Should infanticide be legalised?

[Quartz]

As somewhat of a counterpoint to the anti-abortion threads, I'm wondering if infanticide should be fully legalised. Until relatively recently, infanticide was the normal method of abortion (q.v. Greek tragedies etc) and infanticide (by the male) is widely practiced in mammals. Further, infanticide is a special mitigating plea (for women only) against a charge of murder in U.K. law (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc304.pdf) (pdf).

Should there be a difference between infanticide by males and infanticide by females?

Now, I'm well aware that the alternative of putting the child out for adoption exists, but this thread is questioning whether infanticide be made lawful, rather than right, so I ask those who would be proponents of adoption instead respectfully refrain from posting.

[Leaffan]

Well, I'm completely in agreement with a woman's right to choose, but to broaden the scope to include infanticide crosses the line with me; so I say no.

And the law most certainly treats infanticide by females MUCH differently than by males already. There was a case (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/04/22/9200186-sun.html) here in Ottawa recently. She got house arrest for a year or something.

Meanwhile Robert Latimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer) is still in jail 16 years after compassionately euthanizing his gravely ill, crippled, and pain-ridden daughter.

[Henrichek]

Hmm. Why is it a mitigating factor if a woman does it?

[Superfluous Parentheses]

No. Next question!

[Freudian Slit]

Hmm. Why is it a mitigating factor if a woman does it?

I was wondering that, too. Maybe they're looking at cases where someone didn't know they were pregnant/were in denial and just left the baby to die instead of actively killing it?

[TheMadHun]

I was amazed, rather than shocked when I first heard that the Greeks did this.
Similarly when I learned that American Indians would let their elderly wander off into the forest to lay down and die. Or the Eskimos to float them away on sea ice. And of course Moses attests to that sort of thing happening with infants set out in baskets.
I suppose when the community buys into it, it's like the firing squad with one dud charge. Each person feels no individual guilt.

[Hamlet]

No. Next question!I agree. And that's about all the thought that should be required because I haven't seen anyone advocate making infanticide legal in the US.

[Leaffan]

Hmm. Why is it a mitigating factor if a woman does it?

The law treats men and women differently for a lot of crimes. Someone with good Google-fu might be able to help out, but I recall that female teachers who have sex with underaged boys in the class do not receive the same kind of sentences as their male counterparts. Same goes for spousal abuse and domestic homicide.

[DianaG]

Hmm. Why is it a mitigating factor if a woman does it?
I'm guessing that when a woman does it, we mostly assume some post-partum disorder.

And in answer to the OP, of course not. The reason to terminate a pregnancy is to end a pregnancy. I am entitled to remove a fetus from my body. I am not entitled to kill it once it's outside my body.

[Dangerosa]

I don't think its a matter of guilt.

Lets say we as a society agree to the following principle:

A man CAN be an island - you do not need to take responsibility for anyone but yourself. (This means if you get a woman pregnant you don't need to pay child support - but neither does society need to support the child via any sort of social welfare - complete freedom of choice on your responsibilities).

Let's further posit that there is not a waiting list of people looking to adopt - on the contrary, there are more babies born than homes available for those babies.

Now, what is the social solution to this? In a society where the infant mortality rate is high to start with - but plenty of infants are born because there isn't much in good birth control and people are relatively fertile, infanticide seems reasonable. Other options are going to reside on the good will of others in society - orphanages for instance. But, remember, we don't obligate people to support orphanages - so when the number of orphans exceeds the resources provided by charity we - let them starve?

We don't live in that society. Unlike abortion, where we are talking about using one persons body to support another person, raising children is about using one person's property to support another person. We DO force people to use their property to support others.

[Polerius]

As somewhat of a counterpoint to the anti-abortion threads, I'm wondering if infanticide should be fully legalised.
No.

Should there be a difference between infanticide by males and infanticide by females?

No.

[Bryan Ekers]

No, but I'm okay with judges having broad leeway when it comes to sentencing.

[kanicbird]

Infanticide is a great evil, but God is above even that and can save the parents and the baby. IMHO It does cause intense hardship for all, but God can turn that to a greater good. To quote Scriptures 'everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial' and leave it at that.

[Simplicio]

I'm guessing that when a woman does it, we mostly assume some post-partum disorder.

The OP's link confirms this. It also appears the policy is there mainly for practical reasons. Apparently the UK legal system has problems convincing woman to mount an effective defense in cases of post-partum depression related killings as the perpetrators are often in denial regarding their crimes.

In anycase, it hardly amounts to legalizing infanticide, and so isn't really relevant to the rather silly OP.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Jesus Fucking Christ! Hell No! First of all while it is true other civilizations did practice civilization I think we are above that. It is no better then murder of an adult and be treated as such: infanticiders should be hanged or sent to a nuthouse.

[begbert2]

Jesus Fucking Christ! Hell No! First of all while it is true other civilizations did practice civilization I think we are above that. It is no better then murder of an adult and be treated as such: infanticiders should be hanged or sent to a nuthouse.That's right! We will not tolerate civilizations practicing civilization around these parts!








(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[The Hamster King]

As somewhat of a counterpoint to the anti-abortion threads, I'm wondering if infanticide should be fully legalised.No. Why ever for? What interest would be served?

Killing a baby might not automatically be an immoral act in a primitive subsistence situation where adding one more mouth to feed would put the whole group in jeopardy, but in a culture as prosperous as ours there's no reason to allow it.

[Stoneburg]

Legal up to the age of 18 would seem reasonable. After that it is obviously out of the question.

[HoboStew]

Why stop at infanticide? If you wake up one day and decide you have had enough of your lazy, freeloading son with no job, no girlfriend, no prospects for either and his only real accomplishment in life is an epic set of gear on WoW and you decide to take a mulligan by way of a .44, be my guest!

[Happy Poster]

Yes, it should be legal. Otherwise I cannot see how there are such things as parental rights.

[Annie-Xmas]

No. A woman who doesn't want a fetus has the right to keep it from taking over her whole body. A woman who doesn't want a baby has Safe Haven laws to follow.

[FriarTed]

I agree. And that's about all the thought that should be required because I haven't seen anyone advocate making infanticide legal in the US.

May I introduce Dr. Peter Singer~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

[Walker in Eternity]

Why stop at infanticide? If you wake up one day and decide you have had enough of your lazy, freeloading son with no job, no girlfriend, no prospects for either and his only real accomplishment in life is an epic set of gear on WoW and you decide to take a mulligan by way of a .44, be my guest!

Brilliant, given the amount of slack jawed morons on our streets (UK as well as US) abortion should be legal up to the age of 18.

"Sorry kid, you'll only be a drain on the system and I don't want a tax increase" bang!

[BrainGlutton]

I have A Modest Proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal) . . .







Can't believe I was first with that!

[jsgoddess]

I support abortion rights because bodily autonomy is the issue. Infants don't encroach on anyone's bodily autonomy (or, if they do, yer doin' it wrong).

[JThunder]

I agree. And that's about all the thought that should be required because I haven't seen anyone advocate making infanticide legal in the US.Allow me to introduce Dr. Peter Singer (http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide), the famed professor and "bioethicist" from Princeton University. He recognized that there is no essential difference between an infant inside the womb and one that has moved through the birth canal. He concluded that if we take the standard pro-choice arguments seriously, then infanticide is likewise justified.

[Marley23]

Is there any particular reason it should be legalized? The OP doesn't provide one, neither has anyone else. I suspect (he said, understatedly) that's because there's absolutely no reason to legalize infanticide. It's a barbaric and terrible practice.

[BrainGlutton]

What?! Killing babies is the prerogative of the Alpha Male! Is that so wrong?! (http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/1999/11/18/boll/story.gif)

[Blut Aus Nord]

Allow me to introduce Dr. Peter Singer (http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide), the famed professor and "bioethicist" from Princeton University. He recognized that there is no essential difference between an infant inside the womb and one that has moved through the birth canal. He concluded that if we take the standard pro-choice arguments seriously, then infanticide is likewise justified.

"Standard pro-choice arguments" have nothing to do with fully developed infants. Third trimester abortions are close to nonexistent.

[DianaG]

He recognized that there is no essential difference between an infant inside the womb and one that has moved through the birth canal.
He's mistaken. The difference is that one is inside my body, and one is outside my body. That particular difference is pretty fucking essential to me.

[jsgoddess]

Which leads inexorably to the conclusion that either he doesn't understand what the hell the "standard pro-choice arguments" are, or that someone is reporting him wrong.

