Thread: Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
  1. #21  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Eupher View Post
    Let's consider THIS, instead:

    The ridiculousness of your analysis cannot be overstated.

    How does humankind acknowledge and accommodate the lengthy maturation cycle of human beings?
    The issue of Personhood isn't the same as the issue of Maturity. A 4 year old child is in no way mature, but they are reflectively conscious, they have a sense of "I", they are able to communicate, they are able to think, they are able to feel emotions more complex than simple hunger or pain.



    Why and how should a human being have a defined sense of self at minutes after birth when it takes up to age 25 for most males to physically and mentally mature?
    There is no why or how. They simply do not have self-consciousness to any degree at that age.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,787
    ...

    I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

    I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

    I have reckoned upon a medium, that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, encreaseth to 28 pounds.

    I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

    ...

    A Modest Proposal
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,410
    I remember when this was a joke...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The issue of Personhood isn't the same as the issue of Maturity. A 4 year old child is in no way mature, but they are reflectively conscious, they have a sense of "I", they are able to communicate, they are able to think, they are able to feel emotions more complex than simple hunger or pain.

    There is no why or how. They simply do not have self-consciousness to any degree at that age.
    One of the unique things about humans is that we take longer than animals to function in the world. A newborn colt can stand within minutes of birth. Cats and Dogs are weaned within weeks of birth, and are fully grown within a year. But people don't take our first steps until we're a year old, we don't talk until well after that, and we spend years learning to coordinate, to reason, to mature.

    The reason for this is the unique nature of human cranial development. A fully-formed human brain, and the skull around it are too large to travel the birth canal, so we are born before our brains are completely formed. Our heads grow for years after birth, and we develop quickly, but not as quickly as animals. We aren't fully realized human beings, by the definition of this article, for years after our births. By the logic of these "experts", my four-year-old and my eight-year-old daughters don't meet the criteria for personhood, and can be put down with impunity. It's a monstrous, evil and disgusting thought, but it's what passes for morality among the intellectual elites. It's also the logical culmination of abortion. After all, what's the difference between a third trimester fetus that has been pulled partially out of the womb and murdered before it sees the light of day, and a fetus that takes its first breath? Instead of life being sacred, it's just a commodity that has no value unless somebody cares enough not to have it snuffed out. The life of a child is worth less than the convenience of the mother, who has the power of life and death, and is encouraged by the hateful, bitter crones of the left to choose death. It's all just part of the same continuum of death, a road that led from Margaret Sanger to Josef Megele and back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    ...

    I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

    I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune, through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

    I have reckoned upon a medium, that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, encreaseth to 28 pounds.

    I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

    ...

    A Modest Proposal
    You found that rather swiftly...
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    One of the unique things about humans is that we take longer than animals to function in the world. A newborn colt can stand within minutes of birth. Cats and Dogs are weaned within weeks of birth, and are fully grown within a year. But people don't take our first steps until we're a year old, we don't talk until well after that, and we spend years learning to coordinate, to reason, to mature.

    The reason for this is the unique nature of human cranial development. A fully-formed human brain, and the skull around it are too large to travel the birth canal, so we are born before our brains are completely formed. Our heads grow for years after birth, and we develop quickly, but not as quickly as animals. We aren't fully realized human beings, by the definition of this article, for years after our births. By the logic of these "experts", my four-year-old and my eight-year-old daughters don't meet the criteria for personhood, and can be put down with impunity. It's a monstrous, evil and disgusting thought, but it's what passes for morality among the intellectual elites. It's also the logical culmination of abortion. After all, what's the difference between a third trimester fetus that has been pulled partially out of the womb and murdered before it sees the light of day, and a fetus that takes its first breath? Instead of life being sacred, it's just a commodity that has no value unless somebody cares enough not to have it snuffed out. The life of a child is worth less than the convenience of the mother, who has the power of life and death, and is encouraged by the hateful, bitter crones of the left to choose death. It's all just part of the same continuum of death, a road that led from Margaret Sanger to Josef Megele and back.



