I’m just going to go ahead and assume you have no kids. Does the OP support state sponsored execution for those who forfeit their legal protection worthy of person? Ooh, ooh! What about parricide? The treatment some children receive from dear ole ma an pa could definitely make that case. My Dog, you’re a fucking idiot. Really all I can contribute to such sophomoric shite.
Cheers, 
I feel quite safe in saying that you haven’t achieved the criteria for personhood yet. So let’s get rid of you right quick.
I’m sure you won’t object, right? :rolleyes:
It has. Considering that the OP is logically consistent with the pro-abortion position.
But a newer low is coming. The only reason we aren’t seeing infanticide today is because it takes time for a culture’s sentiments to catch up with its philosophical premises. But just wait.
Inconceivable? About as inconceivable as the legalization of abortion would have been to anyone a hundred years ago - especially the early feminists who saw it as hand-in-hand with the degradation of women as sex objects.
Don’t you all see that the suggestion brough to us by the OP resolves a big problem in societies?
Since 2 year olds can be killed because “not conscient”, why not collect the rejected ones and put them available for pedophiles? Sort of “Rent a Baby for Sex and Other Pleasures”.
That way the children deemed “conscient” are for ever protected against the danger of abuse.
It even cuts two ways:
The pedophiles pay for the unconscient worthless baby and thus provide for their food (by the way, since unconscient, they don’t feel any hunger anyway. We just feed them out of habit) and shelter.
If they want to kill one while practicing their view at sexual intercourse, just let them pay a bit more to satisfy that healthy lust.
Thus they even pay for doing the job of killing.
This OP opens a whole new and worldwide market for a whole new form of enterprise.
Salaam. A
Funny you should say that. It is just what the infanticidal ancient Romans did. They “exposed” newborns, left them out to die OR for any one to take and raise for any purpose – usually prostitution.
What distinguishes us moderns from the Romans? Technological advancement? Tell that to the victims of Nazism and Communism. No, for two millenia it was Christianity. What now?
It’s just around the bend. God help us.
Okay I know this is slightly off point and a rant, please forgive and indulge me.
Please do not ever say again that a woman has a right to her own body and use that as an excuse to kill.
No one has a right to there own body including women. Who ever came up with this crap.
If I had the right to do what I wanted with my own body, I would not be forced to pay alimony. WTF why should I work with my body for the benift of something that should be killed.
Why would anyone put me in jail then for killing the neighbors dog, It is my body can’t I do what I want with it. (like pull the triggger) The dog is obviously cauisng me distress.
It’s my body all I am doing is making money my way by liberating it form the bank. My body holding my gun which I paid for by the work done with my body, my sweat, my pain, my sleepless nights. It’s my body I can do what I want with it.
Oh yeah I can’t use my body to harm anyone or anything else. right thanks
TGW: * Considering that the OP is logically consistent with the pro-abortion position.*
Nope. Of course, there are many different views held by different supporters of abortion rights, but the general consensus position is not logically consistent with support for infanticide.
To wit: that position holds that the full status and rights of personhood are gradually developed by the fetus in the course of pregnancy. At the beginning of pregnancy, when that development is minimal, the embryo/fetus doesn’t have an individual right to survival that outweighs a pregnant woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. Later in pregnancy, when that development is far advanced, it does. Infanticide, which occurs only after pregnancy has already ended in birth, is thus completely irrelevant to the competing rights of the pregnant woman and the developing fetus.
Therefore, it is perfectly logically consistent to be pro-choice but still oppose late-term “abortion on demand”, much less abortion. Probably the overwhelming majority of the approximately 80% of the US population who support legalized abortion under some circumstances are solidly opposed to infanticide, and there’s no logical contradiction there.
*Inconceivable? About as inconceivable as the legalization of abortion would have been to anyone a hundred years ago *
It would have been “inconceivable” only to those who knew no history. Laws criminalizing abortion began to appear in the US only in the 1820’s, when they generally forbade abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy. Terminating pregnancies, at least in their early stages, was by no means universally repudiated by pre-twentieth-century societies.
In any case, this “our ancestors would have been horrified” line of debate is largely empty rhetoric. Lots of things would have been inconceivable to our society a hundred years ago; it doesn’t necessarily imply those things are wrong, any more than widespread acceptance of something automatically means that that thing is right. We’re best served by carefully thinking through the pros and cons of various positions to arrive at what we feel is most fair.
