Can you be pro-choice and a libertarian?

[Bastiat's The Law]

But she was a demon right FreedomFanatic?

 

[Christian Liberty]

But she was a demon right FreedomFanatic?

No. Now please use your mind (if you have one) and think about what else you can conclude based on my statement.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

OK, so what about infanticide? What about murder of adults? Is this a form of "freedom?"

This argument is missing the point, as is the rape red herring. The bottom line is this, destroying a human life is murder.

I'm with you on the "horror" aspect. Sometimes freedom includes "horror." But legalization of murder has nothing to do with freedom.

This is the most rational and mature thing you've ever posted on these boards. ~applauds~

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is the most rational and mature thing you've ever posted on these boards. ~applauds~

You've probably just been ignoring me, because I don't think I disagree with you on politics much if at all. Its the theology that we get stuck on

 

[Madison320]

If you have come to an answer easily on the abortion question, then you haven't thought about it deeply enough.

There are good libertarian arguments to be made on both sides.

Personally, I am pro-life, but I have serious concerns about how that is enforced.

That's how I look at also. It's an extremely complex issue. I'm pro choice, but I can understand the pro life side. I would have no problem living with pro life laws.

 

[osan]

OK, so what about infanticide?

What about it? I've not mentioned it anywhere, though I have indirectly referred to it when I wrote that a 30-week fetus is, to MY eyes, clearly a human being, implying that aborting it would be "problematic" on its best day. I also mentioned the use of induced labor to give the new being a chance at life in the event the abortion was to be carried out in any event.

I will add that there are circumstances where such later term terminations are valid. If the prospective mother develops a condition that WIILL kill her if she attempts to carry to term, she is well justified in termination. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong no matter how one slices it. Were I a woman under such circumstances and chose to terminate for fear of my own life, fie on anyone who would dare open their contrary yaps at me about it. Furthermore, I would consider anyone attempting to stop me as threatening my very life and would respond accordingly.

Do not interfere with my rightful sovereignty or you will pay an impossibly high price. I defend this position for anyone walking the planet.

What about murder of adults? Is this a form of "freedom?"

It surely is. There are, however, consequences. The differences in the use of "free" here are as those between "can" and "may". This should be obvious. I can go into town and shoot me up a couple of strangers just for kicks. The principles of proper human relations, however, reveal that I may not.

This argument is missing the point

Actually, I believe it is you who are missing the point: property rights are absolute. If you disagree, you will have some work cut out to demonstrate contrariwise.

as is the rape red herring

I don't do red herrings. If you are going to accuse me of such a thing, onus rests with you to demonstrate. Good luck.

The bottom line is this, destroying a human life is murder.

Dead wrong. Get a dictionary. Taking a human life is homicide. Taking one without just cause is murder, a subset of homicide.

I'm with you on the "horror" aspect. Sometimes freedom includes "horror." But legalization of murder has nothing to do with freedom.

I will not disagree with the context-free assertion. However, in the context of this discussion, your claim fails for the precise reasons I have established: we have NO proven knowledge of when that which is human becomes a human being. It may be at fertilization. It might not be until the birth process itself, though I doubt both. I will also add for the record that I doubt the state of "being" is all-or-nothing. One likely does not go from being a lump of human cellular matter to a human being from one picosecond to the next. It is a gradual process that may be plausibly said to begin at fertilization, but is not complete at that time. The question that naturally arises is this: "then when, exactly, is becoming human complete?" I suspect not until we are on our backs, in bed, old, and watching the angels circling above as vultures in wait. Even this, however, leaves us in the same position as before: not knowing. Being a mystery, it is obvious to me that the choice is ultimately that of the prospective mother. To hold any other position is to suborn her property rights to that of another.

If it is your position that such subordination is justified, you will need to prove why, how, and when, because the contention that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term under any circumstance is very serious business. Good luck with that proof - I will not be holding my breath in wait.

Practically speaking, you will never stop women from terminating their pregnancies - they have been doing it for thousands of years. Unless you aim to place a video camera up every twat on the planet, any marginally clever woman will be able to do this if afforded the most minimal privacy and freedom. Unless you are going to violate the rights of every woman walking the earth, there is NOTHING you can do about this. And make you no mistake about it, the least and what to your eyes may be seemingly innocuous disparagement of their rights is egregious.

