Murder is O.K.

image

When we said abortion is infanticide, we were met with laughter and derision.

When we told them there’s no difference between an abortion and the killing of an infant, they called us stupid. We were said to be woefully misinformed.

They said it was all primitive religious foolery; we were said to be against science.

In wanting to remove a woman’s right to choose, we were told that we hate women.

We were labelled misogynists, and the women among us were said to have ‘internalized misogyny’.

But now, though, the sufficiently intelligent among them belatedly realize that WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG — that there is no ontologically significant difference between a newborn infant and a fetus — and so now we’ve gone from “abortion is not infanticide” to “yes it is, but infanticide is O.K!”:

“Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.”

The lesson here is that when dealing with people who are proven to be morally depraved, not an atom should be ceded–not a single one.

They will call you words like ‘bigot’ to scare you into submission and shut the conversation in their favor.

They will call for boycotts against anyone who’s insufficiently subordinate to their liberal ideology.

They will inflict all manner of wound.

However, now, more than ever, you must stand your ground.

Advertisements

Posted on April 3, 2015, in abortion, philosophy, politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 15 Comments.

  1. “The lesson here is that when dealing with people who are proven to be morally depraved, not an atom should be ceded–not a single one.”

    So when are we going to see the campaigns against letting women menstruate? I mean, that’s an entire /egg/ going to waste! Every month!

    What about men who masturbate? They’re killing babies, aren’t they? What do we do about nocturnal emissions? Even if it’s not on purpose, it’s still murder, that’s what we have manslaughter for, right?

    So what should we do about this?

    What do we do about a fetus that as died in utero? I guess force the mother to carry a dead body around in her until it’s time to deliver? What about a fetus that is killing the mother?

    I’m being a bit of an asshole, yes, but these are serious questions when you talk about things like ‘not ceding one atom’. It boggles my mind.

    Do you have similar beliefs about organ donors and donating blood? I mean like do you think people are morally obligated to donate blood if they’re healthy? Do you think people should be given a choice in the matter? What about respecting a person’s wishes after they die? If someone is healthy and has healthy organs, do you think it’s right for doctors to take everything they need to help other patients who need transplants even if the person who died said they didn’t want to donate anything?

    • You’re not “being a bit of an asshole”, you’re being a complete ignoramus.

      Firstly, semen and menstruate cannot ever be said to be human beings. They do not even have the potential to be one all by themselves. You’re confusing nomological possibility with the kind that’s relevant here; a fetus doesn’t merely have the potential to be a human being, it IS a human being, while semen and menstruate are NOT, and do not have an iota of potential to be one by themselves, absent an inordinate amount of outside intervention! You people could at least get this right.

      Secondly, nowhere did I say that we should “force a mother to carry a dead body” — where in the devil’s asshole did that come from? It is a prudential question whether we should kill a fetus to save a mother, and I won’t necessarily be against abortion in those cases.

      As to your other questions, I don’t exactly know how they are relevant to the issue of abortion.

      What I — we — are against is the killing of human beings for convenience sake. Someone refusing to dismember himself for the benefit of someone else is NOT killing a human being. Your analogies, I’m sorry to say, are.. how shall I put this.. absolutely boneheaded.

      • Really? “are against is the killing of human beings for convenience sake.” if you look up statistics on abortions and who has them and why it’s not for ‘convenience’. How much do you have to hate a woman to think that she’s making a flippant decision to get an abortion? Do you really think that we – women – don’t /think/ about what we’re doing? Why do you want to punish women so much?

        I see where I made a mistake in my last paragraph, I’d meant that a healthy person with healthy organs who had died for whatever reason. Do you think that person has a right to control what happens to their body after they’ve died even though someone (or more often multiple people) can be saved by using their organs even though they said when they were living they didn’t want to donate.

        It is relevant, depending on your answer.

        Speaking of punishment, what do you propose as the punishment for having an abortion or a miscarriage? There have already been cases of women in the US being charged with murder because of miscarriage, one woman is to serve a 20 year sentence. Do you think this is enough?

      • Well it didn’t take long for you to take the quickest rhetorical route against rational discourse when your attempt at a dialectical argument exploded in your face; so now it’s because I ‘hate women’ and think them to be flippant. Oh, and also because I want to ‘punish’ them. I’m against the killing of human beings because of all that — why, that must be it! Well I can play that game. Why do you hate babies so much that you want to advocate for their mass-slaughter? At least the Nazis used the justification that they were doing it for a greater Germany! So it’s truly astounding that you’ve somehow managed to get by in life with the thought that this is progress.

        Your knowledge of the relevant issues do not even rise to the level of wikipedia, I’m sorry to say. The three major reasons women (whom I hate and want to punish, apparently) opt for an abortion is *1, financial instability, 2, relationship problems or unwillingness to be a single mother, and 3, it’s negative impact on a mother’s quality of life (like it’s impact on her career or her education). I’ll leave you to google the relevant statistics and come back to apologize for your misrepresentation of them. So, yes, for the most part, women get an abortion because it’s convenient — but I’m sure you have all kinds of rationalizations and justifications on why killing a human being is warranted on the basis of all that.

        Your rather amusing question about a healthy person who died (from presumably healthy reasons?) still seems pointless to me, and I’m not going to play a guessing game with you on how it’s relevant to the issue. So you can either explain to me how it’s relevant, then maybe I’ll be willing to expend the necessary amount of energy to answer it, or you’ll have to content yourself with me ignoring it.

        I’ll ignore your last question as well, as it is clearly another sophistical attempt to bait me into answering in a manner that concedes that abortions are no different from miscarriages. If you really believed that, then you must likewise believe the equally preposterous idea that your inability to save someone from dying is no different from going right ahead and stabbing him in the face.