[Kinthalis]

Why stop at infanticide? If you wake up one day and decide you have had enough of your lazy, freeloading son with no job, no girlfriend, no prospects for either and his only real accomplishment in life is an epic set of gear on WoW and you decide to take a mulligan by way of a .44, be my guest!

Is... is that you Dad?!

[Anaamika]

Infanticide does happen in a number of very very small cases, or at least, letting the baby die, if not killing it. I read a book long ago that discussed, in detail, the ethics of babies born that were very sick, severely mentally retarded, or severely disabled. I am talking nothing in the head but the brain stem, no chance of anything remotely resembling a normal life, etc.

In cases like these it has happened that a pair of loving parents, educated by the doctors and nurses and by themselves, have elected to remove feeding tubes, and life support from the baby, and let it die.

I am wholeheartedly in favor of leaving this decision in the hands of the parents and not penalizing them for it. (I don't rightly recall if they ever do get penalized.)

Beyond that, no, infanticide just randomly should not be legal. And you as the OP have given no justification as to why it should be. Is there a specific reason? If you had addressed cases like I did in my post above, I might be more inclined to listen. Not the average childbirth, however.

[Icerigger]

Allow me to introduce Dr. Peter Singer, the famed professor and "bioethicist" from Princeton University. He recognized that there is no essential difference between an infant inside the womb and one that has moved through the birth canal. He concluded that if we take the standard pro-choice arguments seriously, then infanticide is likewise justified.

A frequent "star" and guest in the Skeptical word and I am a good Agnostic/Skeptic but I have absolutly no use for this guy at all, he puts animals in the same moral context as human beings. No way.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Allow me to introduce Dr. Peter Singer (http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide), the famed professor and "bioethicist" from Princeton University. He recognized that there is no essential difference between an infant inside the womb and one that has moved through the birth canal. He concluded that if we take the standard pro-choice arguments seriously, then infanticide is likewise justified.

Singer is a hypocrite: he believe infanticide is permissible but not animal cruelty. What a son of a bitch.

[Shodan]

It is already legal in the US (cite (http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1104b-1.html)), and happens hundreds of times a year (cite (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html)).

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan Ekers]

It is already legal in the US (cite (http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1104b-1.html)), and happens hundreds of times a year (cite (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html)).

And the effect on American society is what, exactly?

Or even roughly.

[DianaG]

Apparently, a profoundly weakened vocabulary.

[JThunder]

He's mistaken. The difference is that one is inside my body, and one is outside my body. That particular difference is pretty fucking essential to me.He's pointing out that this distinction says nothing about the essential nature of the unborn. Whether it's "essential to you" is ultimately unimportant, since the taking of a life is not a mere matter of personal preference.

[Nava]

Infanticide does happen in a number of very very small cases, or at least, letting the baby die, if not killing it. I read a book long ago that discussed, in detail, the ethics of babies born that were very sick, severely mentally retarded, or severely disabled. I am talking nothing in the head but the brain stem, no chance of anything remotely resembling a normal life, etc.

But that is infanticide only in the sense that the person who is being allowed to die is an infant. There is a huge difference between ceasing or not starting artificial life support and a homicide.

[DianaG]

He's pointing out that this distinction says nothing about the essential nature of the unborn. Whether it's "essential to you" is ultimately unimportant, since the taking of a life is not a mere matter of personal preference.
He's not "pointing out" anything. He's stating the obvious, as am I. The only difference between the (to term) unborn and the newborn is it's location. But location is everything, and the use of my organs IS a matter of personal preference. MY personal preference.

[Bryan Ekers]

He's pointing out that this distinction says nothing about the essential nature of the unborn.

All the more reason to ignore such arguments, as I do, and concentrate solely on location.

Heck, it wouldn't matter if the embryo looked like a perfectly formed adult human in miniature and grew proportionately over its gestation or even had adult intelligence from the moment of conception. It's inside the body of another human, who may have a personal preference that it not stay there and I've yet to see a compelling argument or a compelling state interest that such preferences be casually ignored.

I can imagine such cases where it would be ignored, though, but the circumstances would have to be pretty dire.

[begbert2]

All the more reason to ignore such arguments, as I do, and concentrate solely on location.

Heck, it wouldn't matter if the embryo looked like a perfectly formed adult human in miniature and grew proportionately over its gestation or even had adult intelligence from the moment of conception. It's inside the body of another human, who may have a personal preference that it not stay there and I've yet to see a compelling argument or a compelling state interest that such preferences be casually ignored.

I can imagine such cases where it would be ignored, though, but the circumstances would have to be pretty dire.Given that the circumstances are "let them stay or they'll die", I think that "dire" is a pretty good word for it.

Seriously, I'm pro-choice, but this is a really weak way to get there. If you choose to treat the fetus or embryo as a full-fledged person, or to dismiss that this is an arguable point, you strongly weaken the justification for permitting choice.

[DianaG]

Why? Again, "inside my body" vs. "outside my body" is not exactly an insignificant difference. If my existing child needs a kidney and will die without it, I still can't be legally compelled to give it to her. Why is a uterus fundamentally different than a kidney?

[begbert2]

Why? Again, "inside my body" vs. "outside my body" is not exactly an insignificant difference. If my existing child needs a kidney and will die without it, I still can't be legally compelled to give it to her. Why is a uterus fundamentally different than a kidney?Mostly because of this:I can imagine such cases where it would be ignored, though, but the circumstances would have to be pretty dire.It's pretty natural for people to accept that there are 'reasonable' concessions that people should be expected/forced to make to avoid "killing babies". We make you strap them into carseats rather than tossing them in the trunk, we'd prefer if you fed and clothed them occasionally... people get in the habit of expecting the parent to cave to their child's needs. So when we get to the abortion thing, you see the child's ultimate need, life, stacked up against the "not-life" issue of merely being forced to carry a child to term, which frankly lots of people have gone through themselves and dismiss as being all that big a deal when weighed with a baby's life.

Now, you can argue that you have rights, dammit, and no damn baby's gonna step on them! I have a right to not own a carseat and that's that! But we're quite used to overriding those rights, and letting the abortion argument be framed that way is basically setting it up to be knocked down. It's basically seen as murderous selfishness.

Building an argument on the fact that the thing being aborted isn't a human, it's a tumor, is much stronger, since it doesn't parallel to other baby-protecting laws and it doesn't come across as callously selfish. Win-win, and it's supported by the facts to boot!

[Annie-Xmas]

If someone moved into your house and refused to leave, you'd have every right to have them forcibly evicted. Yet you can't do the same for the entity who takes over your body?

[Bryan Ekers]

Given that the circumstances are "let them stay or they'll die", I think that "dire" is a pretty good word for it.
It turns out that destroying a major aspect of individual self-determination is even more dire. Similarly, if someone has broken into my house and is threatening me with a weapon, killing them is pretty dire. Letting them kill me is, however, more dire. As a result, I reserve the right to kill them if I feel I have to.

Besides, even with a million+ abortions a year in the U.S., their society hasn't degenerated into Mad Max, so how "dire" could it possibly be?

Seriously, I'm pro-choice, but this is a really weak way to get there. If you choose to treat the fetus or embryo as a full-fledged person, or to dismiss that this is an arguable point, you strongly weaken the justification for permitting choice.

I honestly don't follow your reasoning. Rather than waste time debating and dictionary-mining to determine what predicate nouns apply to a fetus ("human", "person", etc), I recognize and wish to protect the rights of the woman, which are frequently and conveniently forgotten in pro-life arguments.

[DianaG]

Building an argument on the fact that the thing being aborted isn't a human, it's a tumor, is much stronger, since it doesn't parallel to other baby-protecting laws and it doesn't come across as callously selfish. Win-win, and it's supported by the facts to boot!
Which facts suggest that an embryo, if not terminated, will become a tumor?

I maintain that I'm entitled to callous selfishness regarding the use of my body, and that no one has the right to overrule me regarding the use of my body. It's philosophically sound, AND intellectually honest. Win-win!

[jsgoddess]

Given that the circumstances are "let them stay or they'll die", I think that "dire" is a pretty good word for it.

Seriously, I'm pro-choice, but this is a really weak way to get there. If you choose to treat the fetus or embryo as a full-fledged person, or to dismiss that this is an arguable point, you strongly weaken the justification for permitting choice.

I disagree.

We don't compel people to donate blood. We don't compel people to donate organs after they're dead. Lives depend on those donations but we don't compel them. People will DIE without them, but we don't compel them.