Here is but one old fashioned method for abortion: soak a rag with iodine solution and insert into vagina. I cannot lay claim to knowing how long it need be there. This will do the do. So tell me, how would you and your well-intending colleagues propose to thwart this? Ban iodine? Inspect every vagina daily for signs? Make pregnant women sign a statement upon leaving the country that they will return either in the same condition or with their genetically verifiable offspring? I trust you see the problem here.

The position of the so-called "pro-life" contingent is untenable in terms of proper human freedom. This fact does not come even close to implying that abortion "right", so there is no use in claiming that invalid inference. It does not make it any less horrible, especially in later term cases. But it does make it a fact of life that most of us are likely to find unpleasant at best and downright terrible otherwise. That's part and parcel with life and the sooner you folks accept this, the better for everyone.

In.

My.

Opinion.

Of course.

 

[osan]

[abortion is] an extremely complex issue.

Actually, is it extremely simple. The problem arises not in the facts, but in our possession of them... which we do not, sufficiently.

If the entity is a human being, killing it is homicide. If the homicide is not justifiable, it is murder.

We know with no proven conclusion whether any given fetus is a human being, our highly compelled states of emotion notwithstanding.

As to justification, that is something that can become complicated if we make certain assumptions, or very simple if we make others.

I'm pro choice, but I can understand the pro life side. I would have no problem living with pro life laws.

Then either you are not "pro-choice" or you are for weak reasons. Barring a conclusive and irrefutable proof of the relevant whats, hows, whys, and whens, logic and reason demand skepticism where the questions of application of force against women are concerned if freedom and proper human relations are to rule the day. Otherwise, you choose arbitrariness and that perforce implies chaos and inevitable decay.

Slippery slopes are very real, no matter how gradually they may seem at the outset of our excursions downward.

 

[otherone]

I'm outta rep, Osan.
Kudoes for a lucid response to soundbites. I'd like to add that the unborn have no Rights independent of the mother. Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal one, and politically a non-issue that only serves to preserve the status quo.
Leviathan laughs.

 

[osan]

Some rights are more fundamental than others? Says who?

Methinks you mistook my admittedly not-well-formed expression.

So who gets to decide which rights are more basic than others?

A valid question - one I myself often raise.

So you want to abolish juvenile hall and charge all minors the same was as adults? Let's start by putting them in the same prisons as adults too.

Under conditions, why not? Please explain.

No, I don't, why should I?

Fine - don't. And when you violate the rights of others, you will be held to account. Bring harm to me or mine and no court or precinct will shelter you from cutting my pound of flesh from your butt in recompense. That is reality. Choose accordingly, but do not be unwise in the choosing.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Actually, is it extremely simple.

Oh yes, very, very simple. That is why you started with a pure moral stand:

I am firmly pro-choice... because either one is free or is not.
...
Each man must decide for himself whether he is for real freedom or for something else.

But then morphed into a practical utilitarian concerned with enforcement logistics:

Practically speaking, you will never stop women from terminating their pregnancies... Unless you are going to violate the rights of every woman walking the earth, there is NOTHING you can do about this....So tell me, how would you and your well-intending colleagues propose to thwart this?

Nothing but simple, simple, easy answers here! No hard mental effort required at all.

Slippery slopes are very real, no matter how gradually they may seem at the outset of our excursions downward.

Here's a slippery slope for you, osan: newborn babies are not very different from unborn fetuses. Try sliding down that one a few times and see what you think of it. Nice ride? Get a little thrill? Is it steep enough for you?

See:
The Happiest Baby on the Block (especially the chapter discussing the 4th Trimester)
In the Womb
The Fourth Trimester

Do you want to claim that committing homicide on a 0-3 month-old baby is murder? Is that a belief of yours? If so: prove it. Because as of now, based on the rest of your posts in this thread explaining the correct moral position that you hold, that position sounds arbitrary and unfounded to me. Sounds like a belief with no moral basis at all. So if you want to claim that the mother doesn't have the perfect right to assert her property rights and terminate this 0-3 month-old creature -- I don't know if you do, maybe you don't, but if you do -- you will have to prove it.

Thanks.

