Peter Singer supports infanticide.

[Phaedros]

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.

Actually there have been doctors that performed abortions that have witnessed babies trying to fight back during an abortion and this caused them to become pro-life.

 

[b.hopeful]

A viable fetus is one that can survive on it's own. About 85-90% of abortions are performed on non-viable fetuses. Post viability, a majority of abortions are performed because of maternal health or fetal anomalies.

 

[Archivist]

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.

The post to which I was responding, which was not one of your posts, didn't raised the issue of the morality of abortion, but rather claimed that there was no difference between abortion and infanticide. My response was entirely appropriate as there is a diference between the two: one is illegal, the other is not.

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

Do you honestly think that infanticide will become mainstream? If you have any evidence to support that line of thinking I would love to see it. I classify people like Singer in the same way that I classify pro-life individuals who murder abortion doctors and staff--lunitic fringe.

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.

No, but again I was responding to a post that claimed that there was no difference between abortion and infanticide. My response was appropriate.

For a Christian what matters is God's view. It seems clear what God's view is.

If God's view is so clear, why do so many Christians have differing views on the matter?

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

Yes, they are. Abortion is legal.

No, in many countries it is not legal, so we don’t all follow what you and your country think.

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.

No, your view is arrogance, there is a progression for those who do not share your worldview, to us its obvious your subjective view as opposed to another subjective view.

Nor will they all dance to your worldview.

Never suggested they were, all I pointed out was they wont all dance to your worldview so instead of insisting yours is the only one you need to start seeing others have a different one.

However, once again, what is being discussed here is not the mainstream.

It soon can be seen as mainstream, we have seen homosexuality move from lunatic fringe to 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.

And to many there is no difference in that both are life.

You really do need to check your facts.

You need to take on board some other views rather than assume everyone must benchmark against your worldview.

 

[Archivist]

No, in many countries it is not legal, so we don’t all follow what you and your country think.

And I never claimed that other nations follow US law, however I am an American so I am going to respond based on the law of my nation. By most accounts there are 195 countries in the world (that number is in dispute). I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss the laws of each one of them. I can, however, state the law in my country.

BTW, of those approximately 195 countries only five prohibit abortion in all situations Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World. Many countries do restrict abortion to cases where it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, but since only five countries do allow that exception it is incorrect to say that "in many countries it is not legal."

No, your view is arrogance, there is a progression for those who do not share your worldview, to us its obvious your subjective view as opposed to another subjective view.

There is no arrogence in what I wrote. I provided an answer based on the laws of the nation in which I live. The fact that I am American is clear as that information is included on my post. The answer that I provided is correct. As I said above, it isn't up to me to research the laws of every nation in the world.

BTW, I notice that you haven't bothered to indicate what nation you are from.

Never suggested they were, all I pointed out was they wont all dance to your worldview so instead of insisting yours is the only one you need to start seeing others have a different one.

Please show me exactly where I said that the nations of the world would dance to my worldview. I don't believe that I ever made such a statement.

It soon can be seen as mainstream, we have seen homosexuality move from lunatic fringe to mainstream.

Opposition to slavery also moved from the fringe to the mainstream. However, I see no evidence that support of infantcide will ever move to the mainstream. If you have evidence that it will please offer it.

BTW--and this would be a matter for a seperate thread--are you saying that we should discriminate against those who are homosexual?

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

And many see a distinction. One is a life in being. The other is not unless it survives until birth.

You need to take on board some other views rather than assume everyone must benchmark against your worldview.

I have never made such an assumption. You were the one who provided a blanket statement: "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." That statement is wrong: in the US the two are different; one is legal, the other is not. If you had said that the two are not different in some places, you might be correct, but that is not what you said.

BTW, I noticed that you dropped your argument that "pro-choice abortion looks like the thinking of a nazi." I assume that means that you have admitted that you were wrong as the nazis were never pro-choice.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archvist,

There is no arrogence in what I wrote. I provided an answer based on the laws of the nation in which I live.

which is the arrogance I was referring to, which assumes that represents everyone.

BTW, I notice that you haven't bothered to indicate what nation you are from.

UK. Our laws need changing too.

BTW--and this would be a matter for a seperate thread--are you saying that we should discriminate against those who are homosexual?

As we discriminate against adulterers and paedophiles, yes. Are you saying we shouldn’t?

And many see a distinction. One is a life in being. The other is not unless it survives until birth.

So to many there is little difference to terminating a life at infant stage than foetus/baby stage, both are life. So lets get back to that debate.

BTW, I noticed that you dropped your argument that "pro-choice abortion looks like the thinking of a nazi." I assume that means that you have admitted that you were wrong as the nazis were never pro-choice.

the Nazis treated life they didn’t consider valuable by destroying it. That’s the similarity

 

[Archivist]

which is the arrogance I was referring to, which assumes that represents everyone.

My reply was based on the law of my own country. How exactly is that arrogence, particularly since I never said that US law applied to everyone? You were the one who made a blanket statement, I showed taht it was incorrect based on US law.

