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 (there’s no lack of cites for this, if this one offends your sensibilities):
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:
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 I found:
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.
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 you might find less offensive, having no affiliation with those awful biblical Christians who are so prone to attributing false quotes to academics:
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). 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.
Perhaps at this point you can concede that you were wrong and not roll your eyes at cites without addressing the facts?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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):
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.
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.
Are you reading this thread? This is what you said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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).
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.
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?
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.
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?
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).
Whack-a-Mole’s post #15 which shows statistics from the CDC, and kimstu’s post #41 on increased infanticide rates in Poland.
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.
You forgot to say “go on.”