# Has abortion made killing babies more tolerable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869 "2006-02-16T21:19:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/61 "2006-02-19T23:06:22Z")
> [@aurelian](#): > > You’ve mentioned Singer twice now, but it appears that you misunderstand his argument. \ To my understanding, it is not that Singer advocates infanticide per se but that he argues it is acceptable within our current moral system (with which he disagrees). Yes, there is indeed a misunderstanding in play in this thread, but I don’t think it’s mine. Here’s a clarification of [Singer’s position](http://www.equip.org/free/DD801.htm) (there’s no lack of cites for this, if this one offends your sensibilities): > [@](#): > > In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” > > Singer is not alone in these beliefs. As early as 1972, philosopher Michael Tooley bluntly declared that a human being “possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.” Infants do not qualify. Yes, Singer is an animal rights advocate. No, he is not simply using infanticide as some form of hyperbole to demonstrate the abuse of animal rights. He is making a value statement about infants. Another [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer): > [@](#): > > He states that a being’s interests should always be weighed according to that being’s concrete properties, and not according to its belonging to some abstract group such as a species, or a set of possible beings, or an early stage of something with an as yet unactualized potential. He favors a ‘journey’ model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey’s goals. So taking a life is less wrong at the beginning, when no goals have been set, and at the end, when the goals have either been met or are unlikely to be accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/62 "2006-02-20T04:27:29Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Yes, there is indeed a misunderstanding in play in this thread, but I don’t think it’s mine. Here’s a clarification of [Singer’s position](http://www.equip.org/free/DD801.htm) (there’s no lack of cites for this, if this one offends your sensibilities) Offends my sensibilities, huh? So if I question the objectivity of the Christian Research Institute (Home of the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff), which “exists to provide Christians worldwide with carefully researched information and well-reasoned answers that encourage them in their faith and equip them to intelligently represent it to people influenced by ideas and teachings that **assault or undermine orthodox, biblical Christianity** …” [emphasis mine], I’m just being nit-picky, huh? As to the Wikipedia quote, I still have a play to read for tomorrow, so I don’t have time to slug through Google. Here is a portion of an [interview](http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/20010209.htm) I found: > [@](#): > > Rachael Kohn: Well in the important area of medical ethics, you make a very strong point that again compares animals with humans, saying that it may be preferable to perform infanticide on a severely disabled newborn that has no consciousness, than to perform dastardly experiments on an animal which is conscious and does know what’s happening to it. I’m not sure whether they need to be compared, but I think they both may be true. But still, were you prepared for the accusations that came your way from Germans, that you were going down the Nazi path? > > Peter Singer: No, that came as a complete surprise to me, because it only happened some years after I wrote that, but it was connected with the fact that I was going to visit Germany to speak at a conference, and especially the allegation obviously had something to do with the Nazis, was something that was both shocking and I felt really deeply that it was very wrong, because my background in Jewish, my parents were refugees from the Nazis and their parents, my grandparents, three of them died in the Nazi camps. So I think that what I was talking about is really totally different from the kind of ethic that the Nazis supported from its fundamental roots upwards. > > Rachael Kohn: Well I guess you’ve pointed out that certain types of infanticide are already routinely occurring anyway in hospital settings, but we as a society sort of refuse to publicly endorse or recognise that that is happening. So is that a kind of lag there between what is actually happening and our ethical judgements on these matters? > > Peter Singer: I think it’s an instance of a tendency that we have to draw a veil over things that actually conflict sharply with traditional ethical standards, which includes a prohibition on taking innocent human life, when in fact we might realise if we look at the situation that there are some circumstances in which taking innocent human life is actually the best thing to do, and so while doctors are aware, and certainly those who work with newborn babies and with infants with severe disabilities, are aware of the fact that decisions are made to end the lives of those babies in hospitals all the time. > > But they don’t really sort of want to go to the government and say, ‘Well look, can you pass a law which specifies the circumstances in which we can do this, or makes it clear that what we’re doing is legally acceptable’, because they’re worried that that might simply mobilise the opposition to have stricter laws which actually prohibit this, and that would be a bad thing for the infants themselves, and certainly for their families. > > Rachael Kohn: So it’s a pragmatic strategy. But even the utilitarians knew that the long-term consequences of a good and charitable act can turn sour. Can we ever be sure that as individuals we can control those kind of decisions that occur in hospital settings? > > Peter Singer: We can never be totally sure of what’s going to happen in the future, because we don’t have crystal balls. We can only make judgements on our best expectations, our best estimates, and yes, they can go wrong, but of course they can go wrong in a variety of different ways. It may be that if we allow doctors to practice this openly, they’ll start to practice it too widely, it may be that if we don’t allow them to practice it openly, we’ll end up with tragedies in which perhaps parents will themselves take action into their own hands, with worse consequences for the children and for the parents themselves. Which is rather more complex than > [@Stratocaster](#): > > I think you’re creating a false conclsuion [sic] here. One needn’t be deranged to advocate the permissibility of infanticide. A Princeton professor takes that very position. Seems absolutely plausible that a desperate woman could under certain circumstances justify infanticide if, after all, two weeks before she could have simply aborted the same baby. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/63 "2006-02-20T08:24:46Z")
The vast majority of women in developed nations who commit infanticide are severely psychologically disturbed and the vast majority of women who elect to terminate their pregnancies aren’t. Nobody thinks killing infants and small children is acceptable- what people have come to realise recently is that the women who do this (in the West) are usually suffering from severe Postpartum psychosis, and fit the legal definition of insanity, which means that psyciatric treatment is more appropriate than being put in prison. If you’re convinced that your baby died at birth and that your “baby” is actually the devil possing the body of your child and you’re hearing the voices of the Archangels telling you that the only way to save humanity from the Antichrist is to kill this “baby”- well you hardly know that what you’re doing is wrong, or realise the consequences of your actions, do you? Acknowledging that and treating such a person as different to someone who kills their child in cold blood (like, say Mr Entwhistle is accused of doing) has absolutely nothing to do with how you feel about abortion rights. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/64 "2006-02-20T11:27:34Z")
> [@aurelian](#): > > Offends my sensibilities, huh? So if I question the objectivity of the Christian Research Institute (Home of the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff), which “exists to provide Christians worldwide with carefully researched information and well-reasoned answers that encourage them in their faith and equip them to intelligently represent it to people influenced by ideas and teachings that **assault or undermine orthodox, biblical Christianity** …” [emphasis mine], I’m just being nit-picky, huh? So, I’ll assume you had similar issues with the earlier cite from the “Childbirth by Choice Trust,” but forgot to mention them. Anyway, as I said, there’s no lack of cites. Here’s [another](http://www.biopolitiek.nl/art_eu_sing1.html) you might find less offensive, having no affiliation with those awful biblical Christians who are so prone to attributing false quotes to academics: > [@](#): > > In our book, ‘Should the Baby Live?’, my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others. This is clearly well before the infant could have a sense of its own existence over time, and would allow a couple that it is better not to continue with a life that has begun very badly. This one actually quotes the Great Man himself again (I’m not familar with the site). Perhaps you’ll find this one more acceptable. If not, give Google a rip yourself. There’s tons of cites, though not a lot sympathetic to our good friend, Professor Singer. > [@](#): > > As to the Wikipedia quote, I still have a play to read for tomorrow, so I don’t have time to slug through Google. Here is a portion of an [interview](http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/20010209.htm) I found: > > Which is rather more complex than Yes, indeed it is, which was exactly my point: summarizing infanticide as the province of the deranged is convenient but incorrect (I was responding to Whack-A-Mole’s post). There is likely a much broader range of rationales. Your quote, by the way, also re-emphasizes my counter-point that Singer does not merely use infanticide as a way to illustrate the value of animal rights; he makes a specific value judgment regarding infants. From your cite: > [@](#): > > I think it’s an instance of a tendency that we have to draw a veil over things that actually conflict sharply with traditional ethical standards, which includes a prohibition on taking innocent human life, when in fact we might realise if we look at the situation that there are some circumstances in which taking innocent human life is actually the best thing to do, and so while doctors are aware, and certainly those who work with newborn babies and with infants with severe disabilities, are aware of the fact that decisions are made to end the lives of those babies in hospitals all the time. So, huffing and puffing aside, you have made my point again. Remember, you suggested my references to Singer to edify my point were reflective of a misunderstanding of his beliefs. You suggested that I took Singer out of context, and that his advocacy for infanticide was a way to illustrate the hypocrisy inherent in the rights we grant certain animals. You summed it up in saying, “To my understanding, it is not that Singer advocates infanticide per se but that he argues it is acceptable within our current moral system (with which he disagrees).” I have shown you that he uses no such qualifiers and most certainly does agree with a moral system that permits infanticide. His position is that infants (by themselves, without any comparison to another being) aren’t deserving of certain rights, based on their stage of development. Perhaps at this point you can concede that you were wrong and not roll your eyes at cites without addressing the facts? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/65 "2006-02-20T11:32:13Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > The vast majority of women in developed nations who commit infanticide are severely psychologically disturbed and the vast majority of women who elect to terminate their pregnancies aren’t. I suspect this is true. > [@](#): > > Nobody thinks killing infants and small children is acceptable \ This is demonstrably false. > [@](#): > > … [emphasis added] what people have come to realise recently is that the women who do this (in the West) are **usually** suffering from severe Postpartum psychosis, and fit the legal definition of insanity, which means that psyciatric treatment is more appropriate than being put in prison. Now you’re back on a track I suspect is true. Do you have a cite that would confirm the suspicion we both seem to have? ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/66 "2006-02-20T14:36:58Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > So, I’ll assume you had similar issues with the earlier cite from the “Childbirth by Choice Trust,” but forgot to mention them. Anyway, as I said, there’s no lack of cites. Here’s [another](http://www.biopolitiek.nl/art_eu_sing1.html) you might find less offensive, having no affiliation with those awful biblical Christians who are so prone to attributing false quotes to academics. A little testy, aren’t we? I made no such criticism of the cite; but if a website purports to be a clearinghouse for information that supports “orthodox and biblical Christianity”, than I am going to assume it’s articles will not be terribly objective. Kind of like asking Ann Coulter about liberals. > [@](#): > > This one actually quotes the Great Man himself again (I’m not familar with the site). Perhaps you’ll find this one more acceptable. If not, give Google a rip yourself. There’s tons of cites, though not a lot sympathetic to our good friend, Professor Singer.Yes, indeed it is, which was exactly my point: summarizing infanticide as the province of the deranged is convenient but incorrect (I was responding to Whack-A-Mole’s post). So, let me get this straight: a professor who’s work you cannot refer to without some sort of elementary-school level snark somehow has weight with you? Why isn’t Singer among the “deranged” to your mind? > [@](#): > > There is likely a much broader range of rationales. Your quote, by the way, also re-emphasizes my counter-point that Singer does not merely use infanticide as a way to illustrate the value of animal rights; he makes a specific value judgment regarding infants. From your cite:So, huffing and puffing aside, you have made my point again. Remember, you suggested my references to Singer to edify my point were reflective of a misunderstanding of his beliefs. You suggested that I took Singer out of context, and that his advocacy for infanticide was a way to illustrate the hypocrisy inherent in the rights we grant certain animals. You summed it up in saying, “To my understanding, it is not that Singer advocates infanticide per se but that he argues it is acceptable within our current moral system (with which he disagrees).” I have shown you that he uses no such qualifiers and most certainly does agree with a moral system that permits infanticide. His position is that infants (by themselves, without any comparison to another being) aren’t deserving of certain rights, based on their stage of development. You have done no so such thing. Singer argues for \*infanticide in certain strictly-defined cases \* (cases in which he posits that infanticide is already occuring) which is not the same thing as your original post. I hold to the position that to read Singer’s perspective on infanticide without cognizance of his stance on animal rights provides only a partial perspective: his view of human beings and their choices is deeply informed by his view of animal life as a whole. > [@](#): > > Perhaps at this point you can concede that you were wrong and not roll your eyes at cites without addressing the facts? ? Seriously, what is your problem? ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/67 "2006-02-20T19:37:43Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is demonstrably false. No, it isn’t. So far all we have is opinion, and not especially reliable opinion, that abortion makes people think infanticide is acceptable. Aside from opinion, what solid facts do you have to support that opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/68 "2006-02-20T19:50:30Z")
> [@aurelian](#): > > A little testy, aren’t we? I made no such criticism of the cite; but if a website purports to be a clearinghouse for information that supports “orthodox and biblical Christianity”, than I am going to assume it’s articles will not be terribly objective. Kind of like asking Ann Coulter about liberals. And it would still be a logical fallacy. > [@](#): > > So, let me get this straight: a professor who’s work you cannot refer to without some sort of elementary-school level snark somehow has weight with you? Why isn’t Singer among the “deranged” to your mind? Not following you. There are countless people I disagree with whom I don’t assume are deranged by virtue of our disagreement. Why should I assume Singer is deranged? > [@](#): > > You have done no so such thing. Singer argues for \*infanticide in certain strictly-defined cases \* (cases in which he posits that infanticide is already occuring) which is not the same thing as your original post. I hold to the position that to read Singer’s perspective on infanticide without cognizance of his stance on animal rights provides only a partial perspective: his view of human beings and their choices is deeply informed by his view of animal life as a whole. So what? Why does his stance on animal rights change the basic position I cited–i.e., that Singer believes infanticide (for WHATEVER reason) can be justified? You’re dancing around, trying to change the specific point made into one you’d prefer to argue against. I asserted that there are people, like Singer, who believe infanticide can be justified. Nothing, NOTHING, you have countered with contradicts this. Saying that Singer’s philosophy has many facets doesn’t change the fact that he believes infanticide can be justified. What is so hard about this? This is what you said (emphasis added): > [@](#): > > You’ve mentioned Singer twice now, but it appears that you misunderstand his argument. The infamous infanticide justification must be viewed within its original context: in short, life is life, whether it be a rat, a rabbit, an ape or a human. Our culture exploits animals for food, research, fur, etc. Some of the animals we exploit are advanced creatures that have the ability to communicate, protect themselves and survive on their own. Because we (falsely, to Singer) place human life as more valuable than animal, we are willing to kill an animal that is more sophisticated than say, a fetus (abortion) or even a newborn (infanticide). To his mind, this is hypocritical. > **To my understanding, it is not that Singer advocates infanticide per se but that he argues it is acceptable within our current moral system (with which he disagrees).** I have provided you with cites that you ignored that show that Singer does NOT disagree with a current moral system that should, if applied consistently, permit infanticide. Your own post distorts Singer’s position. He does NOT justify infanticide only in instances where that act is already occurring; he simply asserts that as a practical matter, it is already occurring. Nonetheless you continue to reaffirm my point within a fog of apparent rebuttal: Singer agrees that infanticide can be justified. He says so, I say so, and you say so. Singer’s belief system as it relates to animal rights does not in any way change that fact. You are raising a smoke cloud to obscure the fact that you made an inaccurate statement, and you don’t have the grace to acknowledge what is painfully obvious to anyone who can f#$%ing read. At this point, I’ll assume you’re just unwilling to debate with intellectual honesty if you can’t concede this simple point. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/69 "2006-02-20T20:01:17Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > No, it isn’t. So far all we have is opinion, and not especially reliable opinion, that abortion makes people think infanticide is acceptable. Aside from opinion, what solid facts do you have to support that opinion? Apparantly it’s enough for the OP that somebody somewhere holds the belief that “abortion ok” = “infanticide ok”, not that it’s common within the overall society. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/70 "2006-02-20T20:14:00Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > No, it isn’t. So far all we have is opinion, and not especially reliable opinion, that abortion makes people think infanticide is acceptable. Aside from opinion, what solid facts do you have to support that opinion? Are you reading this thread? This is what you said: > [@](#): > > Nobody thinks killing infants and small children is acceptable \ In this very thread I have provided the example of the esteemed Professor Singer. So, unless you think he’s a hallucination, it is demonstrably false that nobody thinks killing infants is ever acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/71 "2006-02-20T20:20:48Z")