UK. Our laws need changing too.

Perhaps. I'm not British so I wouldn't know. I wish you would change the bit about driving on the left side of the road.

As we discriminate against adulterers and paedophiles, yes. Are you saying we shouldn’t?

I love when people try to compare homosexuality with paedophilia. Homosexuality involves sex between consenting adults; paedophilia involves sex with a child who cannot give consent. That isn't discrimination, it is a crime.

So to many there is little difference to terminating a life at infant stage than foetus/baby stage, both are life. So lets get back to that debate.

I'm sure you are sincere in your apparent at life begins at conception. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. By all means, don't have an abortion if you feel that way.

the Nazis treated life they didn’t consider valuable by destroying it. That’s the similarity

The difference is that the Nazis forced German women to carry their fetus to term whether they wanted to or not. They were not in any way pro-choice.

 

[b.hopeful]

The arrogance is in the assumption that everyone regards a fetus in the same way you do, hence the statement "there is little difference" between an infant and a fetus. And since this is all being discussed in the context of abortion, and since most abortions(85%+) are performed in the first trimester, you are comparing a born infant to an embryo in most cases.

When one defines what it is to be man, do they define it by gestational age? development? biologically? philosophically? theologically? legally? Or is the definition of "being" multi-faceted?

 

[Phaedros]

Should This Be the Last Generation? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

"One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. "

"So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction"

This illustrates the despair that atheism brings on. It also, I think, is representative of the kind of thinking that goes into rationalizing abortion and euthanasia.

 

[lux et lex]

Should This Be the Last Generation? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

"One of Benatar’s arguments trades on something like the asymmetry noted earlier. To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her. "

"So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction"

This illustrates the despair that atheism brings on. It also, I think, is representative of the kind of thinking that goes into rationalizing abortion and euthanasia.

In your crazy, anti-choice world, maybe, but I don't feel like this is a rationalization of either. It's one fringe person's opinion. This is not representative of the pro choice stance. Remember pro choice is all about having all options open to a woman, not about mandating a particular option.

 

[Phinehas2]

Anti-choice? There is a choice to have sexual intercourse or not, people need to face the consequences, at the moment they are too ignorant in their sexual bondage.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Anti-choice? There is a choice to have sexual intercourse or not, people need to face the consequences, at the moment they are too ignorant in their sexual bondage.

I have expressed this exact sentiment over and over ...

 

[Archivist]

There is a choice to have sexual intercourse or not, people need to face the consequences, at the moment they are too ignorant in their sexual bondage.

But that isn't what is being debated in this thread. We are discussing whether infanticide is the logical next step from being pro-choice, which it is not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,
I say it is, as abortion is a subjective view about the validity of human life at a certain stage, infanticide has the same argument going for it.
In fact it has pretty much all the pro-choice abortion arguments going for it. For example like homosexual practice, it occurs in nature in the animal kingdom.

 

[Phinehas2]

Actually there have been doctors that performed abortions that have witnessed babies trying to fight back during an abortion and this caused them to become pro-life.

Its amazing isnt it that this little life has the audacity to struggle for life when the mother and/or father dont want it. Smash the little foetus ;-)

 

[b.hopeful]

Smash it? Oh no silly...that's dangerous to the mother...you dismember it!

Infanticide does not have the same thing going for it because a lot of things occur at the end of the fetal stage that we recognize as giving the now born human a special place in creation. I hit on that in my last post...and it was ignored. I know that it will require more than a kneejerk bumper sticker response...so I'll be patient.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Smash it? Oh no silly...that's dangerous to the mother...you dismember it!

Infanticide does not have the same thing going for it because a lot of things occur at the end of the fetal stage that we recognize as giving the now born human a special place in creation. I hit on that in my last post...and it was ignored. I know that it will require more than a kneejerk bumper sticker response...so I'll be patient.

Unfortunately, many are completely hardened against the emotions you want them to feel.

 

[Phinehas2]

Smash it? Oh no silly...that's dangerous to the mother...you dismember it!

Not bothered about the mother. smash the little foetus ;-)

 

[katautumn]

Anti-choice? There is a choice to have sexual intercourse or not,

Rape victims didn't.

people need to face the consequences,

I'm of the opinion that, no matter how sad I find abortion to be, a child should never be viewed as a "consequence". All children should be wanted. And please don't tell me, "every child is wanted by someone" (aka, the adoption argument). Ethnic minority women are more likely to give a child up for adoption and those are exactly the children less likely to be adopted. People want white newborns or they want an international adoption, but black and Hispanic babies are oftentimes shuffled through the system up to their eighteenth birthday.

at the moment they are too ignorant in their sexual bondage.

Sexual bondage? People aren't out having sex because they're addicted to it. Well, some people do, but most sexually active people don't need sex, they want sex. It's a far stretch to label that "bondage".

 

[Phinehas2]

smash the mother? ;-)