If you don't see a fetus as a person, that's fine. Someone else does. That's still fine. Person or not, human or not, it doesn't get my organs unless I let it, and I get to withdraw my permission just as you would be able to withdraw your permission to let someone take one of your kidneys to save someone's life. Just as you would be able to stop donating blood whenever you choose. You don't need anyone's permission to stop.

[jsgoddess]

Building an argument on the fact that the thing being aborted isn't a human, it's a tumor, is much stronger, since it doesn't parallel to other baby-protecting laws and it doesn't come across as callously selfish. Win-win, and it's supported by the facts to boot!

I don't see any facts in support of your argument, and since I don't believe the "thing being aborted" is a tumor (though I think it bears similarities to many things, including parasites), I would by lying if I argued from the perspective.

[Bryan Ekers]

Mostly because of this:It's pretty natural for people to accept that there are 'reasonable' concessions that people should be expected/forced to make to avoid "killing babies".

I'd like to clarify my earlier statement so it is not misused. Conditions that I can imagine are sufficiently "dire" that a woman's request for an abortion should be ignored include:

For an individual woman: she's showing signs of mental illness where she varies from sincerely demanding an abortion to sincerely insisting that she'll kill anyone who tries to hurt her baby.

For society in general: some sort of Children of Men scenario occurs where birth rates drop to near-zero, putting the human race at risk for extinction.


I'm sure I could think up some others, but the loss of the fetus under typical conditions doesn't qualify.

[Contrapuntal]

Meanwhile Robert Latimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latimer) is still in jail 16 years after compassionately euthanizing his gravely ill, crippled, and pain-ridden daughter.Well, he didn't start serving his sentence until eight years ago, and is on day parole right now. Just to set the record straight.

[jsgoddess]

I'd like to clarify my earlier statement so it is not misused. Conditions that I can imagine are sufficiently "dire" that a woman's request for an abortion should be ignored include:

For an individual woman: she's showing signs of mental illness where she varies from sincerely demanding an abortion to sincerely insisting that she'll kill anyone who tries to hurt her baby.

For society in general: some sort of Children of Men scenario occurs where birth rates drop to near-zero, putting the human race at risk for extinction.

Sure to the first one.

Extinction is underrated to the second.

[Freudian Slit]

Sure to the first one.

Extinction is underrated to the second.

Same here. Is it really worth it to carry on the human race if we have to use forced births to do it?

[DianaG]

Yeah, me too. If I'm the last woman on earth, my uterus is still mine.

[Freudian Slit]

I actually started a thread about that scenario here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11513065#post11513065)

[Happy Poster]

Is there any particular reason it should be legalized? The OP doesn't provide one, neither has anyone else. I suspect (he said, understatedly) that's because there's absolutely no reason to legalize infanticide. It's a barbaric and terrible practice.

Allow me to provide one: Without the ability to make this determination for themselves, parents are merely baby sitters for the state.

[Freudian Slit]

Allow me to provide one: Without the ability to make this determination for themselves, parents are merely baby sitters for the state.

Why? The state regulates things you can do to your kids. Children not have all the rights that adults do, but they have the right to life, food, shelter, to not be abused.

[begbert2]

It turns out that destroying a major aspect of individual self-determination is even more dire. Similarly, if someone has broken into my house and is threatening me with a weapon, killing them is pretty dire. Letting them kill me is, however, more dire. As a result, I reserve the right to kill them if I feel I have to.If the fetus is going to kill you most people will approve of abortion on that ground; however this doesn't parallel elective abortion. Elective abortion is: a dude is sitting in the middle your living room, not being particularly threatening (though he is annoying and darned inconvenient). Do you have the legal right to shoot him? Answer: NO. You analogy supports anti-choice, not pro-choice.

The business about "destroying a major aspect of individual self-determination" is an opinion that flies in the face of society's demonstrated willingness to rob you of self-determination in the favor of caring for the child - even when we're not talking about actually killing the child. Given that laws are not dictatorially decreed based on your opinions alone, this opinion is a piss-poor basis to argue for legalizing abortion.

Besides, even with a million+ abortions a year in the U.S., their society hasn't degenerated into Mad Max, so how "dire" could it possibly be?How many (post-birth) murders are there a year? What? Millions? I guess murdering people is peachy-keen then!

Piss. Poor. Argument. Seriously people, I'm trying to argue for pro-choice here. Slop like this on my side of the table doesn't help.

I honestly don't follow your reasoning. Rather than waste time debating and dictionary-mining to determine what predicate nouns apply to a fetus ("human", "person", etc), I recognize and wish to protect the rights of the woman, which are frequently and conveniently forgotten in pro-life arguments.Actually they're not forgotten, they're dismissed, all the way up until the child turns 18. This is old news, and society is perfectly fine with it. Your difference of opinion will convince nobody and win no ground for our side.

Which facts suggest that an embryo, if not terminated, will become a tumor?What does what it would turn into in a fantasy future where it's not terminated have to do with anything? It's an unwanted growing clump of cells that is drawing resources from the body now. May not be a tumor, but close enough that I'm not going to debate using the term as shorthand.

I maintain that I'm entitled to callous selfishness regarding the use of my body, and that no one has the right to overrule me regarding the use of my body. It's philosophically sound, AND intellectually honest. Win-win!It's philosophically sound, intellectually honest, AND the majority of the population doesn't think that you can kill people who are loitering on your property! Win-win-LOSE.

[Happy Poster]

Why? The state regulates things you can do to your kids. Children not have all the rights that adults do, but they have the right to life, food, shelter, to not be abused.

Correct. I think these things are unacceptable too.

I advocate a phasing in of adult rights and coincident responsibilities of the child on the way to adulthood. But to begin with it ought all be up to the parents, as the alternative is worse.

[Freudian Slit]

I advocate a phasing in of adult rights and coincident responsibilities of the child on the way to adulthood. But to begin with it ought all be up to the parents, as the alternative is worse.

What alternative is that? That all human beings have a right to life? The parents have a choice already. The mother of the child can choose to abort. Or they can opt to put the child up for adoption if they don't want it. They don't get to kill it when it's out of the oven.

[Marley23]

Allow me to provide one: Without the ability to make this determination for themselves, parents are merely baby sitters for the state.
Very well. I modify my statement to "No one has provided a good argument in favor of legalizing infanticide, because there's absolutely no reason to legalize infanticide. It's a barbaric and terrible practice."

You could make the same remark about legalizing murder. It would still be absurd and would be widely unpopular, since most of us would prefer not to be killed.

[DianaG]

What does what it would turn into in a fantasy future where it's not terminated have to do with anything? It's an unwanted growing clump of cells that is drawing resources from the body now. May not be a tumor, but close enough that I'm not going to debate using the term as shorthand.
Erm... if what it will EVENTUALLY be is irrelevant, then why are we having this discussion? Nobody's interested in preventing anyone from removing tumors, specifically because tumors don't turn into people. You're never going to succeed at getting anyone to forget about that part.

It's philosophically sound, intellectually honest, AND the majority of the population doesn't think that you can kill people who are loitering on your property! Win-win-LOSE.
A person's body is more sacrosanct than their property under just about every law known to man. And as to what "the majority of the population" thinks, I'm not running for Prom Queen, here.

[YogSosoth]

If you mean if babies already born and seperated from the mother should be killed, I'd say no, even though I'm for abortions up until birth. It just opens too many floodgates

[jsgoddess]

And as to what "the majority of the population" thinks, I'm not running for Prom Queen, here.

Oh.

::hides "DianaG for Prom Queen" banner under chair::

How about class treasurer?

[begbert2]

Erm... if what it will EVENTUALLY be is irrelevant, then why are we having this discussion? Nobody's interested in preventing anyone from removing tumors, specifically because tumors don't turn into people. You're never going to succeed at getting anyone to forget about that part.Every sperm is sacred? Meh, I think not. A seed ain't a tree.

I think we're having this discussion because the thread is (was?) discussing infanticide. To many, your position is, quite explicitly, the pro-infanticide position. "I don't want this baby, and so it's my right to kill it! Kill babies!"

A person's body is more sacrosanct than their property under just about every law known to man. And as to what "the majority of the population" thinks, I'm not running for Prom Queen, here.If you don't want to change the law that's fine, I judt wish you'd stop saving the pro-choice the effort of inventing strawmen. To me, your position is an argument against pro-choice.

[Happy Poster]

What alternative is that? That all human beings have a right to life? The parents have a choice already. The mother of the child can choose to abort. Or they can opt to put the child up for adoption if they don't want it. They don't get to kill it when it's out of the oven.