 

[osan]

Oh yes, very, very simple. That is why you started with a pure moral stand:



But then morphed into a practical utilitarian concerned with enforcement logistics:

i did no such thing. I simply made an observation about human behavior. It has nothing specifically or necessarily to do with my personal position on the matter. Go ahead, outlaw it - put women into cages for the rest of their lives for murder if that's what you feel must be done. It will not stop women from terminating pregnancies just as the war on drugs has stopped nobody from blazing up and more. How many people obeyed the fiats of prohibition? Not too many from what history appears to show, even when the risks were high.

Nothing but simple, simple, easy answers here! No hard mental effort required at all.

Sarcasm? It doesn't bother me in the least, but I do not see how this will serve you well.

Here's a slippery slope for you, osan: newborn babies are not very different from unborn fetuses. Try sliding down that one a few times and see what you think of it. Nice ride? Get a little thrill? Is it steep enough for you?

An implied ad hominem? Forgive me, but I am at something of a loss here... if I read your tone correctly, and I may be way off base, you seem to be on an emotional ax grind... which is wholly baffling to my painfully small intellect.

Do you want to claim that committing homicide on a 0-3 month-old baby is murder? Is that a belief of yours? If so: prove it.

Please show where I said or even loosely implied that it is either homicide or murder. I made no such assertion, unless I mis-spelled something somewhere in which case if you point it out to me I will happily make the appropriate corrections. As I recall, I very explicitly said that nobody has yet publicly demonstrated beyond refutation that a fetus is or is not a human being at any given stage of development in utero. I then wrote that if it can be proven, for example, that a fertilized and undifferentiated egg is a human being, then killing it is clearly an act of homicide. I then went on to write that, given this, if the killing of the fetus can then be proven beyond refutation to be unjustified in a given case, then the homicide also qualifies as murder. I would think that this should be wholly obvious to one and all, but apparently I am mistaken.

Because as of now, based on the rest of your posts in this thread explaining the correct moral position that you hold, that position sounds arbitrary and unfounded to me.

If I am reading you correctly, I would agree, but would have to further point out that it is not my position at all.

Sounds like a belief with no moral basis at all. So if you want to claim that the mother doesn't have the perfect right to assert her property rights and terminate this 0-3 month-old creature -- I don't know if you do, maybe you don't, but if you do -- you will have to prove it.

Thanks.

I have NO idea how you came to this inference. Honestly, I am baffled. If you can explain, I am all ears - seriously. It is possible that I mis-typed something... God knows it would not be the first time I pooched a sentence. Please let me know so I may make corrections and clarify my position. Otherwise, it must be that you grossly misread something I wrote on the matter and would suggest you go back and look at it again and try to get my meaning. I am happy to elaborate if perchance it means that much to you.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

To directly answer the OP's question: Yes, I believe it is possible to be pro-choice and a libertarian. I think pro-choice libertarians tend to approach the situation from consequentialist grounds, which many people tend to dislike, but I do find those arguments compelling in this case. There is simply no way to enforce specific anti-abortion laws without taking measures that should send any consistent civil libertarian running for the hills. Any organization interested in policing abortion would literally have to keep tabs on every woman that didn't have a standard-length menstrual cycle (which also includes not having a cycle at all), and investigate every single miscarriage. There are also ways to induce abortion through "natural methods" such as strenuous work and herbs - so then it really becomes nearly or downright impossible to determine whether the killing was intentional or not.

I understand and sympathize with the arguments that defenseless fetuses deserve to be protected from harm. But to be completely consistent here, a lot of things may harm babies, including the diet of the mother, whether the mother chooses to have a natural birth or one by c-section, whether the baby's father is around, etc. etc. etc. It seems to me that these would all have to be regulated. The short answer to all of these issues is that the government, most of all, would absolutely suck at solving the problems.

I also think there is a lot of misinformation on both sides. The methods some pro-lifers use in today's debates to stigmatize and publicly shame people who have abortions are not effective and do a lot to leave women feeling persecuted. For example, there are some pro-life people who mistakenly believe that forms of contraception such as IUDs and Plan B induce abortion, when this is pretty clearly not the case.

I believe pro-life libertarians actively willing to understand and combat the societal and economic problems that contribute to abortion becoming an option for some women will experience much more success than those who simply paint all women as murderers. I am sure there are some women out there who do it out of carelessness, but I would be willing to bet that a high percentage of them are responding to perverse incentives that need to be addressed.

