I can’t imagine any situations where (infanticide) would be moral.
It is moral in the cases of infants born with severe disabilities.
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.”
Dave - 12:09pm on 09/24/2006
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.
Christina - 11:10am on 10/01/2006
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.
robert108 - 11:10am on 10/01/2006
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.
h3lix - 12:10pm on 10/01/2006
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.
robert108 - 03:10pm on 10/01/2006
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…
h3lix - 04:10pm on 10/01/2006
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.
robert108 - 04:10pm on 10/01/2006
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.
h3lix - 05:10pm on 10/01/2006
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.
robert108 - 05:10pm on 10/01/2006
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?
h3lix writes:
It is moral in the cases of infants born with severe disabilities.Peter Singer writes:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
No, because I wasn’t arguing that infantocide is justified. I was arguing that the Bible-God says it is.
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?