The alternative is that parents are glorified babysitters for the state. That's digsusting. Do you want to bring your child up for politicians?

[Happy Poster]

Very well. I modify my statement to "No one has provided a good argument in favor of legalizing infanticide, because there's absolutely no reason to legalize infanticide. It's a barbaric and terrible practice."

You could make the same remark about legalizing murder. It would still be absurd and would be widely unpopular, since most of us would prefer not to be killed.

False equivalence. Do you support conscription?

[begbert2]

The alternative is that parents are glorified babysitters for the state. That's digsusting. Do you want to bring your child up for politicians?We're kind of used to it, aren't we?

[Happy Poster]

We're kind of used to it, aren't we?

That's correct, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

We're also used to billions going without clean drinking water.

Neither situation is right.

[DianaG]

Every sperm is sacred? Meh, I think not. A seed ain't a tree.
On the contrary. You see, NO ONE believes that a blastocyst IS "a person". Well, no sane people, because that's just friggin' mental. So why try to argue against what no one really believes? It's all about the fact that a blastocyst left to it's own devices will become a person. That's a simple fact, and there's also no point in arguing against a simple fact.

If you don't want to change the law that's fine, I judt wish you'd stop saving the pro-choice the effort of inventing strawmen. To me, your position is an argument against pro-choice.
Then you're profoundly misunderstanding it. My argument is simply that my right to sovereignty over my own body is not dependent on the relative humanity of the fetus. No one else gets to use my body without my permission, and the fetus just plain isn't so special that it's an exception.

[Freudian Slit]

That's correct, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

We're also used to billions going without clean drinking water.

Neither situation is right.

So you're saying that we live in a terrible society because people can't kill their own children? But are you aware that no one is forced to raise kids "for politicians"? That abortion exists, that adoption exists, and that when most people raise their kids, it's because they want to? Or are you trying out some wacko position because you have some larger point to make?

[Marley23]

False equivalence.
How so?

Do you support conscription?
No, and I said so earlier in this thread. A few years ago I put it this way:

I think military conscription is undemocratic, and equivalent to attempted murder by governments.

[begbert2]

On the contrary. You see, NO ONE believes that a blastocyst IS "a person". Well, no sane people, because that's just friggin' mental. So why try to argue against what no one really believes? It's all about the fact that a blastocyst left to it's own devices will become a person. That's a simple fact, and there's also no point in arguing against a simple fact.I think you might be surprised.
Then you're profoundly misunderstanding it. My argument is simply that my right to sovereignty over my own body is not dependent on the relative humanity of the fetus. No one else gets to use my body without my permission, and the fetus just plain isn't so special that it's an exception.And my position is, from certain angles your argument looks full of holes. The most notable being the notion that that pregnancy? You never asked for that? Just woke up one morning and suddenly were fat, did you?

(And now we cite rape and immaculate conception and whatever special cases are necessary to argue for the general case to which they do not apply. Right. Whatever. I have stated my case, and you don't care that your argument is flimsy as wet toilet paper. Fine. Moving on with life...)

[DianaG]

How is "my body is mine and nobody gets to use it against my will regardless of the circumstance" a flimsier argument than "well, try thinking of it as a tumor"?

And exactly how pro-choice are you if you're treating "you play you pay" as a valid argument against abortion?

[begbert2]

How is "my body is mine and nobody gets to use it against my will regardless of the circumstance" a flimsier argument than "well, try thinking of it as a tumor"?Because that is your entire position, and it's only a gross simplification-if-not-characature of mine, which is not "pretend it's a tumor", it's "it is not a person or baby, therefore it is not wrong to kill it".

Your argument is flimsier than that because it's susecptible to a broader range of counterarguments, including, "'Round these parts we don't kill babies, ma'am."

And exactly how pro-choice are you if you're treating "you play you pay" as a valid argument against abortion?Perfectly pro-choice, it's just a different kind of pro-choiceness than yours. "You play, then you can get an abortion, but you can't wait forever, because some time after conception you stop dealing with a non-person and start dealing with a person. So, if you play and dawdle, you pay."

The main difference between me and some other pro-choicers is decision of where the cut-off point is: brain activity, birth, or voting age. The arguments for the latter times are a lot flimsier, though.

[Happy Poster]

How so?

Because murder is of an adult who does not want to be killed (I have no problem with assisted suicide, and I suspect you don't either). The entire point of infanticide is that the parent is making the decisions for the child, and the parent decides that it is in the best interests of the child for it to be killed. So it is simply a form of assisted suicide.


No, and I said so earlier in this thread. A few years ago I put it this way:

Good. I agree with you. So we agree it is wrong for the state to have power to kill its citizens. We only differ in whether the right to insist on death is the same as the right to insist on life, I think :)

The fact is they are two sides of the same coin.

[Freudian Slit]

Because murder is of an adult who does not want to be killed (I have no problem with assisted suicide, and I suspect you don't either). The entire point of infanticide is that the parent is making the decisions for the child, and the parent decides that it is in the best interests of the child for it to be killed. So it is simply a form of assisted suicide.

Well, why should the parent have that right? If the parent doesn't want to bring the child up, no politician is forcing the kid to do so.

[DianaG]

Because that is your entire position.
Yes, because it's an entirely adequate position. Unless of course, you can think of some situation where using another person's body against their will is legally or morally acceptable.

[begbert2]

Yes, because it's an entirely adequate position. Unless of course, you can think of some situation where using another person's body against their will is legally or morally acceptable.You mean, like physically manipulating a person's body in such a way as to damage it and thereby end their life, possibly prior to extracting it from a womb? Using their body that way?

[Happy Poster]

Well, why should the parent have that right? If the parent doesn't want to bring the child up, no politician is forcing the kid to do so.

Adoption is another option, and it is the one I would personally encourage over infanticide. But the parent may feel it is in the child's interests that its life is terminated, and I support their right to determine this.

[Freudian Slit]

Adoption is another option, and it is the one I would personally encourage over infanticide. But the parent may feel it is in the child's interests that its life is terminated, and I support their right to determine this.

Can you think of an example where this would happen? I just don't see why the parent has that kind of authority over their kid. If it's so obvious that the kid should be terminated, then I would think that someone else (doctor, etc.) would be aware of it, too, not just the parent.

[Marley23]

Because murder is of an adult who does not want to be killed (I have no problem with assisted suicide, and I suspect you don't either). The entire point of infanticide is that the parent is making the decisions for the child, and the parent decides that it is in the best interests of the child for it to be killed. So it is simply a form of assisted suicide.
Consent is what makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, no, a parent does not have the right to make this determination. By your reasoning, school teachers would have the right to kill their students because they are acting in loco parentis. Loco being the key word here.

The fact is they are two sides of the same coin.
In the same way that holding your nose is the similar to having someone strangle you, yes.

[Happy Poster]

Can you think of an example where this would happen? I just don't see why the parent has that kind of authority over their kid. If it's so obvious that the kid should be terminated, then I would think that someone else (doctor, etc.) would be aware of it, too, not just the parent.

A simple example:

Baby born with no limbs. Has some kind of terminal disease causing terrible pain. Blind and retarded. Going to last about a month tops undergoing great suffering.

[Happy Poster]

Consent is what makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, no, a parent does not have the right to make this determination. By your reasoning, school teachers would have the right to kill their students because they are acting in loco parentis. Loco being the key word here.

The consent can be given by the parents. In theory they could assign the right to give that consent to the teacher, yes. So a smart parent would not do that, in much the same way that they do not now give consent to that teacher to authorise a sex change in the infant.

[Marley23]

The consent can be given by the parents. In theory they could assign the right to give that consent to the teacher, yes. So a smart parent would not do that, in much the same way that they do not now give consent to that teacher to authorise a sex change in the infant.
I think this post speaks for itself as to how bad the idea is, and requires no further comment from me.

[Happy Poster]

I do not think you have presented any arguments in any case

[Freudian Slit]

I do not think you have presented any arguments in any case

And your only argument is what if a baby born with a terminal illness. Under such circumstances, I'd rely on a medical opinion. I don't think a parent should have carte blanche to just decide whether or not their kid has the right to live. What happens if they're mistaken?

[Marley23]

I do not think you have presented any arguments in any case
I didn't have to do much other than let you explain your idea. Looking upthread, I noticed just now that you said "Murder is of an adult..." So your claim of that infanticide is not murder requires the redefinition of murder.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Angry Lurker: God, are you a neo-barbarian or something? You're such an amoral, callous man that you fail to realize that in a civilized society government has the moral obligation to stop certain practices especially murder.