 

[otherone]

There is simply no way to enforce specific anti-abortion laws without taking measures that should send any consistent civil libertarian running for the hills.

The simplistic approach is hold doctors accountable to their Hippocratic oath.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I see a huge difference between actions that CIRCUMSTANTIALLY harm the unborn child, and ones that deliberately take its life. If a woman drinks loads of coca cola or smokes while pregnant, these actions may circumstantially harm the child, but what she is intending to do is to enjoy her own bodily autonomy. Huge difference between this and killing a child on purpose.

As for osan's arguments, this won't go over well, and some won't consider me a libertarian because of it (for the record, I really don't care), but the Bible settles this debate for me. The Bible tells us when life begins, period. No, I don't support oppressive and fascistic laws to "make sure" no unborn children are killed. And yes, its still going to happen. That doesn't make it excusable, or make it wrong to retaliate on behalf of those who are murdered when the evidence is clear.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

i did no such thing. I simply made an observation about human behavior. It has nothing specifically or necessarily to do with my personal position on the matter. Go ahead, outlaw it - put women into cages for the rest of their lives for murder if that's what you feel must be done. It will not stop women from terminating pregnancies just as the war on drugs has stopped nobody from blazing up and more. How many people obeyed the fiats of prohibition? Not too many from what history appears to show, even when the risks were high.

Yes, this is a practical, utilitarian observation -- a consequentialist observation, as Rothbardian Girl correctly calls it -- and at the beginning of the thread you were making moral observations. If everything is so simple, why change tactics? Why complicate matters by introducing unnecessary arguments and observations?

Sarcasm? It doesn't bother me in the least, but I do not see how this will serve you well.

I really am not trying to bother you, or anyone. I just agree with Madison -- this is a complex issue. You claim he's wrong and it's simple as simple can be, but the very long and involved posts you yourself are writing on it belie that claim. There is a lot to this issue.

An implied ad hominem? Forgive me, but I am at something of a loss here... if I read your tone correctly, and I may be way off base, you seem to be on an emotional ax grind... which is wholly baffling to my painfully small intellect.

No, I apologize. My tone was not meant to be biting, but playful. Reading it again, I can see how it would come off as mean. Not intended. My bad.

The rest of your post is just a result of you not understanding the remainder of mine. Please read it again. I am talking about newborn infants (0-3 months after being born), not unborn fetuses, and am claiming the two really aren't very different. They are probably in similar moral positions.

 

[osan]

Says who? There's this thing called adoption, you know. It's readily available and there are loads of couples who want to adopt for a number of reasons. Even if this weren't so, inconvenience isn't a good excuse for killing a child.

I agree with you on the point of inconvenience, but not being a good excuse does not necessarily justify bans and criminal penalties. Consider the case of rape.

As for adoption, this still compels a woman not only to bear and, in a very real sense "relive", a rape for what I am sure would be 9 very grueling months. How can anyone claiming to be respectful of liberty support this? How could they compel a woman to undergo labor and delivery? The tacit assumptions here include that a developing mass of cells has not only rights but that those rights trump those of a host whose claims have been egregiously violate (in the case of rape) and are now to be further trampled with compulsion. This is a great evil, good intentions notwithstanding.

Furthermore, such compulsion stands to re-injure a rape victim over and over. Men are wired very differently from women in certain respects and yet even I wonder about whether I have any "undocumented" children in this world. Probably not, but I am not 100% certain of it and have had my moments of "concern"... who might they have become, where could they be, have they been loved and well cared for; were they raised properly... are they good shots?

Imagine the much worse case for mothers. I personally know or know of a small number of women who have given children up in this manner. For example, there is my friend Kris who adopted Lisa. About 15 years ago she discovered Lisa's birth mother to be frantically seeking any info on her offspring and she is still searching. She's been at it almost the entire 31 years Lisa has been living. Think of that... of the pain and regret. She chose, but was not forced to in the same and direct way that criminalization of abortion would. Many women would not simply pass off their issue even if the product of some of the worst sorts of violence and be able to forget. They would wonder, and it would lead to impossible misery for many. How, I ask, could that ever be viewed as morally justified? It may be a torture that can conceivably go on until the end of one's life. And what if the pain leads to suicide or death otherwise? Where will all those who have compelled some poor woman to carry to term be found in the event? Nowhere. They will retreat into a fallacious logical argument that has something to do with "she chose and is responsible for that choice" for no better reason than to protect their egos and to avoid moral responsibility for that which they did to another. Did she choose to be raped?