While I support abortion for any, all, or no reason, I think nine months is plenty of time to figure out if you want a child at this time. While I do agree to a large extent with the OP, I do not really see what we have to gain from it. After the baby is born, give it a chance.
And: Oh yeah I can’t use my body to harm anyone or anything else.
Sure you can, and you incessantly do. The mere survival of your body requires the death of countless other organisms that you feed on or inadvertently destroy. Saying “you don’t have the right to harm anyone or anything” is meaningless.
The only way to determine whether and when you have the right to harm someone or something else is to consider the particular cases and the competing rights involved. You don’t have the right to kill your neighbor’s dog for annoying you, or to kill your own dog for your amusement; but you do have the right to kill your own cow or pig or chicken to eat. You don’t have the right to kill a passer-by who’s doing no harm, but you do have the right to kill an assailant who’s trying to kill you. By a similar weighing of competing rights, the Supreme Court determined that a pregnant woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy at her discretion in its early stages, even though that involves killing an embryo or fetus. Nobody’s happy about killing fetuses; it’s just that we think that allowing that choice is fairer and more in line with biological reality than trying to claim that an early-term fetus has the full rights of a separate human person.
Kimstu: *Therefore, it is perfectly logically consistent to be pro-choice but still oppose late-term “abortion on demand”, much less abortion. *
Oops: I meant to type “much less infanticide”.
Tell me about these tests. Exactly what kinds of tests will you be performing on one year olds to know whether or not they are self aware? Who will be performing these tests? Who’s going to pay for them?
I’m really hoping that you’re just playing Devil’s Advocate here.
Except that everything you just said is arbitrarily decided. One could just as easily say that personhood is “gradually” acquired after birth, hence my observation. Your only real objection is
i.e., most people are against infanticide. Apparently this is an irrelevant remark because you follow it with
The same could be said of that 80% majority of the present that you quote.
My point about “our ancestors would have been horrified,” if you’ll notice, was only to illustrate that our horror today of infanticide is no reason to expect that “civilized” people of the near future will also find it horrifying. Especially if they apply the same logic about “gradually” acquired “personhood.”
Touché.
Perhaps one of the tests could be whether the child recognizes him/herself in the mirror.
Language acquisition tests could also play a part.
Temporal perception would also be a key factor, such as the ability to conceive of the concept of “yesterday” and “tomorrow”. IIRC, there’s a certain part of the brain that’s responsible for this. Perhaps brain scans could play a role in determining whether the child has reached sentience.
Hell, let’s just move the cutoff age back to include when they’re actually able to be of some use to society–how about 10? Or when they can hold down a paying job and contribute to the household–say 15?
What a crock. To say that babies can’t recognize or learn before they’re 18 months old is just plain stupid. My babies knew when it was ME instead of Daddy or Auntie holding them almost from day one! Their personalities develop continually from the start and they can even at six months show wonder and love–and even intelligence (my son was learning to climb at that age–he could already crawl and pull up on the furniture). Before my first two were a year old, they knew the words Mama and Daddy, and knew what they meant (it took the youngest one a bit longer, because she couldn’t get a word in edgewise!). And believe you me, they acquire memory skills quicker than you seem to think–if you don’t believe that, just give a little one a cookie or some candy and then let them see you put the bag away. See if they don’t point for it when the treat is gone! And even later, they can remember right where it is, so they can whine and point for it while you’re trying to get them to eat strained peas!
I guess it all depends on what you find to be valuable and worthwhile, if you can’t see that length of memory-retention and IQ and lack thereof are no way to determine whether someone gets the chance to live or not! Because if that’s your criteria, then why not just line up the old folks against a wall and put them out of their worthless existence? Or those who’ve suffered brain-damage and have lost memory function and IQ points? I can just imagine what you think about babies with Down’s and the like. :rolleyes:
I really hope that you’re just playing Devil’s advocate here.
I really hope that you’re just playing Devil’s advocate here.
That, and I’m also hoping he/she doesn’t have access to young children.
?? I won`t say it…
Here`s another tidbit from the OP in a differently related thread.
Blalron*
"Why force a baby, which is essentially a screaming poop machine and a lifelong obligation, upon anyone? Taking care of a colicky baby is the worst hell imaginable, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
If it weren’t for the enjoyability of sex, natures way of tricking us into perpetuating the species, most of us who are here right now probably wouldn’t be here. I’m sure if a magical windows style popup screen came up in midair that said “Are you SURE you want a baby?” the majority of soon to be parents would say no."*
**That was a year ago. At least he`s consistent.
And no, hes apparently not playing Devils Advocate.**