[begbert2]

Curtis, we're all neo-barbarians. It behooves us not to snipe each other for it.

From what I can see, Angry Lurker is taking the 'custodian' role of parenthood and taking it to its extreme, more of an 'ownership' role. "It's my kid - I can kill it if I want to", in other words. Personally I don't think this position has either ethical or legal grounds; ethically a custodian is not given unlimited liscence to abuse their dependents, and can only act in their percieved best interest, and legally the child has been given protections against various kinds of abuse, and parents can lose their custody of the child for breaching these limits.

Though, if this is wrong, I should give him a chance to correct me - Angry Lurker, is it your opinion that a parent should have the right to spontaneously decide to end their sixteen year old's life? Is this eqivalent to assisted suicide?

What if the child is opposed to the idea?

What about if they're in physical or mental pain, does that make it okay? Can a parent decide that that stubbed toe (or that rebellious teenage atheism) is a pain best cured by death, and carry out the deed themselves?

If you answered "no" to any of the above, how does infanticide differ from this?

[DianaG]

You mean, like physically manipulating a person's body in such a way as to damage it and thereby end their life, possibly prior to extracting it from a womb? Using their body that way?
Do you not actually understand what "use" means?

[begbert2]

Do you not actually understand what "use" means?I know what "attempting to dodge the issue by splitting hairs" means.

[Bryan Ekers]

If the fetus is going to kill you most people will approve of abortion on that ground; however this doesn't parallel elective abortion. Elective abortion is: a dude is sitting in the middle your living room, not being particularly threatening (though he is annoying and darned inconvenient). Do you have the legal right to shoot him? Answer: NO. You analogy supports anti-choice, not pro-choice.

You're rather aggressively misunderstanding me, then. The right of the homeowner is to have to intruder removed. If the intruder dies in the process, so be it. That this is a possible (or for that matter, likely or even certain) result doesn't in any way justify being able to just move into people's houses.

The specific self-defense aspect is just to illustrate that killing even fully-formed humans who are not inside one's body can be justifiable under certain conditions. If they're outside your body, they must (for example) be threatening you in some way. If they are inside your body, well, it's your decision.

The business about "destroying a major aspect of individual self-determination" is an opinion that flies in the face of society's demonstrated willingness to rob you of self-determination in the favor of caring for the child - even when we're not talking about actually killing the child. Given that laws are not dictatorially decreed based on your opinions alone, this opinion is a piss-poor basis to argue for legalizing abortion.

I don't have just my opinion. It's clear that abortion exists becasuse a large segment of the population wants it, and banning abortion outright would impose significant hardship while offering only dubious benefit.

Anyway, Canada current has no abortion law per se. I'm not aware of any negative repercussions.

How many (post-birth) murders are there a year? What? Millions? I guess murdering people is peachy-keen then!
In the U.S. about 17000/year, and the negative effects of murder are readily apparant. What negative effects there are to abortion is unclear to me.

Piss. Poor. Argument. Seriously people, I'm trying to argue for pro-choice here. Slop like this on my side of the table doesn't help.

Well, excuse the HECK outta me.

Actually they're not forgotten, they're dismissed, all the way up until the child turns 18. This is old news, and society is perfectly fine with it. Your difference of opinion will convince nobody and win no ground for our side.
As far as I'm concerned (i.e. in my own country), the battle's won. That Americans will continue to writhe and boil about it is mere entertainment value.

[begbert2]

You're rather aggressively misunderstanding me, then. The right of the homeowner is to have to intruder removed. If the intruder dies in the process, so be it. That this is a possible (or for that matter, likely or even certain) result doesn't in any way justify being able to just move into people's houses.

The specific self-defense aspect is just to illustrate that killing even fully-formed humans who are not inside one's body can be justifiable under certain conditions. If they're outside your body, they must (for example) be threatening you in some way. If they are inside your body, well, it's your decision.I do not believe this is true. I think that if the dude peacefully refuses to leave and is too heavy to drag bodily out, chopping him up and moving him peicemeal is in fact not among your legal options. This may be different in civilized Canada, mind you.

I don't have just my opinion. It's clear that abortion exists becasuse a large segment of the population wants it, and banning abortion outright would impose significant hardship while offering only dubious benefit.Correlation doesn't mean causation - the population might (and probably does) approved of abortion for other reasons besides and/or in addition to holding the opinion that murdering babies is peachy-peachy keen.

Anyway, Canada current has no abortion law per se. I'm not aware of any negative repercussions.

In the U.S. about 17000/year, and the negative effects of murder are readily apparant. What negative effects there are to abortion is unclear to me.You do realise that I'm not against abortion - quite the opposite. I'm just opposed to piss-poor arguments for abortion.

You can answer 2*2 by adding the numbers and still get the right answer, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do it.


As far as I'm concerned (i.e. in my own country), the battle's won. That Americans will continue to writhe and boil about it is mere entertainment value.It is indeed a fact that the only reason we keep all these social conservatives around is to amuse people in other countries with their antics. How're we doing at it, by the way?

[Bryan Ekers]

I do not believe this is true. I think that if the dude peacefully refuses to leave and is too heavy to drag bodily out, chopping him up and moving him peicemeal is in fact not among your legal options.

Well, perhaps a time will come when a woman who wants to end a pregnancy can call the cops, who will come over and taser the fetus, handcuff it, and take it to county to be booked on trespassing charges. Analogies are fine, but let's not be silly with the cross-pollination. Besides, what a fetus is doing (though of course not intentionally) is hardly "peaceful".

Correlation doesn't mean causation - the population might (and probably does) approved of abortion for other reasons besides and/or in addition to holding the opinion that murdering babies is peachy-peachy keen.

I'd vaguely argue that a significant aspect of American society (arguably western society generally) still regards pregnancy as slightly icky and if you can take care of it behind closed doors and not, for heaven's sake, make a SCENE about it, so be it.

You do realise that I'm not against abortion - quite the opposite. I'm just opposed to piss-poor arguments for abortion.

So far I've seen a lot scorn and choplogic, but nothing that gives me pause.

You can answer 2*2 by adding the numbers and still get the right answer, but that doesn't mean it's the right way to do it.

Case in point.

It is indeed a fact that the only reason we keep all these social conservatives around is to amuse people in other countries with their antics. How're we doing at it, by the way?
Oh, you're a riot, and you'll remain so until fundamentalists are thoroughly marginalized.

[Surreal]

I am in favor of decriminalization of infanticide and do not believe it to be immoral in some cases, such as the one I outlined in a previous thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303902

If the child is suffering and terminally ill, I think infanticide should be advocated.

[Annie-Xmas]

If the fetus is going to kill you most people will approve of abortion on that ground; however this doesn't parallel elective abortion. Elective abortion is: a dude is sitting in the middle your living room, not being particularly threatening (though he is annoying and darned inconvenient). Do you have the legal right to shoot him? Answer: NO. You analogy supports anti-choice, not pro-choice.



Image the dude attached himself to you in such a way that detachment would cause his death. Do you have the legal right to shoot him. Hell, yes!

Unwanted pregnancy can be seen as the most extreme form of stalking. The fetus has attached itself to a woman in such a way that she cannot get rid of it.

[Dangerosa]

Well, perhaps a time will come when a woman who wants to end a pregnancy can call the cops, who will come over and taser the fetus, handcuff it, and take it to county to be booked on trespassing charges. Analogies are fine, but let's not be silly with the cross-pollination. Besides, what a fetus is doing (though of course not intentionally) is hardly "peaceful".



Although, if I get sick of my kids, I can't call the cops and have them removed. (I'm pro-choice and the "parasite in MY body" thing is the reason why. I don't give a damn if its human or not, I get to decide if someone gets to remain resident in my body). But if I get sick of my kids, I can make arrangements for someone else to care for them - the state may say I need to pay child support - support them with my property. I'm physically not able to do that with a fetus inside my body - but I think that the difference between supporting life with your property and supporting it with your body is significant.

[DianaG]

I know what "attempting to dodge the issue by splitting hairs" means.
I dunno, so far you're 0 for 3 on vocab. Taking whatever measures are necessary to remove a foreign body from my own is not "using" that foreign body, and pointing out that "use" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means is neither "dodging the issue" nor "splitting hairs".

For someone who claims to be pro-choice, your arguments are becoming increasingly hysterically focused on the selfish women who are just peachy keen with chopping up babies.

[Quartz]

If the child is suffering and terminally ill, I think infanticide should be advocated.

There's a big difference between withholding care, letting someone die, and actually killing them.

