I think it’s wrong in that case too. Pointing out injustice doesn’t make a further injustice ok. Sometimes there is a reason to kill, and if you take that reason then you deal with the consequences. I hope I am never in a wartime situation where I have to smother a baby to keep others alive. But the idea of seeking justification for an act seems to me to be missing the point of morality. Exigent circumstances may not justify an act but in some cases they explain it. If a crying baby were going to get a bunch of Jews hiding in an attic killed during the Holocaust then maybe it would make sense to smother that baby. But that doesn’t make it right or good. It doesn’t even make it not evil. Sometimes doing evil is necessary, but that’s not the same as trying to justify it.
Right. More people who are adopted, even people who go through the rage and frustration described above, go on to NOT be killers than to become killers. By several orders of magnitude.
That’s true, but you can also look at the statistics the way ZPG Zealot and Annie-Xmas are doing, which is that adoption is more highly represented in the population of serial killers than it is in the population at large. This is legitimate if it is true (and I’m not saying it isn’t, I just haven’t done the research necessary to say one way or another). The thing that hasn’t been shown, however, is why this might be so. The stories quoted are full of babies are given to unfit parents, of multiple remarriages to abusive men, genetic predispositions to schizophrenia, etc. Even the unfortunate practice of lying to children about their origins may have an effect. It shows no evidence that the institution of adoption itself breeds serial killers.
I’m sure that if we examined the childhood of any serial killer, we would find the same kind of issues. Unfortunately, adoption may be correlated with the kind of chaotic families that result from these kinds of problems, but adoption has not been shown to be the cause. On the contrary, handled in a healthy manner, adoption could perhaps be the solution to some of these problems.
I’d be interested to see if there is a genetic predisposition to mental illness amongst people who deem themselves unfit parents. Or who are deemed so by the state. Probably a self-selecting criteria. I bet a higher proportion of schizophrenics and bipolar depressives give their children up for adoption than the population at large too.
Well serial killers are such a small proportion of the population of murderers let alone the population of everyone. Extrapolating information about broad samples from extremely specific criteria is problematic. If say 0.00001% of the population becomes serial killers and 0.0001% of the population of adoptees becomes serial killers. That’s a pretty big increase but is still statistically irrelevant.
Right, this may very well be why we see a correlation, but it proves nothing about the effect of adoption itself.
Another good point.
In any case, the notion that it’s a good idea to kill a baby because he might turn out to be a serial killer has to be the most ridiculous one I’ve seen on this message board. And I’ve seen some whoppers.
Heh, if it’s a good idea to kill one baby to stop it from becomming a serial killer, isn’t it a better idea to kill a lot of babies? One might almost say … serially. 
I admit it becomes an issue because some of my fellow pro-choicers allow themselves to be baited into pointless definition debates, but the true center is women’s rights.
That MASH episode still haunts me too.
Things like that happen in war. Sometimes tough choice have to made. A fact that seems to be oblvious to the anti-abortion people.
Honey, once you smother the baby, you HAVE gone insane.
And you’re kind of naive about how harsh the world really is.
Why is it that anti-social curmudgeons always think that only THEY live in the real world that everyone else inhabits some kind of simulacrum?
Seriously, you would let people die rather than smother a crying baby? At least, I look at in terms of the balance. Smother the crying baby and the rest of the group lives. I guess you would let the baby keep crying and get everybody killed (the baby included). I have never seen baby worship so profoundly simplified, but that’s it.
Anti-social? I’m not the one that wants to sacrifice everyone else for the sake of an infant.
No, I was talking about your “kill baby before the cries make you insane” bullshit. And what you consider “baby worship” is what others consider “being against murder.”
And how would a “crying baby” betray you to an enemy, pray tell?
Oh, I know!!! How about this scenario!
:rolleyes:
Who wants to sacrifice everyone else for the sake of an infant? This is the sort of anti-social game you enjoy coming up with. An incredibly implausible scenario.
And the conclusion usually drawn from this is that “war is hell” and we should do everything in our power to prevent war – not to expand the horrors of war.
Killing babies isn’t some form of “abortion”. Abortion isn’t a term that applies to people when they are born; if it did, most of humanity would be “anti-abortion”.
Exactly, this.