Actually, I didn’t say that, **irishgirl** did. Now, possibly she should have qualified that to “nobody with a hint of social conscience thinks…”, but I believe that was pretty much inferred. And it has been pointed out that you took Dr. Singer’s statement out of context and manipulated it in order to put your spin on it. On top of which, even if that was _exactly what he was saying_, his opinion is not supported by statistical evidence to the contrary. So again; all we have is opinion, and not supported opinion, that abortion is a slippery slope to infanticide. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/72 "2006-02-20T20:30:47Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > The basic underlying reasoning is this; Why is it so terrible for me to kill my child _now_, when I could have had a doctor do it X number of days ago _legally_. I think the point is that, regardless of what believes about the personhood of the unborn baby, it is a parasite and can only live at the will of the mom. Therefore it becomes the privacy issue, in that the mom cannot be forced to host the parasite. Once it is born, there are others who could keep it alive and it would no longer be a responsibility for the mom alone. Assuming “X number of days” is something like 90, since at six months or so the baby could be born and kept alive outside the womb. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/73 "2006-02-20T20:33:21Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Actually, I didn’t say that, **irishgirl** did. My mistake. Sorry. > [@](#): > > Now, possibly she should have qualified that to “nobody with a hint of social conscience thinks…”, but I believe that was pretty much inferred. > > And it has been pointed out that you took Dr. Singer’s statement out of context and manipulated it in order to put your spin on it. On top of which, even if that was _exactly what he was saying_, his opinion is not supported by statistical evidence to the contrary. So again; all we have is opinion, and not supported opinion, that abortion is a slippery slope to infanticide. This has becoming enormously tiresome. I referred to Singer as an example of someone who believes that infanticide is justified, to show that this is not a belief system that occurs only in the deranged (or not at all). Period. You think I put spin on it? Then show it, sister. Explain how I twisted his belief system into something it isn’t. Go on, I’ll wait. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/74 "2006-02-20T20:37:39Z")
[Right here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7120365&postcount=60) [quote] You’ve mentioned Singer twice now, but it appears that you misunderstand his argument. The infamous infanticide justification must be viewed within its original context: in short, life is life, whether it be a rat, a rabbit, an ape or a human. Our culture exploits animals for food, research, fur, etc. Some of the animals we exploit are advanced creatures that have the ability to communicate, protect themselves and survive on their own. **Because we (falsely, to Singer) place human life as more valuable than animal, we are willing to kill an animal that is more sophisticated than say, a fetus (abortion) or even a newborn (infanticide). To his mind, this is hypocritical.** To my understanding, it is not that Singer advocates infanticide per se but that he argues it is acceptable within our current moral system **(with which he disagrees).** ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/75 "2006-02-20T20:44:28Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] [Right here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7120365&postcount=60) > [@](#): > > You’ve mentioned Singer twice now, but it appears that you misunderstand his argument. The infamous infanticide justification must be viewed within its original context: in short, life is life, whether it be a rat, a rabbit, an ape or a human. Our culture exploits animals for food, research, fur, etc. Some of the animals we exploit are advanced creatures that have the ability to communicate, protect themselves and survive on their own. **Because we (falsely, to Singer) place human life as more valuable than animal, we are willing to kill an animal that is more sophisticated than say, a fetus (abortion) or even a newborn (infanticide). To his mind, this is hypocritical.** > To my understanding, it is not that Singer advocates infanticide per se but that he argues it is acceptable within our current moral system **(with which he disagrees).** You’re going to have to try harder than this, since I have already addressed aurelian’s specious claims (see above). Singer does not hold the position aurelian has attributed to him, and I’ve provided cites to support that. Now it’s your turn. Go on, I’ll wait. Here’s a hint. Show the quote that _I_ made (not aurelian) and explain why it’s an act of spin that distorts Singer’s position. In fact, I’ll make this easier for you: just show the claim I made re: Singer that is false. Use the “quote” function. Go on, this should be easy. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/76 "2006-02-20T21:01:08Z")