[Freudian Slit]

Also, in the case of a child born with a terminal illness, it seems more a suicide/assisted suicide argument. Not a pro-infanticide article. It could apply to anyone, not just babies.

[begbert2]

Well, perhaps a time will come when a woman who wants to end a pregnancy can call the cops, who will come over and taser the fetus, handcuff it, and take it to county to be booked on trespassing charges. Analogies are fine, but let's not be silly with the cross-pollination. Besides, what a fetus is doing (though of course not intentionally) is hardly "peaceful".Heh, in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529735) thread we discussed the hypothetical of "wombots" (incubators) that you could transfer early-term fetuses into. I wonder if the transferring docs would use tasers?

Regardless, the analogy is what it is. Here's what I'm seeing here:
You: "The analogy shows I can kill the home invader."
Me: "No it doesn't. Quite the opposite, really."
You: "Ignore that part of the analogy."
At best, this doesn't help your argument. At worst it looks like you're dismissing "evidence" (to use the term pretty much as loosely as possible).

I'd vaguely argue that a significant aspect of American society (arguably western society generally) still regards pregnancy as slightly icky and if you can take care of it behind closed doors and not, for heaven's sake, make a SCENE about it, so be it.Yes. There are two camps. One group is okay with abortion, and one isn't. They're called "anti-life" and "anti-choice" respectively (:p) and probably some of the former do rely on ignoring abortions as a way to tolerate them.

So far I've seen a lot scorn and choplogic, but nothing that gives me pause.I can dismiss your arguments as scorn and "choplogic" too, if you like, instead of just pointing out that they're not argumentively compelling. Would it help?

Image the dude attached himself to you in such a way that detachment would cause his death. Do you have the legal right to shoot him. Hell, yes!I seriously doubt this. Got caselaw?

Although, if I get sick of my kids, I can't call the cops and have them removed. (I'm pro-choice and the "parasite in MY body" thing is the reason why. I don't give a damn if its human or not, I get to decide if someone gets to remain resident in my body). But if I get sick of my kids, I can make arrangements for someone else to care for them - the state may say I need to pay child support - support them with my property. I'm physically not able to do that with a fetus inside my body - but I think that the difference between supporting life with your property and supporting it with your body is significant.The "It's my body and I evict guests with extreme predjudice" argument is not entirely without merit. It's simply argumentively weak, particularly when weilded against anti-choicers.

Like most ideological debates, it hinges on a difference of opinion. In this case, the opinon that a person has a right to kill the "baby" that they "asked for" just because it's occupying that womb where it is "meant to be". My argument for abortion hinges on a difference of opinion too - whether the thing being aborted is a "baby" at all. In either case the other side is arguing from a different premise than you.

If you actually want to win this debate, you have to change people's belief in these underlying premises. And here's where the "who will rid me of this turbulent fetus" argument fails - it is literally based on an opinion. You think the "baby" has no right to hang out in your body. They disagree. And there is no way to argue for this one way or another besides just asserting that your opinion is correct. Now, I suppose some minds have been changed by this approach, but I prefer to stick with my argument, where you can cite science to make the anti-choice position literally absurd. Sure, it won't convince fundys, but it seems like a much clearer way to change law than to argue that people have a right to kill their children when they are temporarily inconveniencing them.


I dunno, so far you're 0 for 3 on vocab. Taking whatever measures are necessary to remove a foreign body from my own is not "using" that foreign body, and pointing out that "use" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means is neither "dodging the issue" nor "splitting hairs".

For someone who claims to be pro-choice, your arguments are becoming increasingly hysterically focused on the selfish women who are just peachy keen with chopping up babies.The argument that using a person's body to kill them isn't "using" it is bullshit. Your dodging of it by arguing specious linguistics is bullshit. And your attempt to attempt to dodge that fact with more specious linguistics is further bullshit.

I'll leave it to the audience to decide who here is "hysterical".

[DianaG]

When one removes a tumor, is one "using" that tumor? I'm just curious.

[begbert2]

When one removes a tumor, is one "using" that tumor? I'm just curious.Yes.

Now whatcha gonna do?


The position you are advocating here is that it is horrifically bad to park in somebody's womb for nine months, but it's perfectly alright to kill a person. You are attempting to defend this bizarre position by very tightly focusing the set of "bad actions" on a definition of "use" that excludes the physical manipulations done to a fetus during an abortion. This is a game I'm not interested in playing.

You may be of the opinion that it's horrific to be required to carry a child to term, and you may be of the opinion that it's a horrific on the part of the insensate fetus to have the audacity to grow in the body that spawned it. That's fine. (Though the latter position is rather odd). However I'm not going to let you get away with trivializing murder. (And this ain't self defense - if that fetus is a person, then this is murder.*)


*Fortunately for my position on the matter, of course, the fetus isn't a person until the latter stages of the game and is thus a perfectly legitimate candidate for use as hotdog filling until then. But if you remove that fact from consideration, that changes the whole ballgame.

[jsgoddess]

Bodily rights are pretty well established already, just as I already pointed out in this thread. You can't be forced to donate blood. You can't be forced to donate organs. You can't be forced to donate them even once you're dead. That makes it entirely reasonable to say you can't be forced to donate a uterus. Not even when the result is death. Not even when the fetus is a person. Not even if the fetus is the baby Jesus.

[begbert2]

Bodily rights are pretty well established already, just as I already pointed out in this thread. You can't be forced to donate blood. You can't be forced to donate organs. You can't be forced to donate them even once you're dead. That makes it entirely reasonable to say you can't be forced to donate a uterus. Not even when the result is death. Not even when the fetus is a person. Not even if the fetus is the baby Jesus.And the rights of a child to care and support are also pretty well established, so the abortion issue is where these two sets of rules clash. I think we can't cite abortion law to back up the merits of various proposed abortion laws for philosophical reasons, which leaves us debating what the rules should be. Which leaves us mired in opinions.

[jsgoddess]

I'd also like to note that I don't change arguments so that mine are more compelling or nicer or tidier or beloved by other pro-choice people. You don't like my arguments? Fine. You can get your own. But I'm not going to switch to yours so that you can feel better about it.

[jsgoddess]

And the rights of a child to care and support are also pretty well established, so the abortion issue is where these two sets of rules clash.

Show me evidence of how abortion clashes with child support laws. You seem, frankly, just to be pulling things out of thin air, trying desperately to shout down a philosophical position you don't like even though you claim to share the same goals. It's weird.

[begbert2]

I'd also like to note that I don't change arguments so that mine are more compelling or nicer or tidier or beloved by other pro-choice people. You don't like my arguments? Fine. You can get your own. But I'm not going to switch to yours so that you can feel better about it.As you like, I fervently hope your arguments don't reach many ears. Because if they persuaded me to base laws on them rather than the other pro-choice arguments, I'd turn anti-choice. So I can't see them helping "our side" in any way.

There's nothing wrong with believing both arguments, and arguing the one that works even if your dog in the fight is based on the other one, by the way.

[begbert2]

Show me evidence of how abortion clashes with child support laws.Are you allowed to kill a child by reglecting to provide it the nutrients and environment it requires to live? (Or by killing it outright?)

If not, whenever my kids are bad, I'm going to lock them in a cage in the backyard and forget about them.


(It's probably a good thing I don't actually have kids.)

[DianaG]

Yes.

Now whatcha gonna do?
Marvel at your profoundly intellectually dishonest abuse of language?

The position you are advocating here is that it is horrifically bad to park in somebody's womb for nine months, but it's perfectly alright to kill a person. You are attempting to defend this bizarre position by very tightly focusing the set of "bad actions" on a definition of "use" that excludes the physical manipulations done to a fetus during an abortion. This is a game I'm not interested in playing.

You may be of the opinion that it's horrific to be required to carry a child to term, and you may be of the opinion that it's a horrific on the part of the insensate fetus to have the audacity to grow in the body that spawned it. That's fine. (Though the latter position is rather odd). However I'm not going to let you get away with trivializing murder. (And this ain't self defense - if that fetus is a person, then this is murder).

Fortunately for my position on the matter, of course, the fetus isn't a person until the latter stages of the game and is thus a perfectly legitimate candidate for use as hotdog filling until then. But if you remove that fact from consideration, that changes the whole ballgame.
Erm... I'm of the opinion that my body is mine, intended for my use and no one eles's. I attribute no motives at all to the fetus, because that would be crazy. And it isn't "personhood" that makes for murder. Anyone I happen to kill in self-defense is a "person".