I am sorry, but the rape angle most definitely cannot be supported no matter what the truth is about the status of an undifferentiated, fertilized egg or developed fetus. People so very badly need to keep their uninvited noses out from between women's legs.

This most unfortunate result of rape is alive, true. But it also threatens the welfare of the host being, which nobody can claim is its right. Those who would compel carriage to term, whether aware of it, support an egg's right to threaten the welfare of the host. One of the logically absurd conclusions to which that path of reason leads can be seen in an example where you are the ONLY person with the genetic makeup capable of saving the life of another. By virtue of the reasoning at hand, you can be rightfully compelled to surrender, say, a kidney or perhaps an eye for the sake of saving another. This is the classically fallacious "need" argument that so many here argue against in any other case, yet vehemently and inconsistently rail for in this one. There is zero fundamental difference between the two situations. Only the circumstances are identifiably varied.

Compulsion in this case is clearly immoral in the most extreme.





The impregnated woman's health is at risk and that health is property and it is clearly within her right to defend herself against such threats. This truth is not readily evaded with honesty and sound reason. Truth may in such cases lead to something of tragedy, but guess what: that's life... and death. Shit happens and it's not always pretty. To compel a woman to bear the product of rape is obscenity itself - and criminal, and I would defend any woman's right to kill any and all persons who would presume to force her to do such a thing. I cannot even believe that any sane and decent human being would suggest otherwise. I also find the hypocrisy of the position most amusing for those who would have no problem with her shooting the life out of a rapist or anyone else threatening her rightful claims to property, yet would see her compelled in the way under discussion here.

 

[osan]

Even though I have obvious reasons for being grateful to those who chose not to abort after rape I would never consider doing so a crime and will gladly concede that exception for two reasons.

One, the mother had no choice in the matter and is a victim of a violent crime. The responsibility lies completely on the rapist.

Two, it is a very small amount of pregnancies.

As far as "accidents" go, you entered into the act know full well they occur. Don't expect someone else to pay with their life for your "accident".

While your conclusions are well correct, the chain of reasoning by which you arrive is not sound.

If abortion is in fact homicide and if the homicide is in fact murder, then there is no possible circumstance under which the act may be justified. Citing "low numbers" implies that a few murders are OK... failing to give a solid integer threshold where it suddenly and by presumed miracle becomes criminal.

That the crime of rape is on the rapist is beyond doubt. But the crime of murder would be on the rape victim if the above stated assumptions hold.

I believe you and I are of the same mind regarding that last conclusion. That implies there is something fundamentally amiss in your reasoning. This tells me that you know the truthful answer but have as yet not apprehended the proper chain of logic by which your eminently correct conclusion comes to hand. I would bet money that it is precisely because some of your other fundamental assumptions are not quite on the money, but in order not to violate them you came up with this. Methinks you would be well served to reexamine those assumptions. Your conclusion is clearly correct, so something else has to be off and the place to begin the analysis is with the fundamental assumptions that underpin your beliefs.

 

[osan]

Yes, this is a practical, utilitarian observation -- a consequentialist observation, as Rothbardian Girl correctly calls it -- and at the beginning of the thread you were making moral observations. If everything is so simple, why change tactics? Why complicate matters by introducing unnecessary arguments and observations?

It was not my intention to complicate or otherwise contaminate a purely moral argument. I only tossed it in there as another data point. No harm intended.

I really am not trying to bother you, or anyone. I just agree with Madison -- this is a complex issue. You claim he's wrong and it's simple as simple can be, but the very long and involved posts you yourself are writing on it belie that claim. There is a lot to this issue.

Methinks we are coming at this from differing angles. I perhaps failed to be sufficiently clear, a flaw I commonly make manifest and for which I must apologize. More explicitly, I was speaking in terms of the most fundamental principles. In that context, the argument is indeed very simple and straightforward. The complexities arise from the injection of the various emotions into the reasoning. This is understandable because it is an emotionally compelling subject for a great many people, myself included. That is where the complexity arises and it is precisely this angle that must be understood such that we squelch our personal involvements in order that we may arrive at proper answers, which is important here since we are speaking of potentially infringing upon the rightful praxeological choices of more than half of the people on the planet. That, in my mind, is a pretty big deal.