😛 You forgot to say “go on.” Again, even if Singer is saying what you think he is, one _unsupported_ opinion does not make it fact. It has been shown statistically that industrialized nations which allow abortion have a lower rate of infanticide than nations which do not allow abortion. Do you have anything besides opinion which refutes those statistics? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/77 "2006-02-20T21:04:41Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > “Very, very little” is not the same as “not at all.” However, since “not at all” is virtually impossible to prove, and probably also to achieve, “very, very little” has to be good enough for the purposes of determining whether it harms society. Whether anyone, ever, has acted in such a manner, is not a useful answer to the thread title question, when the statistics show that infanticide has NOT become more tolerable or frequent **for the society** at large. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/78 "2006-02-20T21:11:22Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > 😛 You forgot to say “go on.” > > Again, even if Singer is saying what you think he is, one _unsupported_ opinion does not make it fact. It has been shown statistically that industrialized nations which allow abortion have a lower rate of infanticide than nations which do not allow abortion. Do you have anything besides opinion which refutes those statistics? Sorry, I’m not going to play this game. I refuse to take a side in an argument that I have not at any point posited so that you can knock it down. You needn’t interpret what I “say” Singer is saying–I provided direct quotes. What I haven’t done is suggest that Singer’s position (or my opinion) means that infanticide collectively increases as abortion restrictions are eased. In fact, I have specifically said in this thread that I can’t conclude this. BTW, I’m not saying this evidence does not exist, but I don’t recall anyone providing statistical evidence to support the notion that infanticide increases as access to abortion decreases. Did I miss this? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/79 "2006-02-20T21:15:21Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > However, since “not at all” is virtually impossible to prove, and probably also to achieve, “very, very little” has to be good enough for the purposes of determining whether it harms society. Whether anyone, ever, has acted in such a manner, is not a useful answer to the thread title question, when the statistics show that infanticide has NOT become more tolerable or frequent **for the society** at large. What if one holds the position that a single act of infanticide, justified thusly, is one too many? You can argue that you believe there’s a greater good served by easy access to abortion, but surely you wouldn’t deny that this position is at least a subjective call (assuming, as I do, that you believe infanticide is never justified). ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869/80 "2006-02-20T21:36:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Sorry, I’m not going to play this game. I refuse to take a side in an argument that I have not at any point posited so that you can knock it down. Sooo…you got nothin? > [@](#): > > BTW, I’m not saying this evidence does not exist, but I don’t recall anyone providing statistical evidence to support the notion that infanticide increases as access to abortion decreases. Did I miss this? **Whack-a-Mole’s** post #15 which shows statistics from the CDC, and **kimstu’s** post #41 on increased infanticide rates in Poland. > [@](#): > > What if one holds the position that a single act of infanticide, justified thusly, is one too many? You can argue that you believe there’s a greater good served by easy access to abortion, but surely you wouldn’t deny that this position is at least a subjective call (assuming, as I do, that you believe infanticide is never justified). I don’t believe matricide is justifiable, either, but I don’t think getting rid of mothers would be a practical solution. For every act that society finds repugnant, you will always find someone guilty of it, be it molestation or elder abuse or infanticide. That doesn’t mean that we as a society believe it’s okay simply because someone’s mental condition was taken into consideration at the time of sentencing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-abortion-made-killing-babies-more-tolerable/344869.md?page=5)