  2. http://www.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion

    http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/26-Why-Do-Women-Have-Abortions.pdf

    “1, financial instability, 2, relationship problems or unwillingness to be a single mother, and 3, it’s negative impact on a mother’s quality of life (like it’s impact on her career or her education). I’ll leave you to google the relevant statistics and come back to apologize for your misrepresentation of them. So, yes, for the most part, women get an abortion because it’s convenient — but I’m sure you have all kinds of rationalizations and justifications on why killing a human being is warranted on the basis of all that.”

    Do you have any clue how hard it is to be a single mother or to have no support from your partner? Why do you think that financial instability is an issue of convenience? Do you know how poverty affects people? You /are/ punishing women because you think it’s “convenient” when she has her life planned out with that career or education and some mistake in birth control methods or being raped should dictate a complete life change for her. You have no idea.

    Are you really so thick? People die from accidents all the time. Healthy people. Christ. It’s relevant because if you think it’s unethical for doctors to take their healthy organs even if they said they didn’t want it, then you’re giving more rights to /dead people/ than to women with regards to their own bodies. It’s relevant if you think about it.

    • RaFeCa, the event of pregnancy as a result of rape is always – and I mean always – trotted out by pro-choicers as a reasonable argument against pro-life. But the statistics you yourself provided show that rape pregnancies account for 1 percent of abortions. Hmmm?

      It seems much more reasonable to me if we discuss the abortions that are driven by the far more common reasons. Like it it not (it dosn’t suit your imaginary scenario, I see), ‘convenience’ captures many reasons albeit in different guises.

      One really important thing to do when partcipating in an argument is to settle one sub-argument at a time, rather than, as you seem to be doing, after finding oneself unable to defend one sub-position, abandoning that sub-argument and expressing the show-piece rhetoric of a new sub-argument. Miguel has gone about his response to you in a thorough and organised fashion, making concessions in places he feels uncertainty. If you want to similarly represent your side of the debate with integrity and reason, you might want to do the same.

      Pro-lifers do not hate women. We just don’t think women are the single most important thing in the universe, as pro-choicers seem to.

  3. http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm

    Did you actually read it?

    “Combined with those reasons previously cited, these secondary concerns often convince women that abortion — though a difficult and painful choice — is the best decision for them at this time in their lives.”

    Nah, doesn’t matter right? The women’s lives don’t matter at all.

    • I’ve heard from a horse’s mouth that it was a particularly easy decision that never came back to haunt her. Other horses I know have had multiple abortions, continuing to have unsafe sex. Really doesn’t sound like a painful and difficult decision to me.

      All sorts of unspeakable things are done because they were ‘the best decision for [someone] at [that] time in their lives’. Who would go on record saying it was a medicore decision that would have been better replaced with a different decision? Decisions such as adoption? Or are you going to tell me that adoption ruins women’s lives too?

      Miguel, I drifted onto your site on a Sam Harris trail, and am pleased to see your insightful treatment of other topics that interest me too. Keep up the good work (frustrating though it may sometimes be).

  4. 74% felt “having a baby would dramatically change my life” (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
    73% felt they “can’t afford a baby now” (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
    48% “don’t want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem[s]”
    38% “have completed [their] childbearing”
    32% were “not ready for a(nother) child”
    25% “don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant”
    22% “don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child”
    14% felt their “husband or partner wants me to have an abortion”
    13% said there were “possible problems affecting the health of the fetus”
    12% said there were “physical problems with my health”
    6% felt their “parents want me to have an abortion”
    1% said they were “a victim of rape”
    <0.5% "became pregnant as a result of incest"

    • Seriously, you sound ridiculous with your pointless rationalizations.

      You don’t get to decide how the word ‘convenience’ should be defined. It doesn’t matter how much you insist till the cows come home that any single one of those reasons are valid, they still (most at least) fall under the category ‘inconvenience’. Financial instability, relationship problems, and the rest of the lot of those reasons for that matter, is an issue of inconvenience — whether you liked it or not. Thusly the overwhelming majority of abortions are because either the baby is inconvenient, or it’s unwanted. Oh, poor mother! We must allow her to murder her baby, because career and education! Oh, and ‘single’!

      So I will ask you not to flood this combox with the same hare-brained argument that you could have condensed in a single comment.

      If a mother of a teenager suddenly decides, ‘oh, I don’t want to be a mother now because of such and such reasons’, does she suddenly acquire the right to kill her child? What do you think? Why suddenly it’s perfectly fine if it’s done in utero?

      I’m not “thick”, you’re either a sophist or an idiot — I’ll go with idiot for now.

      As it happens, I think the dead do not matter, or they matter little, compared to the living, so I’m perfectly content to say it’s fine if, say, a doctor suddenly took a cadaver’s organs without its approval to save someone else. But, just as I expected, this is completely irrelevant to the issue; because those hypothetical healthy but dead people you talk about, or the doctors who are respecting their wishes, are not killing anyone! It will be really nice to get this into your brain!

    • 74% felt “having a baby would dramatically change my life” sounds like ‘inconvenience’ to me.

      38% “have completed [their] childbearing” is just another way of saying it’s inconvenient to have another kid.

      It’s also quite a hefty strawman to assume the only option given to abortion is parenthood.

    • 74% felt “having a baby would dramatically change my life” sounds like ‘inconvenience’ to me.

      38% “have completed [their] childbearing” is just another way of saying it’s inconvenient to have another kid.

      It’s also quite a hefty strawman to assume the only option given to abortion is parenthood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: