choice.

 

[Archivist]

Lux et Lux is correct, abortion and infanticide are not related. The views regarding infanticide expressed by Singer are in fact in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution which provides that citizenship begins at birth. There is certainly no "logical progression" from allowing a woman the right to chose to have an abortion to the killing an infant who has all the rights of US citizenship.

 

[Phinehas2]

I think some of you pro-choice have missed the point. Just because you guys dont see a foetus as viable for whatever reason that doesnt mean someone else wont see a life at another stage as viable. For example a pre-pubescent child might be considered unviable because it cant reproduce. Would you pro-choice people argue against it?

 

[Archivist]

I think some of you pro-choice have missed the point. Just because you guys dont see a foetus as viable for whatever reason that doesnt mean someone else wont see a life at another stage as viable. For example a pre-pubescent child might be considered unviable because it cant reproduce. Would you pro-choice people argue against it?

But a pre-pubescent child has been born and is, at least in the US, guaranteed protections and rights of citizenship. A fetus does not meet that requirement.

In addition, you are looking at someone who is very far out of the mainstream. There are a few people who oppose abortion who are will to kill abortion doctors. They are far out of the mainstream as well.

 

[lux et lex]

I think some of you pro-choice have missed the point. Just because you guys dont see a foetus as viable for whatever reason that doesnt mean someone else wont see a life at another stage as viable. For example a pre-pubescent child might be considered unviable because it cant reproduce. Would you pro-choice people argue against it?

Strawman.

 

[Phinehas2]

Once again, infanticide is completely different to some of you pro-choice abortionists, doesn’t mean all people have the same liberal views.
So don’t tell us the two are different.
You need to grasp reality and understand that not all people are going to dance to your worldview.
To many there is little difference to terminating a life at infant stage than foetus/baby stage, both are life.

alot of people say he is a Nazi......looks like it doesnt it.

To a lot of people pro-choice abortion looks like the thinking of a nazi. Lets dicuss the issue rather than what we think of people.

 

[lux et lex]

Oh stop it. Saying the other side is "pro choice abortion" is completely nonsense. Pro Choice simply means that those people are open to the person carrying the pregnancy to term and keeping it, setting it up for adoption, or aborting it. It's not about infanticide as much as you fantasize it is. Get a grip.

 

[Phaedros]

Strawman.

All you demonstrate here is that you ca type the word "strawman". Without explaining why it is a strawman argument no one will take you seriously. The question is not whether or not infanticide and abortion are really the same thing, though an easy argument can be made that they are (william lane craig's comment about how the "geographical" location (i.e. Inside or outside the womb) does not have any real relevance to thay determination). You create the strawman by trying to make it into an ossue of definitions when that was not the question at all and you know it. The question is whether or not attitudes towards abortion and the rationalizations for its use logically lead to positions such as those held by Peter Singer.

 

[Archivist]

Once again, infanticide is completely different to some of you pro-choice abortionists, doesn’t mean all people have the same liberal views.

"Pro-choice abortionists?" Gee, you aren't biased at all are you?

So don’t tell us the two are different.

Yes, they are. Abortion is legal. Infanticide is illegal. There is no logical progression from one to the other just as there is no logical progression from opposing abortion to murdering abortion doctors. In either extreme you are dealing with a lunitic fringe, not a mainstream view.

You need to grasp reality and understand that not all people are going to dance to your worldview.

Nor will they all dance to your worldview. However, once again, what is being discussed here is not the mainstream.

To many there is little difference to terminating a life at infant stage than foetus/baby stage, both are life.

And to many there is a big difference. In the US a baby is a citizen and has the protection of citizenship, a fetus is not.

To a lot of people pro-choice abortion looks like the thinking of a nazi. Lets dicuss the issue rather than what we think of people.

You really do need to check your facts. The nazis viewed a woman's body as being controlled by the state, so "choice" wasn't an issue. They mandated abortion for women who were Jewish, Slavic, Gypsies, or of feeble mind. They banned abortion for healthy Aryan women.

 

[b.hopeful]

Has anyone here ever read some of Peter Singer's works? His utilitarian/ reductionist logic scares me. Even if we agreed on certain points...our roads to that conclusion would be vastly different. I'm no fan of his.

And ditto Archivist.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Strawman.

A pretty good strawman.

 

[Phaedros]

Yes, they are. Abortion is legal. Infanticide is illegal. There is no logical progression from one to the other just as there is no logical progression from opposing abortion to murdering abortion doctors. In either extreme you are dealing with a lunitic fringe, not a mainstream view.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you why the argument that one thing is legal and another is illegal does not constitute an argument about the morality of that thing.

Nor will they all dance to your worldview. However, once again, what is being discussed here is not the mainstream.

You're obviously right, it is not the mainstream...at least not yet.

And to many there is a big difference. In the US a baby is a citizen and has the protection of citizenship, a fetus is not.

Again arbitrary human definitions of what is a citizen and is not a citizen has no bearing on the actual moral status of a living human. For a Christian what matters is God's view. It seems clear what God's view is.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

For example a pre-pubescent child might be considered unviable because it cant reproduce.

Nope. Lets look up the definition of viable.

vi·a·ble

   /ˈvaɪ

ə

bəl/ Show Spelled[vahy-uh-buh

l] Show IPA
–adjective 1. capable of living.

2. Physiology. a. physically fitted to live.

b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.



3. Botany. able to live and grow.

4. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students.

5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.

6. having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc.: a new and viable country.

Viable | Define Viable at Dictionary.com

As you can see, all pre-pubescent children are considered viable. Viability has NOTHING to do with whether or not you can reproduce.

 

[Phaedros]

Nope. Lets look up the definition of viable.


Viable | Define Viable at Dictionary.com

As you can see, all pre-pubescent children are considered viable. Viability has NOTHING to do with whether or not you can reproduce.

Ah yes, but it can also be applied to a fetus and yet it isn't. Why is that?

 

[The Penitent Man]

Ah yes, but it can also be applied to a fetus and yet it isn't. Why is that?

Because aborting a child is unequivocally a crime. No would one hesitate to call it murder if the victim has been out of the womb for a few years. Also, a fetus utterly lacks the ability to fight back whereas children can put up more of a struggle against their attackers. They can kick, squirm, bite, and scream. That's what kids are taught to do these days if an adult tries to hurt them-- scream. We teach them to make as much noise as possible and run.