    You found that rather swiftly...
    For someone that makes the claim that he is pro life he puts an awful lot of effort into mocking those that wish to protect it.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    In leftist eyes, a baby isn't a person until ACORN has registered it to vote.
    You say this as if it matters that the person is living, dead, or old enough to vote.
    "Inequality is a false notion propagated by those who are made to feel guilty for what they have by those who are jealous for what they don't"-Former MTV Host Kennedy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    You found that rather swiftly...
    The story is so appalling that satire has to be the explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,173
    This is a thought process that leads very quickly to euthenasia for the low-functioning of any age, with enough propaganda to prepare the way, like the Nazis with their slogans for the unfortunate such as "Leben ohne Wert" (Life without worth). Once society accepts that, then it is possible to kill very large numbers, because the needle on what divides 'low-normal' from 'low-functioning' has no definite red line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    One of the unique things about humans is that we take longer than animals to function in the world. A newborn colt can stand within minutes of birth. Cats and Dogs are weaned within weeks of birth, and are fully grown within a year. But people don't take our first steps until we're a year old, we don't talk until well after that, and we spend years learning to coordinate, to reason, to mature.

    The reason for this is the unique nature of human cranial development. A fully-formed human brain, and the skull around it are too large to travel the birth canal, so we are born before our brains are completely formed. Our heads grow for years after birth, and we develop quickly, but not as quickly as animals.
    Right...

    We aren't fully realized human beings, by the definition of this article, for years after our births. By the logic of these "experts", my four-year-old and my eight-year-old daughters don't meet the criteria for personhood,
    This is where you lose me. People are confusing the simple sense of being aware of oneself and one's surroundings with being able to read or write.

    The basics of Personhood according to this argument are basic abilities that humans have that animals do not, such as self-consciousness, some degree of reason, language, etc. It is true that a a newborn infant doesn't have these, but even a 2 year old does.

    and can be put down with impunity. It's a monstrous, evil and disgusting thought, but it's what passes for morality among the intellectual elites. It's also the logical culmination of abortion.
    Also, I disagree with the idea that it is in any way justifiable to kill newborns. The article is glossing over a major part of the pro-choice argument, and doing it so blatantly that it makes me wonder if it's just a parody.

    After all, what's the difference between a third trimester fetus that has been pulled partially out of the womb and murdered before it sees the light of day, and a fetus that takes its first breath?
    The difference is that a fetus is inside of a woman's body, and she has the right to dictate what goes on with her body. A newborn baby is not inside of her body, and her own personal rights still allow her to do whatever she pleases with her own body. Conservatives shit their pants if someone tells them they should eat more healthy food as if it's some atrocious violation of liberty, but they recognize no right for a woman to dictate what goes on with her body.

    Now you will say, "but what about the fetus, doesn't the fetus have rights too?", to which I say, "yes, the fetus does have rights, but because the fetus doesn't meet the criteria of Personhood in the full moral sense of the word, it's rights must be superceded by the rights of a full fledged Person."

    Otherwise, you are saying that a full fledged Person, a woman, has less rights than a potential Person. It robs her of her own rights as a Person to deny her the ability to decide.

    Then you will say "well if she has unprotected sex she loses her rights to her body". However this argument doesn't hold up in any other situation. Is it fair to say you lose your rights to your home and property if you don't lock your door? Is leaving your door unlocked justification for someone to steal from you? If you invite a group of strangers into your home for whatever reason, and after they leave you discover some prized possession has been stolen, do you lose your rights to that item just because you let the people in your home? Consenting to an activity that may result in a violation of your rights does not relinquish those rights.This doesn't even touch on the fact that sometimes women use contraceptives which fail, and sometimes women are raped.




    Instead of life being sacred, it's just a commodity that has no value unless somebody cares enough not to have it snuffed out. The life of a child is worth less than the convenience of the mother, who has the power of life and death, and is encouraged by the hateful, bitter crones of the left to choose death. It's all just part of the same continuum of death, a road that led from Margaret Sanger to Josef Megele and back.
    Now you are arguing about the morality of the issue, as opposed to the legality. It's been well established in our system that morality and legality are not the same. When the two conflict, you generally have the legal right to do immoral things, so long as you do not violate the rights of another Person.

    Morally, I agree that abortion is horrible, atrocious, sad, and I'd hope we could decrease the number of abortions as much as possible.

    However, elevating the rights of a non-Person above those of a Woman in the realm of Law is extremely degrading.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    950
    John Holdren doesn't find children persons until they are two years old so it would be legal to kill them up to that age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •