Justifying Infanticide

Is Euthanizing Severely Disabled Infants Ever Acceptable?


  • Total voters
    9
Werbung:
This mean we kill everyone with Alzheimers too?

People with Alzheimer's have gone through a period of life during which they were self-aware persons capable of forming rational moral preferences, and it is only acceptable to kill them if they gave their consent to be euthanized before they had Alzheimer's.
 
The fetus can never form such a position if it is never able to attain self-awareness.

And you're prepared to prove that the child is not self aware in the womb...how? That's one of the biggest fallicies with the entire abortion crowd, they are murdering a sentient human being without benefit of so much as a hearing, or determination where the Rights of the child are weighed.
 
And you're prepared to prove that the child is not self aware in the womb...how? That's one of the biggest fallicies with the entire abortion crowd, they are murdering a sentient human being without benefit of so much as a hearing, or determination where the Rights of the child are weighed.

Really? An infant is not capable of viewing itself as a distinct entity existing over time, so do you honestly think it likely that a less developed fetus would be?
 
Really? An infant is not capable of viewing itself as a distinct entity existing over time, so do you honestly think it likely that a less developed fetus would be?

I suggest you watch a video of an actual abortion. It is disturbing, but you will see that the "fetus" as you say violently tries to survive.
 
Really? An infant is not capable of viewing itself as a distinct entity existing over time, so do you honestly think it likely that a less developed fetus would be?

That's YOUR failed excuse for logic, and I completely and utterly renounce it, as 1) non-responsive, and 2) inconsistant with the universally accepted MEDICAL definition of sentience (which I have previously provided).
 
Anti-abortionsits are duplicitous.

They don't care about a few cells with no brain even though he is the president.

They just pretend to be all outraged to show how pious they are.

As I have said before, they don't mind execution and war so it is impossible to take them seriously.
 
You don't seem to have a problem if the infant is an Iraqi or Afghani or Yugoslavian or Vietnamese.

I don't hear you protesting against Union Carbide taking a strategic decision to build their chemical factory in Bhopal where they could avoid costly safety meaures resulting in a massive chemical explosion killing thousands and disfiguring many others and poisioning the water for years to come. Just for US corporate greed.

But if the life concerned is a US foetus then you are screaming like a banshee.

Or rather, a lunatic.


Do you ever say anything at all that doesn't constitute a logical fallacy?
 
The fetus can never form such a position if it is never able to attain self-awareness.

Perfectly healthy infants won't achieve self awareness until they are at least 12 months old. Are you saying that it is fine to kill them so long as you do it before they can achieve self awareness?
 
Werbung:
Nor is the foetus an infant.

I do wish the pro-life hypocrits would stop using emotive language.

It really isn't a replacement for reason.

Fetus and infant are just nouns that describe the same thing; a human being at a particular stage of his or her life.

If you are using the word fetus to describe a human being at a particular stage of his or her life, the use of the word is fine. If, however, you are using the word fetus in an attempt to dehumanize a living human being so that you can attempt to deny them thier basic human rights, then you are no different from a racist who shouts ni%%er in an attempt to dehumanize a black person.
 
Back
Top