You know, I can't help but notice that you call it your "position" on the matter. Not your "feeling", not your "belief", not even your "opinion". Just your "position". You really haven't thought this all the way through, have you? I mean, aside from settling on a "position" that you feel will be most palatable to the masses. You running for something?

[jsgoddess]

Are you allowed to kill a child by reglecting to provide it the nutrients and environment it requires to live? (Or by killing it outright?)

Yes, if it's in your body. No, if it's not.

Child support doesn't start before birth, so I'd say there is less than no conflict; there is actually agreement between child support laws and abortion laws.

[Dangerosa]

All these debates are based on opinion. I've never heard a superior debate that makes logical sense to everyone - just points that speak to different people depending on what they are talking about. And I've never seen anyone in this debate swayed on REASON - its all about the emotion. Most people make their intellectual decision off emotion, not off reasoned debate.

[jsgoddess]

Erm... I'm of the opinion that my body is mine, intended for my use and no one eles's. I attribute no motives at all to the fetus, because that would be crazy. And it isn't "personhood" that makes for murder. Anyone I happen to kill in self-defense is a "person".

Right. And your neighbor who dies from lack of your blood is a person. And your stepfather who dies from lack of your kidney is a person.

They can be the most personable persons in the world, and they still don't get to use our organs and tissues without our say so.

[begbert2]

Erm... I'm of the opinion that my body is mine, intended for my use and no one eles's. I attribute no motives at all to the fetus, because that would be crazy. And it isn't "personhood" that makes for murder. Anyone I happen to kill in self-defense is a "person".Right, though it sure helps that it's a person. What makes it not self-defense is that the fetus isn't trying to kill you. I didn't mention this because I thought it was amazingly obvious.

You know, I can't help but notice that you call it your "position" on the matter. Not your "feeling", not your "belief", not even your "opinion". Just your "position". You really haven't thought this all the way through, have you? I mean, aside from settling on a "position" that you feel will be most palatable to the masses. You running for something?Wow, you're desperate to discredit me, huh? You must really think I'm argumentively kicking your ass to resort to this sort of desperate ad-hominem.

My position isn't based on namby-pamby feeling, belief, or opinion. It's based on fact. It is a fact that there is a point in development prior to which a fetus cannot be reasonably argued to be a person. And based on that fact, there is no decent argument for banning the abortion of these non-person things. Therefore, I oppose illegalizing the abortion, becuase when abortion isn't murder there is no reason to illegalize it, which allows the "it's my body, dammit" argument to be relevent.



Yes, if it's in your body. No, if it's not.This is, again, opinion. If we refrain from including abortion law, what is the basis of this assertion?

Child support doesn't start before birth, so I'd say there is less than no conflict; there is actually agreement between child support laws and abortion laws.Right, child support merely indicates that there is a legal sentiment in place against doing bad things to babies. The real relevent law is the biblical one, you know, "Thall shall not kill". In my part of the US, murder is illegal, and abortion flirts with explicitly contradicting that. The fact that you aren't legally compelled to give blood or a kidney is actually irrelevent, beucase the problem isn't that you want to evict the baby, it's that you (currently) have to kill it to do it.

As has been noted, it's not illegal to eject a tresspasser from your house; however, it is illegal to kill them to accomplish this end unless they are also threatening your life to a sufficent degree to justify a self defense defense. Which is to say, it's not them being in your house that allows you to kill them at all, it's the completely separate issue of them threatening you (which justifies killing them in the house or not.)

The simple fact is, if that fetus is a person, then the law against murder applies unless subverted by other law. There is NOT other law that does this, aside from current abortion law. References to giving blood or child support are merely ways of pointing at the culture and what it generally expects of a person; they're not legal arguments. The legal-based argument here is one of two things: it's already legal to kill fetuses 'cause it's not murder (my argument), or it should be legal to kill them because, dammit, it's my body (your argument). One of the perks to my argument is that it avoids the 'murder' issue entirely and in theory wouldn't even require a change in law (though of course it does in practice).

[jsgoddess]

This is, again, opinion. If we refrain from including abortion law, what is the basis of this assertion?

The same fucking thing it's been every fucking time I've said it. The same philosophy that says that you own your body parts even if you're DEAD and that even if it will save lives you aren't required to give them up even if you're DEAD and can't use them any longer because you're DEAD.

This isn't a difficult concept. I doubt it's even difficult for the DEAD to grasp it. You don't have to agree with me, but stop acting like it's such a bizarre thing that you can't even wrap your head around it.

[begbert2]

The same fucking thing it's been every fucking time I've said it. The same philosophy that says that you own your body parts even if you're DEAD and that even if it will save lives you aren't required to give them up even if you're DEAD and can't use them any longer because you're DEAD.

This isn't a difficult concept. I doubt it's even difficult for the DEAD to grasp it. You don't have to agree with me, but stop acting like it's such a bizarre thing that you can't even wrap your head around it.And it's still completely wrong, because there is a DIFFERENCE between not saving someone/something and actively KILLING it. It's a FALSE equivalence.

Do the allcaps help?

[jsgoddess]

And it's still completely wrong, because there is a DIFFERENCE between not saving someone/something and actively KILLING it. It's a FALSE equivalence.

Do the allcaps help?

Apparently they do.

The only time there is a difference is if there is a way to remove the support without killing it. Currently, there is no medical way to do that so they are equivalent. Once there is a medical way to do that, then the question of what to do with the removed embryo/fetus is relevant. Until that point, there is no difference.

[begbert2]

Apparently they do.

The only time there is a difference is if there is a way to remove the support without killing it. Currently, there is no medical way to do that so they are equivalent. Once there is a medical way to do that, then the question of what to do with the removed embryo/fetus is relevant. Until that point, there is no difference.Nonsense.

To use an analogy, if I may:

Suppose there is a fellow who has fallen off a cliff, and is hanging onto a branch a short way down. The branch will break soon and he will plummet to his death if not otherwise helped. You have a rope in your trunk.

Is is murder if you don't throw him the rope? Technically, no. It's your rope, and you are not legally obligated to offer it to him. Of course some people will think you're a jerk if you don't throw it to him, especially since it was you horsing around on the cliff's edge that knocked this guy off and put him in this position (accidentally of course, though you could have reasonably anticipated the possibility), but despite that it's still not murder to keep your rope to yourself.

Now, scenario 2: same guy, same cliff, except this time he's already got hold of the rope, and is now hanging from it. You decide that it's your rope, and you want it back. So, you pull out your gun and shoot him in the head, to make him let go.

Is that murder? Is it less murder if it was the only way to get your rope back? (Other than waiting long enough for him to get himself off of it safely, that is.)

[Saganist]

Really this argument should have ended when it was brought up that the differences in views are due to incompatible premises.

begbert holds the position that if the fetus has been labeled by society as a person, then the argument that we should have complete control over our bodies is not a sufficient moral justification for unrestricted abortion. I also hold this position as part of my much more general moral premise that sometime individual rights are ignored for societal benefit.

Diana and jsgoddess seem to be using the premise that individual rights should never be violated.

Clearly there is conflict between the foundations of our moral codes. And conflicts like that don't get resolved by tossing around high level arguments like the implication of "using" a body or the difference between killing and letting die.

[jsgoddess]

Really this argument should have ended when it was brought up that the differences in views are due to incompatible premises.

Not entirely incompatible. If you want to consider the fetus a non-person, I'm not going to stop you. It makes no difference to me.

[Saganist]

Not entirely incompatible. If you want to consider the fetus a non-person, I'm not going to stop you. It makes no difference to me.

Agreed. But the argument I've been watching is not if abortion in general is acceptable but if the "It's my body; game over" argument is sufficient

[begbert2]

Really this argument should have ended when it was brought up that the differences in views are due to incompatible premises.

begbert holds the position that if the fetus has been labeled by society as a person, then the argument that we should have complete control over our bodies is not a sufficient moral justification for unrestricted abortion. I also hold this position as part of my much more general moral premise that sometime individual rights are ignored for societal benefit.Slight correction - the society has to use non-retarded methods to label fetuses as people or not. None of this god crap until we repeal the first amendment, and what's so transforming about the moment of birth, again? Etcetera. Otherwise yes - killing people is, as a general rule, not good. And fetal trespassing doesn't ping my outrageometer sufficiently to argue that murder of a person is justified by it.

Diana and jsgoddess seem to be using the premise that individual rights should never be violated.

