Are you actually positing that quotes cannot be taken out of context and/ or manipulated to meet particular ideological ends?
It would be nice if you would not take things so personally. I’m not sure what you think you will achieve by being so bitchy. I have nothing to retract, as I still hold that it is necessary to have some knowledge of Singer’s views on animal rights to make sense of his views on human morals. If you can show me a cite that says that in Singer’s ideal world (within which animals are treated in a radically different way) infanticide would also exist, I will gladly retract. However, you have not shown that his views can be separated from the less-than-perfect nature of this world.
Not only don’t I have any statistics for this position, I never asserted it. Do you get this? I never, ever refuted the statement, “industrialized nations which allow abortion have a lower rate of infanticide than nations which do not allow abortion.” Consequently, your asking me for statistics to support a position I never advanced is what we call (drumroll, please)…a straw man. So, in answer to your question, no, I have nothing at all to support that position that I never took. Sheesh.
The cite in post #15 does not support the notion that infanticide increases as access to abortion decreases, unless I’m missing it.
There is no statistical support in this cite (or I’m missing it), which is what I asked for.
No, I agree, killing mothers is not a good solution to the problem of killing mothers. Thanks for this insightful statement.
Have no idea what it is you’re arguing here or what position you have randomly assigned to me in the process.
Well, for starters, I was trying to get back to the OP, which asks if abortion has made infanticide acceptable based on the sentencing of a woman who killed her child.
So, what exactly are you doing in this thread, again? Aside from baiting, that is.
No. I’m stating that questioning the source is not the same as refuting an assertion. It’s a classic logical fallacy. Really. I’m not being terribly original here.
But I don’t disagree with this. Look, sorry if I’m coming across as bitchy, but I’m explaining my position regarding Singer quite explicitly. I don’t know what else to say if what I’ve already posted isn’t clear.
I don’t know what else I can provide to support the position that Singer believes infanticide can be justified, which is the position re: Singer I have made. It’s one you have conceded indirectly in this thread.
I have NOT asserted that Singer’s views on infanticide aren’t inextricably intertwined with his views on animal rights. I have simply stated that this fact isn’t relevant to the point I was making.
This is hilarious! You are the Queen of the Non Sequiturs. I tell you to find somebody who has actually taken the position you want to argue against (since it isn’t me), and you respond by pointing out that I said I hadn’t taken this position. Well, Einstein, ya got me there. Whoa! You really buried me.
You’re a riot! Yep, I’ve been all over the place in this thread, no doubt about it. I’ve run the gamut from A to A.
What a fantastic debater you are! I take back everything I’ve been thinking about you.
No, wait, you’re right. I’ve equivocated so much in this thread, some good, ol’ fashioned position stating is definitely in order. OK, here goes. I am against infanticide.
OK, your turn. I defy you to provide the statistics behind your position in support of state-supported infanticide. Go on, I double dog dare ya…
Congrats. So, perhaps when you’re done with the personal attacks, you could actually explain why that matters? Nobody in this thread is espousing infanticide. Just that it isn’t encouraged by abortion. Either you agree with that statement or you disagree. Now that you’re caught up, would you care to say which it is?
Let’s ignore the fact that whether or not I believe this has no relevance on what I have posited in this debate. You should have no trouble showing all those times I asserted this position in my contribution to this thread. Or do you want to just admit this is a straw man right out of the gate to save time?
God almighty, here’s a more straightforward suggestion. Don’t assign an argument to someone who hasn’t actually taken it. Not so hard, right?
Well, ya got me there. Clearly I was in the wrong to suggest Maureen was in favor of state-supported infanticide. Couldn’t possibly have been making an obvious point. :rolleyes:
While I would say that several posters have, indeed, missed your (minimalist) points, you are getting out of hand with your personal attacks. If you really need to participate in this thread, then stick to the discussion and leave the personal comments out.
Maureen, (along with everyone else), you need to cool off, as well.
If anyone’s still reading this, I’ve conceded my stance in this thread due to the information and logic provided by other posters, Whack-a-Mole and Kimstu for starters.
I believe there will be the occasional mother that feels they way I suggested in the OP, but this seems to be an insignificant number. If late term abortions become the norm, then we’ve moved the goalposts, or if judges begin handing down lean sentences when no signs of PPD are found it may be time to re-evaluate.
Thanks to all who cared enough to participate.
However, then the judgement becomes one as to whether the “justification” is acknowleged as valid by anyone but the perpetrator. After all, almost everyone who kills someone (except the total psychos) felt they had a reason to do so. Part of what we do do everyone who kills is ascertain what the circumstances were and their mental state was and based on that we decide the punishment.
If it’s clear that society continues to condemn the act of infanticide, and the evidence on the field is that it is a rare phenomenon, and further to it, the society does not promote late-term abortion and practices it only seldom, then one person who commits infanticide under the premise that “if abortion’s OK, then infanticide must also be OK”, will be considered by the society an aberration, and what is done about that person must be evaluated based on their circumstances.