No, I apologize. My tone was not meant to be biting, but playful. Reading it again, I can see how it would come off as mean. Not intended. My bad.

No sweat. I missed the tone completely... which is why I was scratching my head.

 

[osan]

I see a huge difference between actions that CIRCUMSTANTIALLY harm the unborn child, and ones that deliberately take its life. If a woman drinks loads of coca cola or smokes while pregnant, these actions may circumstantially harm the child, but what she is intending to do is to enjoy her own bodily autonomy. Huge difference between this and killing a child on purpose.

But the result is the same. Does my putting out one of your eyes by "accident" leave you with two intact eyes, vis-à-vis my chasing you down with a pair of scissors with malice aforethought? Just raising the point... not drawing any conclusions. Food for thought, shall we say?

As for osan's arguments, this won't go over well, and some won't consider me a libertarian because of it (for the record, I really don't care), but the Bible settles this debate for me. The Bible tells us when life begins, period. No, I don't support oppressive and fascistic laws to "make sure" no unborn children are killed. And yes, its still going to happen. That doesn't make it excusable, or make it wrong to retaliate on behalf of those who are murdered when the evidence is clear.

D00d, you injure me. I would not begrudge you your beliefs. I draw the line at action against others that cannot be provably justified. If you believe what you think the bible says, that is dandy good by me. But if you attempt to impose those beliefs on others, you have crossed the line, your righteous intentions notwithstanding.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The complexities arise from the injection of the various emotions into the reasoning. This is understandable because it is an emotionally compelling subject for a great many people, myself included.

Let us put all emotion aside, then. Let us look at the solid facts of the situation, from that determine the moral status of the various parties, and thus finally the moral realities which must be followed. 1, 2, 3. OK?

We are going to do this for the following situation: a mother has given birth 1 month ago to a baby that she and the father no longer wish to care for.

Solid facts:

1. The baby is a parasite upon the mother and father. They are supporting it.
2. The baby cannot support itself on its own.
3. If the parents remove their support, immediately evict the baby from their home, placing it in the waste receptacle, and do nothing else, the baby will die in short order.
4. The home, food, and other resources which the parents are using to support the baby are their own just property.
5. The baby lacks many of the defining characteristics of a human and will not acquire them for quite some time.

Moral Stati:

6. The parents are humans, with full human rights over all their property -- their bodies, their time, their food, their shelter, etc.
7. The baby, lacking many human characteristics, cannot be considered a full human in the same sense as the parents and humans in general.
8. The baby thus does not fully possess human rights.
9. However, the baby does possess the potential to become fully human, and given time he probably will. This potential humanity may or may not change the baby's moral status in your view. We will leave aside this question for the time being because it is complex.
10. The parents up to now have been closely associated with the baby, but now wish to end that association. So up to now, the parasite-host relationship has been voluntary and no trespass nor infringement has occurred. That has changed, however, as of now.

Moral Realities:

11. Libertarianism, as you said, and I agree, does not as a rule impose positive obligations. That means that the parents cannot be forced with violence into supporting the unwanted baby forever as an "obligation."
12. Libertarianism also mandates free association. That means the freedom to associate or to not associate. Since the parents now want to not associate with the baby, they should be free to disassociate themselves.
13. Libertarianism supports property rights. The parents are the just owners of all the the property involved -- diapers, breast milk, crib, house... -- except for the infant's body, which due to the unresolved ambiguity of #9, is of unknown status. The parents thus have the right to make decisions over all of the property, except, again, for the body and person of the infant itself.
14. The infant cannot really make choices in a human choice-making way as far as we know, or at least cannot make them known in a way that we understand. So the question of what the infant may justly do is meaningless. The infant cannot "do" anything, neither just nor unjust. The only question of justice then is what the parents may justly do, (and, if we want to complicate it, what other outside human actors may do in response).

So, what say you all (I wouldn't want to limit myself to osan)? What is the conclusion then? What may the parents justly do? May they take the initiative and actively kill the baby however they wish? Is that forbidden but they may passively kill it by placing it inconspicuously in the garbage or road-side and allowing nature to take its course? Or are both these courses forbidden by justice?