Say Anything Blog

Crazy world we’re living in, no?

Absolutely. She should only be charged for one murder, not two.

Right.  Because unborn babies aren’t people.

Must be wonderful to be able to wear those kind of moral blinders.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If the medical examiner determines that the baby took even one small breath on its own, the second murder charge is warranted.

Because unborn babies aren’t people.

Of course not. I’m glad we agree.

Must be wonderful to be able to wear those kind of moral blinders.

Dave: What are they, then?  Cocker spaniels?  Of course they are human; they are human fetuses.  You play word games while babies die.  Shame on you!

I see.  So unborn children in their mother’s wombs aren’t worthy of protection from murder, but pigs in pokes gets you all riled up.

Sometimes I forget what an idiot you are.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So unborn children in their mother’s wombs aren’t worthy of protection from murder, but pigs in pokes gets you all riled up.

Sometimes I forget how dishonest you are when it comes to presenting my viewpoints.

Dave: Come on; even you can’t pretend not to know that killing animals isn’t murder.  They are our food.  You fail with the analogy thing once again.

Both actions (preventing the fetus from being born, slaughtering billions of animals each year) are immoral.

Oh wait, now killing unborn children is immoral?  This from a guy who has said that parents smothering their problem children isn’t immoral?

Perhaps it would be easier for me to present your viewpoints “honestly” if you were a little more consistent in advancing them.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Because we all know everybody always has the same opinions.  I’m sure you took that out of context.

I think some second charge should be pressed simply because (I assume) the mother intended to give birth and raise the child to be a productive member of society.

Oh wait, now killing unborn children is immoral?

In this situation, yes. It wasn’t her child.

This from a guy who has said that parents smothering their problem children isn’t immoral?

Perhaps it would be easier for me to present your viewpoints “honestly” if you were a little more consistent in advancing them.

My views are extremely simple. Your inability to ever present them accurately means you are either too unintelligent or too dishonest to do so.

Dave: Taking human life is always immoral.  Sometimes, as in self-defense, it is excusable.  You are the dishonest one here.

In most situations it is not immoral. In certain situations it is.

Are we talking about suffocation (physical smothering)?

No matter what the child has done, that’s abuse.

When I wrote:

In most situations it is not immoral. In certain situations it is.

I meant to write it the other way around: “In most situations it is immoral. In certain situations it is not.” Your double-negative threw me off.

I meant to write it the other way around: “In most situations it is immoral. In certain situations it is not.” Your double-negative threw me off.

that wasn’t not not my double negative…
I can’t imagine any situations where it would be moral.

Your double-negative threw me off.

You’re going to be an English teacher, right Dave?

There should be at least 4 murder counts. 1 for each child killed, and one for the mother. Read the article.

I did read the whole article.
There is no proof that the other two children are dead, only a grim suspicion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060924/ap_on_re_us/woman_slain

Kids of slain Ill. woman are found dead.

Thanks for pointing that story out.  If it can be proven that the woman who slew the pregnant mother also killed the children (which I don’t think will be very hard to determine), she definitely deserves life or death-whichever one she doesn’t want.

h3lix writes:

I can’t imagine any situations where (infanticide) would be moral.

Peter Singer writes:

“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gainof a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the disabled infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

Obviously you are all arrogant. People are human, a fetus is a human, a human is a person. People make people, not another species. Abortion is a form of murder. It is only seen as a lawful excuse, same as self-defense. When they abort are they not ending the life of another human being? Yes. “The woman has the choice.” She made the choice in having intercourse, despite using proection or not, the chances of conceiving are there. Once you become pregnant there is no choice, because you are with a child."Who are we to tell other’s how to live their lives?” The same as why they shouldn’t have the right to choose the fate of that unborn person.

What that lady did was wrong. She killed a woman to take her unborn baby. KILLING that unborn baby. Murder-unlawful killing of a human being. And once again the fetus is and was a HUMAN BEING making them a PERSON.

Peter Singer is full of shit.  Morality is strictly a matter of religion, and there are no religions(except for liberalism) that advocate such a “morality”, so infanticide is immoral.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

She made the choice in having intercourse, despite using proection or not, the chances of conceiving are there

Not if she was raped.

However, I have to agree with comedian Doug Stanhope in this one “A person is still a person, it doesn’t matter if the father is an asshole”

Robert, you clearly haven’t read the Old Testament except what a pastor reads and interprets for you.

Exodus 21:22-25 (KJV)
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

An accidental miscarriage as a result of a fight is rectified with only a fine.  Clearly the Bible does not see a fetus as a human life.

Clearly the Bible does not see a fetus as a human life.

So, you cherry pick one thing out of one book of the Bible, and that now represents the entire Biblical view of the morality of infanticide?  In the first place, that is legally unsupportable, but in the second case, this was a very narrow ruling about one case, and it was accidental infanticide at best.  The post was about intentional infanticide.  Nice try.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I’ll admit it was a little fallacious of me to assume that.  There is another verse in numbers where it says that a woman must have pregnancy aborted if it is with a man besides her husband.

Here are some nice examples of voluntary infanticide:
1 Samuel 15:1-3
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Numbers 31:1-3,17-18
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying:
2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
...
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Ezekiel 9:5-7
5And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.

Here are a few infanticides ordered by God, the list goes on…

Not to mention the ones ordered by Herod.  What’s your point? Are you trying to say that there is Biblical backing for infanticide being moral?  If so, come out and say it, instead of using mouthpieces, as cherry picked as they are.  Have the courage of your convictions.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Big difference between the ones I listed and the one’s ordered by God.

My point is that God, ‘the author of morality’, orders infanticide.  This was a refutation of your point that

there are no religions(except for liberalism) that advocate such a “morality”, so infanticide is immoral.

I have courage of my convictions, and here they are: My sense of morality is not the same as the Bible-God’s.  Infanticide is the most unspeakably disgusting and despicable act man has ever committed.
I’m for the most part against abortion, but I’m not completely sure how I feel about it.

Then you were arguing a point you don’t believe in?  Isn’t that just a tad dishonest?

You also confuse God with religion, and I still stand on my point as stated.  Even if you can make an attempt to “prove” that “God...orders infanticide” as a general case(which is just plain wrong), it doesn’t refute what I said.  When I said “there are..” I used the present tense, for a reason.  Try reading a little more carefully.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Then you were arguing a point you don’t believe in?  Isn’t that just a tad dishonest?

No, because I wasn’t arguing that infantocide is justified.  I was arguing that the Bible-God says it is.

Even if you can make an attempt to “prove” that “God...orders infanticide” as a general case(which is just plain wrong), it doesn’t refute what I said.

How is that wrong? I just presented evidence from the ‘Word of God’ where it clearly says that God ordered infantocide.

So you used the present tense. Are you saying that morality itself has changed?  Because God, ‘author of morality’, commanded these acts to happen, they are therefore correct and moral.  Now you would agree that they are not?

Sorry, had to revise the last paragraph:

So you used the present tense. Are you saying that morality itself has changed?  Because God, ‘author of morality’, commanded these acts to happen, they were therefore correct and moral.  Now you would agree that they are not?

If you will read a little more carefully, I said that religion was the sole determinant of morality, and that no religion considers infanticide to be moral.  Did you just not read what I wrote, or did you react so intensely that you lost the ability to follow my reasoning?  Your cherry picked quotes don’t even support your own position, since you give no quotes that either place your quotes in context, nor do you quote anything that disagrees with your quotes, implying that none exist.  I doubt that is true.  In any case, the Hebrew God(the God of the Old Testament) does not speak for all religions, not even modern Protestant Christianity.  The Hebrew God certainly doesn’t speak for Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians or Islamists, either, so my statement still stands as written.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

My quotes were just to establish the Hebrew God’s morality in the case of infantocide.  The quotes were not to represent my position, they were to represent the OT God’s position.
You said that no religion considers infantocide to be moral.  I pointed out that Christianity at least did at one time.

