Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Post Reply New Topic

OK, I know I'm just flame-baiting now (I can't help it), but are you seriously comparing infanticide to pedophilia?

The difference between an unborn baby and one that is born is the skin of a Mothers belly.

So in a way the article is correct, the moral issue is on whether you consider abortion a good or bad thing.
Abortions suddenly become immoral to abortionists when the fetus reaches a certain age, this is just a way of increasing the age of allowing abortions to beyond 9 months.

In another thread about Aspies having very early memories, one post mentioned a pre birth memory.

"I'll gladly listen to what anti-abortionists have to say on abortion when they've experienced morning sickness, labour pains, and tried to raise a child on minimum wage"

George Carlin

I'm saying their equal Mendoza lines. You don't legalize adults plugging kids and you don't legalize ex utero infanticide. A lot of people would consider abortion bad enough but ex utero infanticide just shatters all illusions as something it seems like everyone can agree with - much like everyone can agree on youth being tutored the ancient Greek way being unthinkable.

That's a little simplistic - it's a little more than skin deep.


The difference is the mother comes into play and her wishes become part of the issue. The government should not be allowed to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus.

As the Pro-Life crowd tend to be politically so conservative that they think the government has no right to use their money for WICK and medical programs, perhaps the argument can be turned around with the assertion that letting babies die from malnutrition or lack of medical care is as much murder as they claim abortion is.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, I heard him arguing rights usually reserved for humans should be granted to great apes and dolphins because they had intelligence so close to humans (and on par, in fact, with young children). So I doubt he said anything like that, though of course I could be wrong.

I have seriously had someone challenge me with this argument though. I countered it by saying that, like Dawkins, I did believe intelligent animal species should be granted the right to life we give humans.

Another problem with this argument is that, to make it and be consistent, you would have to agree that the murder of mentally challenged people is acceptable.

I agree with the heading.

Fetus = developing human that's reliant
baby = developing human that's reliant

I'm all for abortion though, as it saves people from "the suck" that is life, plus there's too many people as is. Though I do think it takes away from responsibility and can offer an "easy way out" for people if the child was an "accident".

Lol, maybe that'll be the next thing getting reopened for discussion. Would that be wonderful...

If foetuses are people, why arent' they included on census forms?

If foetuses are people, why is it an expectant mother with 2 born children says "I've got 2 kids and one on the way" instead of saying "I have 3 kids"

Consistency please!

People can think whatever they like, it doesn't mean they're right; it can also just be semantics (like, "mental illness" and "mental disorder"). As far as I can see, it's consistent to say that a fetus and baby are both developing humans; one is just inside of a person and younger -- they're both just as reliant on the mother for survival. Which is the point of it all.

I can see why people like to separate the two though, especially when we're talking about abortion.

to state that she is pregnant and currently taking care of 2 children that is known.

Stating that she has "one on the way" doesn't mean that there won't be a surprise at birth....that surprise being a fraternal twin or some other bizarre medical oddity.

What you mean by 'active pedophilia'? Pedophilia is an erotic attraction to children. So what is active pedophilia? That someone is attracted to children? Not illegal. Or you mean that someone acts upon his attraction? And what kinds of actions? Fantasizing about children? Not illegal. Having and appropriate contact with a child? That's not illegal either. If you mean sexual contact with a child, then say sexual contact with a child. I find using the the term 'active pedophilia' for sexual contact with children misleading. (And term 'pedophilic behavior' which becomes popular is misleading the same way.)

I know this is off-topic here, so if you want to ask something or you feel need to reply, let's do it in PM or in new topic.

Is English a second language for you?

I'm trying to find a polite way of saying 'a man f'ing a boy'. Am I allowed to phrase it politely or do I need to be blunt-graphic to satisfy your need for info?

There is also an argument to be made that life is not necessarily desirable. It is often assumed that life = good; but I don't think this is so. Before the government acts to discourage abortion, it should consider if the environment is one that the woman wants to bring her child into.

The idea Dawkins expressed was part of a scientific radio series. I'll see if I can find the recording, but digging through all the files online sounds like it'd take too long, so maybe appropriate googling will do the job.

Not necessarily the case outside of the environment Carlin is accustomed to (and possibly questionable within that same environment, something tells me).