That'd be like expecting someone to respond intelligently to a NAMBLA member making a pro-pedophilia statement. I'd be a waste of intellect better served elsewhere.
His argument for is based solely on a "begging the question" fallacy, so there's nothing to refute. The burden is on him to prove his point which he fails to do. But no intelligence is required to refute it.
I speak against it as a pro-choice. Self-awareness is not important for personhood, since when you are sleeping or unconscious you are still a person, even tough you are not self-aware. Presence of mind, even not self-aware mind, is enough for personhood. And the only time when we can conclusively rule out the presence of mind is before 20 weeks of fetal development. Besides, all our self-awareness tests are very inadequate - they dont test self-awareness, but responses (as self-awareness is a qualia impossible to be directly tested). As you can be self-aware and not respond at the same time, its still possible that babies are self-aware from birth, and just dont/cannot respond. And when it comes to such important question as potentially killing a person, we should protect them just to be sure, when we dont know. Thus even when we agreed with the premise, it is still not enough to justify the morality of infanticide. The most logical criterion of personhood is inverse of brain death - brain birth, or first appearance of brain waves in the cerebral cortex.
Abortion is never infanticide, so let's get that straight. For the rest, personhood has nothing to do with self awareness or even brain activity, but with being born alive. I'm pro choice and I support a woman's right to choose abortion at whatever stage of the pregnancy she has reached.
Your own argument that life begins at conception begs the question. Did you read Tooley's article? How did he fail to prove his point? Why haven't you attempted to refute it, then?
I'm against infanticide. Are you against infanticide? The article is not showing....but according to the OP---it makes the case for infanticide. I think I'm clear on my view. Can you manage to make your views clear as well?
That is correct, people have been able to survive said disease. Though assuming you agree with the idea, then what problem would you have with molesting or raping an infant under X number of weeks old? If at that age it can't express any interest in simply being alive, then how could it possibly express interest in not being sexually molested? http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2012/05/02/mom-gets-life-for-molesting-her-baby-with-csu-prof/
There are varying degrees of severity, but hers was diagnosed as severe, and... It is incredible to me that anyone would force a baby to endure such constant torture with no hope for recovery or relief.
So seeing as you dodge the question, why would you have a problem with a father/mother molesting an infant as long as they're still young enough that they "can't show any interest in being alive"?
No, you are the one avoiding the topic at hand. Would you now agree that in some extreme cases, infanticide is a more humane alternative to a life of agony with no hope of relief or recovery?
You know what? Your posts are cowardly. The OP isn't discussing putting infants out of their "misery". The OP and Michael Tooley is making the case that infants don't have a right to life and thus can be killed...the same that fetus's don't have a right to life and can be killed. Address THAT because THAT is what this thread is about. I have respect for the original poster because he/she stands by his beliefs and states them without dancing around. But I have contempt for those that can't "man up".
They will never man up…they can't…impossible. Because you can't differentiate good from evil….everything goes…even this.
"Your posts are cowardly," she said, refusing to answer the question. My post was a direct response to yours. You stated unequivocally, "I'm against infanticide," and I simply asked you to expound on your statement, but you would not. My point was that there isn't always a simple, black or white, right or wrong answer in all cases and that is what made you furious. Sometimes one has to choose between two heart-wrenching choices. The thread is about infanticide; see the title? I can't very well address Tooley's article because the link doesn't work, but I have said repeatedly that I believe personhood begins at birth, and I have never tried to hide that. Still bashing? Why do "pro-lifers" have so much contempt for people after they are born?
Personhood begins at birth because this is what our current law states. Your statement above is more about what the legal system states then what your ethical viewpoint is. Would you oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status?
Coincidentally, they are about the same. Obviously I would, but I don't see that as being likely to happen.
Of course there is. It's called "not being inside a woman". Pretending the woman doesn't exist here is every bit as misogynist as the pro-life position. The fundamental flaw of this infanticide argument is that it assumes abortion is about a right to kill. It's not, and it never has been. It's a right of removal. The killing is incidental. Once it's born, there's no more need for removal, thus no justification to kill.
Abortion is the right to kill. Killing is the motive…the same motive as infanticide should the child be born. Removal means death. This is about the rights of a mother to kill….what difference does it make if she kills one minute before in the womb and one second after its born? She does not want the child and its a way to get rid of it. Even Obama fought "born alive" legislation, he voted for it.
Wrong. Our government does not give the unborn personhood in any law…they strip them of personhood until this magical number when they say they are viable. Laws are wishy washy on this. Once they give the unborn in the first trimester viability….abortion would be considered murder. I believe the Constitution affords them personhood…but our lawmakers at least the ones on the LEFT…the Democrats do not see it this way.
It is always interesting to me that the same people who disbelieve in preventing the birth of foetuses who can't be provided for almost invariable support the child-murdering colony called after the biblical Israel. Why, I wonder?
Can't and too lazy to provide for are two different things. He who creates life (God) has the power to destroy, a human arrogant enough to take anothers life is trying to play God. It always amazes me how the left wingers will defend the right of a convicted murder/pedophile on death row, but not an innocent baby.