I don’t think I was implying that no counterexamples exist. But the 6th commandment “thou shalt not kill” is a good counter-example.  Although God himself breaks this one.

the Hebrew God(the God of the Old Testament) does not speak for all religions, not even modern Protestant Christianity.

You mean protestant Christians worship a different God than the one in the OT?

When I said that religion was the sole determinant of morality, that was according to the definition of “morality”.  Your attempt to make this about something that was written thousands of years ago(and then only a few cherry picked examples with no context) does not refute my statement about religion being the sole determinant of morality.  It is also a matter of record that no religion today(except for the religion of liberalism) considers infanticide to be moral.  You have given no examples to the contrary.  Since liberals won’t ‘fess up to being a religion, that makes my statement true as written.  What are you really trying to do here?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Christianity, by definition, dates from the ministry of Christ.  Your cherry picked passages predate that.  The only contemporary religion that still is based solely on the Hebrew God is Judaism, it doesn’t consider infanticide moral.

You mean protestant Christians worship a different God than the one in the OT?

Yes.

Although God himself breaks this one.

Wrong again.  “Thou” refers to humans, not God.  Otherwise it would be “I shall not kill.”

Can we be done with the nit picking now?  You don’t think infanticide is moral, so why are you really arguing?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj’ən)
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
a. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The only definition of the word religion that applies to liberals would be the 4th one, but the same could be said about conservatism or a football fan club.  You’ve been reading too much Ann Coulter.

I wasn’t refuting your statement that religion is the sole source of morality, although I disagree with this opinion.
I was refuting your statement that no religions today say infantocide is moral.  I was pointing out the history of one religion where a God says that it is.

Your attempt to make this about something that was written thousands of years ago(and then only a few cherry picked examples with no context) does not refute my statement about religion being the sole determinant of morality.

The entire religion was founded on this book.

Christina writes:

When they abort are they not ending the life of another human being? Yes.

I came to that conclusion more than twenty years ago; I just didn’t write a book about it.  Actually, liberalism qualifies under all four headings, but this is such a sidetrack, I don’t want to spell it out for you right now.

I was pointing out the history of one religion where a God says that it is.

What modern-day religion is that?

The entire religion was founded on this book.

The only religion that was “founded on this book” is Judaism, and I challenge you to point out any Judaic law that says infanticide is moral.

Morality is defined as a religious code, but not any particular one.  In Islamic morality, for example, it is moral to stone a woman to death for exposing her hair or for flirting with a man not her husband.  That is an example of morality as defined by a religion.  Get it now?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

You mean protestant Christians worship a different God than the one in the OT?

Yes.

Most Christians (at least all the ones I know) would disagree.

I have to nipick back a little here:

Wrong again.  “Thou” refers to humans, not God.  Otherwise it would be “I shall not kill.”

God is then doing the opposite of what he orders.

God is then doing the opposite of what he orders.

God is not human.  Duh.
God also said: “Vengeance is Mine.”

Are you accusing God of hypocrisy?  That’s funny!

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

I came to that conclusion more than twenty years ago; I just didn’t write a book about it.  Actually, liberalism qualifies under all four headings, but this is such a sidetrack, I don’t want to spell it out for you right now.

Fine, then we’ll agree to disagree.

I don’t know what you think Christianity is, but every Christian I know disagrees with you.

And? They disagree with me that infanticide is immoral?  Otherwise, this is yet another pointless sidetrack.  I’m not interested in a poll run by you on my cosmology.  It is irrelevant to our discussion.  I could point out to you at least ten points of absolute disagreement between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, but I doubt that you would listen.  You seem to be a reflex arguer, who doesn’t even believe what he is arguing about.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.