Clearly there is conflict between the foundations of our moral codes. And conflicts like that don't get resolved by tossing around high level arguments like the implication of "using" a body or the difference between killing and letting die.jsgoddess is making factual assertions about the law in order to bolster and sell her opinions. Some of these statements are false, sometimes blatantly so. This is a debate forum, so I see no problem in smacking these arguments down. I don't hope to change her opinions; I do hope to educate her not to use such poor arguments (especally counterfactual ones!) in arguing for her opinions. It would make the pro-choice side less argumentively weak in general.

This is not to say that a person must believe that the babies should have a right to be there; it's an emotional issue and people react very strongly to certain facts and much less strongly to others, making almost any position understandable as a personal belief. I merely think that only the opinions that withstand factual scrutiny should play any part in debate or lawmaking. And it is simply not the case that it there is legal or societal precedent for allowing the execution of "babies" on charges of trespassing.

[jsgoddess]

Agreed. But the argument I've been watching is not if abortion in general is acceptable but if the "It's my body; game over" argument is sufficient

I've had many pro-lifers disagree that it's sufficient but, you know, they're pro-lifers and are going to disagree. It doesn't lead to the same hair-pulling the person/not person debates always descend to.

And I'll freely state that if the technology is invented where the nascent life can be taken out and put in a mechanical womb or substitute uterus of some sort, I think that should be entirely up to society to decide. "Is this what we want to spend our money on?" If so, roll with it. If not, then we'd still be dealing with a being that no one wants enough to pay for.

[Saganist]

jsgoddess is making factual assertions about the law in order to bolster and sell her opinions. Some of these statements are false, sometimes blatantly so. This is a debate forum, so I see no problem in smacking these arguments down. I don't hope to change her opinions; I do hope to educate her not to use such poor arguments (especally counterfactual ones!) in arguing for her opinions. It would make the pro-choice side less argumentively weak in general.

This is not to say that a person must believe that the babies should have a right to be there; it's an emotional issue and people react very strongly to certain facts and much less strongly to others, making almost any position understandable as a personal belief. I merely think that only the opinions that withstand factual scrutiny should play any part in debate or lawmaking. And it is simply not the case that it there is legal or societal precedent for allowing the execution of "babies" on charges of trespassing.

To be fair, the actual assertions that she made are accurate (that we aren't forced to donate things); it's the extrapolation to the phrase "forced to donate a uterus" that is pretty sketchy.

A big thumbs up for the second paragraph. Of course, no precedent is not the same thing as morally indefensible. In which case, we're back to the point of shouting at each other that you're wrong because I said so.

[jsgoddess]

jsgoddess is making factual assertions about the law in order to bolster and sell her opinions. Some of these statements are false, sometimes blatantly so.

Like?

The factual assertions I've made are:

1. We aren't forced to donate blood, not even to save a life, and
2. We aren't forced to donate organs, not even to save a life, and
3. We aren't even forced to do these things if we're dead.

You are invited to show how these 3 statements are false. Use diagrams if you want. Oh, and I'm in the US.

[Dangerosa]

To be fair, the actual assertions that she made are accurate (that we aren't forced to donate things); it's the extrapolation to the phrase "forced to donate a uterus" that is pretty sketchy.

A big thumbs up for the second paragraph. Of course, no precedent is not the same thing as morally indefensible. In which case, we're back to the point of shouting at each other that you're wrong because I said so.

Well, cause technically its wrong. We'd be forced to donate the placenta, but the uterus we'd only be obligated to provide on loan, but without any recourse for damage by the occupant and an insufficient security deposit.

(The placenta....which my OB always called "your body's only disposable organ!")

[DianaG]

My position isn't based on namby-pamby feeling, belief, or opinion. It's based on fact. It is a fact that there is a point in development prior to which a fetus cannot be reasonably argued to be a person. And based on that fact, there is no decent argument for banning the abortion of these non-person things. Therefore, I oppose illegalizing the abortion, becuase when abortion isn't murder there is no reason to illegalize it, which allows the "it's my body, dammit" argument to be relevent.
It's also a fact that you'll never get everyone to agree to when that point is, and the "it's my body dammit" argument renders the point irrelevant.

[Annie-Xmas]

If the fetus is a person, then every miscarriage will have to be investigatedc as a "suspious death." Maybe the woman caused it by having an asprin, coffee, or wine, and "thinking bad thoughts."

[jsgoddess]

If the fetus is a person, then every miscarriage will have to be investigatedc as a "suspious death." Maybe the woman caused it by having an asprin, coffee, or wine, and "thinking bad thoughts."

Not every death of people walking around is investigated as a "suspicious death." Are they not persons?

[FriarTed]

If the fetus is a person, then every miscarriage will have to be investigatedc as a "suspious death." Maybe the woman caused it by having an asprin, coffee, or wine, and "thinking bad thoughts."

Yeah, just like they were before Roe vs. Wade.

[FriarTed]

...Are they not persons?

They are DEVO!

;)

[jsgoddess]

They are DEVO!

;)

So... nonpersons, right? AMIRITE?

[begbert2]

Like?

The factual assertions I've made are:

1. We aren't forced to donate blood, not even to save a life, and
2. We aren't forced to donate organs, not even to save a life, and
3. We aren't even forced to do these things if we're dead.

You are invited to show how these 3 statements are false. Use diagrams if you want. Oh, and I'm in the US.

You missed a few factual assertions you made.

Yes, if it's in your body. No, if it's not.

The only time there is a difference is if there is a way to remove the support without killing it. Currently, there is no medical way to do that so they are equivalent. Once there is a medical way to do that, then the question of what to do with the removed embryo/fetus is relevant. Until that point, there is no difference.

As noted, you are correct that we're not required to donate blood or organs, even when dead. However, that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT to the abortion debate.

We're also not required to donate our driveways to people. But if a person is sitting in your driveway, then pulling out your pistol and blowing him away is NOT a legal response. Abortion is the case where the dude hanging off the cliff already has your rope, not the one where you can choose not to throw it to him.

Your assertions that the "being in your body" bit has been defined by society to be a carte blanche for murder are simply untrue.



It's also a fact that you'll never get everyone to agree to when that point is, and the "it's my body dammit" argument renders the point irrelevant.Okay, so the "not a baby" argument is not likely to garner 100% popular support. And you think the "it's my body dammit" argument will? I'm aware people tend to project their own opinions and beliefs on others, but even so this is a really silly idea - if it had any chance of being true, there would be no abortion debate!

In realityland, of course, the "it's my body dammit" argument is extremely subject to people's opinions, because that's all there is to it! There are no (non-false) objective facts that can be used to convince a person that a "trespassing" fetus is fair game for murder. It's all opinion. Nothing more.

The "not a baby" argument, on the other hand, is solidly based on objective facts - so much so, in fact, that there are no rational arguments that would entirely ban abortion. You are correct that there can be quibbling about which week should be the cutoff, but there are objective facts available there too to assist in setting that limit.

It's one thing to personally give a lot of weight to the "it's my body dammit" argument. But to think that everyone else agrees that it's a solid argument borders on delusion.

[FriarTed]

So... nonpersons, right? AMIRITE?

You do know I trying to be funny, right?

Btw, for a while, I was trying to figure out what an amirite was.

[jsgoddess]

You missed a few factual assertions you made.

You do know that abortion is legal?

[jsgoddess]

You do know I trying to be funny, right?

I hope we both were. :D

[begbert2]

You do know that abortion is legal?Do I? I wonder.This is, again, opinion. If we refrain from including abortion law, what is the basis of this assertion?

<snip>

The simple fact is, if that fetus is a person, then the law against murder applies unless subverted by other law. There is NOT other law that does this, aside from current abortion law.






Debating the jusitifactions for abortion law by citing abortion law seems kida circular, don't you think? Moreso when one might expect to use these arguments to argue that those very laws shouldn't be changed or removed.

[Annie-Xmas]

Yeah, just like they were before Roe vs. Wade.

Pre-Roe v. Wade there was the whole "feus should have all the rights of a person" hysteria.

If the fetus does have all the rights of a person and the special right to take over another person's body, then women could be prosecuted for not eating right, not accepting medical care, taking any meds, NOT taking prescribed meds, etc. etc. while pregnant.

[jsgoddess]

Pre-Roe v. Wade there was the whole "feus should have all the rights of a person" hysteria.

If the fetus does have all the rights of a person and the special right to take over another person's body, then women could be prosecuted for not eating right, not accepting medical care, taking any meds, NOT taking prescribed meds, etc. etc. while pregnant.

Yeah, because mothers are prosecuted for not feeding their children right after they're born.

I know you're apparently passionate about this, but you say the silliest things.