Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

[ChristianAnarchist]

Only a matter of time.

The very old and very young first.

Whoo, I do not want any part of this future coming down the pike, talk about a fucking nightmare.

It's very consistent to define life at conception and to consider the life of the child to be in the hands of it's parents. That's nature and it's the way God created us. Parents (not the "government") have always had the power of life and death over the children. It does not matter the age. Sure, in God's eyes (and in mine) it's murder for parents to kill their children. God will deal with them. It's not my job unless I see it happen in front of me. I would then have a moral obligation to intervene. When you give "government" (whatever that is) a say in the life of the children, you have ADMITTED that "government" (whatever that is) is really your god.

ANY "government" (whatever that is) involvement in the life of ANY children means you support the idea that "government" (whatever...) has some superior position over the parents.

I will take the chance that the COLLECTIVE decisions of parents over their children will be far better than ANY decisions by "government"...

 

[Smart3]

While I still haven't decided on the ethics for this issue, there is perhaps a slippery slope when one rules a perfectly healthy baby to be less human than a five year old (who is also less human than a 21 year old apparently)

Personally, I can't see euthanasia of infants as justifiable unless there are unforeseen problems that will lead to a life filled with suffering/pain and an inevitable imminent death. There's no point in keeping it alive if it will die shortly anyways.

 

[robert68]

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice (Goldwater.)

Anti-infanticide is pro-liberty...

Goldwater was pro-choice.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Goldwater was pro-choice.

I doubt he considered "aborting" birthed children a reasonable choice.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Goldwater was pro-choice.

Not after birth, lol.

It's very consistent to define life at conception and to consider the life of the child to be in the hands of it's parents. That's nature and it's the way God created us. Parents (not the "government") have always had the power of life and death over the children. It does not matter the age. Sure, in God's eyes (and in mine) it's murder for parents to kill their children. God will deal with them. It's not my job unless I see it happen in front of me. I would then have a moral obligation to intervene. When you give "government" (whatever that is) a say in the life of the children, you have ADMITTED that "government" (whatever that is) is really your god.

ANY "government" (whatever that is) involvement in the life of ANY children means you support the idea that "government" (whatever...) has some superior position over the parents.

I will take the chance that the COLLECTIVE decisions of parents over their children will be far better than ANY decisions by "government"...

I don't think saying "Government should stop people from committing murder" is in any way the same thing as saying that you worship government. That's also why I advocate limited government instead of anarchy...

 

[robert68]

Not after birth, lol.

LOL, you don't know what "pro-choice" means, or care what Goldwater's view was (yet quote him).

 

[bolil]

So this is an extension of the parasite argument? Is that correct? Homeless people don't produce, they attach themselves like parasites to their chosen active site, the dumpster. Should we round em up and kill em? How much time passes before a jobless/homeless persons becomes a parasite and eligible for removal?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think saying "Government should stop people from committing murder" is in any way the same thing as saying that you worship government. That's also why I advocate limited government instead of anarchy...

In a way it is. Ascribing such authority over others without their express approval and assuming you are correct to do so is wishful thinking to the point of religion...as you'd have to deify (at least to some extent) humans and earthly institutions to believe they can achieve the minarchist ideal. (for more, see "Democracy: The God That Failed")

 

[Origanalist]

Forty years ago, the idea of two homosexual men getting married would have been "extreme".

They just float these ideas out there, (which when you think about, these ideas are really just old ideas, reformulated) until critical mass is reached.

Once the initial premise is granted and accepted, it then becomes just a matter of time.

A thousand times....this^^^^^

This is by no means the first time I have heard this ghoulish evil spew. And it won't be the last.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I don't think saying "Government should stop people from committing murder" is in any way the same thing as saying that you worship government. That's also why I advocate limited government instead of anarchy...

Sorry but that's just wrong... "Government" (whatever THAT is) has never been responsible for "stopping" people from doing anything. The only thing that they supposedly had been entrusted with is PUNISHING those who violate some words written down on paper...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry but that's just wrong... "Government" (whatever THAT is) has never been responsible for "stopping" people from doing anything. The only thing that they supposedly had been entrusted with is PUNISHING those who violate some words written down on paper...

+rep "crime stopping", in a saner time long lost, was a civic duty rather than a "profession".

 

[Christian Liberty]

In a way it is. Ascribing such authority over others without their express approval and assuming you are correct to do so is wishful thinking to the point of religion...as you'd have to deify (at least to some extent) humans and earthly institutions to believe they can achieve the minarchist ideal. (for more, see "Democracy: The God That Failed")

I don't believe we can achieve the minarchist ideal, but I don't think we can achieve the anarchist one either. People suck, so it really doesn't matter. The question is really "What if MOST people didn't suck? Then, what would we do with the few bad apples that remained?" In other words, if you had enough support to make any society you wanted, realizing that people are not perfect, what would you do? Legalizing murder is not the answer here...

Sorry but that's just wrong... "Government" (whatever THAT is) has never been responsible for "stopping" people from doing anything. The only thing that they supposedly had been entrusted with is PUNISHING those who violate some words written down on paper...

Deterrent is at least something. Not necessarily enough, but better than not having it. I suspect many people in the liberty movement would kill some politicians if they could get away with it. Not that that in and of itself is necessarily so bad, but then when you start talking about the innocent... yeah...

You should not be able to kill innocent people and get away with it. The death of a murderer is justice, plain and simple. That applies to the abortionist, the common murderer, the serial killer, and the President of the United States.

 

[cheapseats]

...The death of a murderer is justice, plain and simple. That applies to the abortionist...

IF. YOU. ACCEPT. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.

The strength of the belief that life begins at conception does NOT make it so. Rand's PANDERING gesture at making it the law of the land is very far from MAKING it the law of the land.

But let's compare notes in 2016, as to how Abortion Hysteria serves y'all at the polls. Me, I think willingness...nay, EAGERNESS...to slap the MURDERER label on women and doctors will alienate much larger numbers than it will attract.

 

[mad cow]

And slapping the Murderer label on women and doctors who off their 3 week or 3 month old babies will kill you at the polls in 2046.
If we still have polls.

 

[DamianTV]

Someone please define "Expert"...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

IF. YOU. ACCEPT. THE. RELIGIOUS. PREMISE. THAT. LIFE. BEGINS. AT. CONCEPTION.

The strength of the belief that life begins at conception does NOT make it so. Rand's PANDERING gesture at making it the law of the land is very far from MAKING it the law of the land.

But let's compare notes in 2016, as to how Abortion Hysteria serves y'all at the polls. Me, I think willingness...nay, EAGERNESS...to slap the MURDERER label on women and doctors will alienate much larger numbers than it will attract.

What would it take to prove to you that life begins at conception? There's evidence on both sides of that debate.

 

[DamianTV]

It doesnt matter the evidence. What matters is people thinking they have a Right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It doesnt matter the evidence. What matters is people thinking they have a Right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies.

But it's not that simple. If the evidence proves that "personhood" begins at conception, it is legitimate to tell the mother what they can't do to their body to an extent because certain actions could kill the person inside her. (and you can make this argument from libertarian axioms, btw)

 

[DamianTV]

Arguments against abortion only push abortion into the Black Market. We dont need back alley abortions with clothes hangers again.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Arguments against abortion only push abortion into the Black Market. We dont need back alley abortions with clothes hangers again.

And laws against assault push assault into the "black market". So? You're making a rather libertine (and weak, IMO) argument here.