ALL I said is that experts agree that adoption is a causation factor in the making of a serial killer. Whether it’s bad genes or growing up without a biological bond to your family is debatable. But my main point is that adoption is NOT always a la-la land where everything ends up perfectly.
I’ve actually heard anti-abortionists say that it’s better for a child to be born and then murdered than to be aborted.
Yeah. I feel like Zealot’s playing some kind of “When is it OK to murder babies?” game. How about if it’s a car accident and you know the car’s going to go up in flames and you just happen to have a gun and there’s NO CHANCE of freeing the baby, for good measure?
There are many arguments concerning adoption, but honestly the chances of an adoptee becomming a serial killer is about the least of anyone’s worries.
And similarly, if starvation in 3rd world countries leads to infanticide – then that’s just another good reason to work to end starvation. To use this as a reason why infanticide should be condoned is just … words fail me.
And re: the financial argument…99.999999% of the healthy happy children in the world were raised by non-millionaires. (and an equal number of the unhappy ones, too).
Maybe he’s got some good recipies he’d like to try. 
You know, when the zombie apocalypse happens and he’s the only guy who can stop them but he’s faint with hunger and really annoyed by that crying baby …
I wonder if Zealot took Swift literally.
Can you show this?
Whoops, just saw your post. Sorry!
No, I don’t think they do agree on any kind of causation, so please show a cite or stop saying it.
I don’t believe anyone credible would suggest that it is solely due to growing up without a biological bond to your family. Do you have a cite for that?
Right. Just like life.
If so, then they’ve obviously got a screw loose. How is that relevant to anything?
My point wasn’t aimed at you, but at ZPG Zealot.
Even in war, this is an extremely rare situation. Even in the Holocaust, Jews did everything they could to help their babies survive, not kill them.
ETA: By the way, I’m as pro-choice as they come.
I recall reading year ago that one historical reason for infanticide was the charming practice that the Christian society of the time had of executing women for “fornication”; even if she was raped. I can certainly see it as justified if she’s killing the baby to keep from being executed for being raped.
Interesting theory. Although it makes it sound like infanticide was unknown prior to, or outside of, Christian society.
He likes picking cherries.
No; just more common.
Can you back this up with a cite?
Religion Bashing Illustrated, Oct 2009.
More like Oct 1009.
Do you really want to defend Christian practices in ancient times?
No cite is really necessary. In the course of human history and across all human society, there have undoubtedly been millions of cases of infanticide, done for dozens of different reasons: all of them bad. Undoubtedly many of those reasons involved concealing the pregnancy; in some slices of society and time that concealment was to avoid clerical / religious punishment.
Is this relevant or significant? Not IMHO.
I doubt anyone needs to defend something until it has been established as more than a reflexive smear.
Unless you have a credible cite. A specific one, mind you.
IOW, you made the following claim -
So, we need a cite that executing women for being raped was a specifically Christian practice, and that there is evidence that this was a significant cause for infanticide. Make sure you include which society you are talking about, the historical period, and the evidence that it was a factor in infanticide.
Regards,
Shodan