Infanticide

[Age]

But what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED here is HERE, for ALL to SEE.

Yes, that's true. And what they see is someone continuously posting using absurd capitalization and inane, insulting, and ignorant ideas.

If you do NOT list ANY of these, ALLEGED, "inane", "insulting", and/or "ignorant" ideas, then what you SAY here is worth ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

And those who see it ignore the idiocy as much as possible, hoping it will take its obtuse ignorance and go away.

Making CLAIMS without PROVIDING absolutely ANY 'evidence' NOR 'proof is, literally, saying NOTHING AT ALL REALLY.

So, we AWAIT to SEE if you CAN back up and support YOUR CLAIMS here.

You are just UPSET because you COULD NOT back up and support YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIMS, which I CHALLENGED you on PREVIOUSLY.

You COULD NOT back up and support your previous ideas, so you RESORT to 'trying to' to CLAIM my ideas are some 'thing', which you OBVIOUSLY can NOT and thus will NOT back up and support. And, this WILL BE PROVED True by your INABILITY to do so.

[Harbal]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

What surprises me is that anyone would respond to this kind of stupidity by engaging in a conversation with its author.

[Walker]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Infanticide was acceptable in Sparta and Rome, so they say.

Infanticide Common in Roman Empire
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813

“Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study.

“The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that ‘until recently, “infanticide”) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective.’”

[Nick_A]

So I've proven my point. Living in Plato's cave we don't experience objective consciousness or objective conscience and instead have become limited to subjective interpretation of both.

But, depending on how 'you' define so-called 'plato's cave', what you CLAIM here could be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY argued AGAINST.

Consciousness is now defined by the contents of consciousness and objective conscience and is now expressed as indoctrinated morality.

If this is how 'you' DEFINE 'things' here, then so be it. It is NOT how 'I' nor 'we' DEFINE these 'things' here.

Yet some are aware of their limitations and seek those who have already escaped cave limitations.

What EXACTLY are the 'limitations' you IMAGINE or ENVISION here?

Simone Weil wrote in a personal letter: "but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides."

How one GETS TO and ARRIVES at this KINGDOM does NOT REALLY MATTER.

Also, have you EVER considered WHY 'you' have NEVER REACHED this KINGDOM "yourself"?

If no, then maybe CONSIDER the Fact that you are SOLELY INFATUATED WITH and BY just one solitary human being, who is named and labeled "simone weil", and then you MIGHT REALIZE WHY 'you' are STILL STUCK 'down there', WHERE "simone weil" WAS and REMAINS.

If you WANT to FOLLOW one who NEVER ACTUALLY 'made it', then so be it. But if 'you', "yourself", do NOT GET OUT of "simone weil's" LIMITING CAVE, then you will REMAIN STUCK in the SAME CAVE "yourself".

'you' 'try' and put "simone weil" on some pedestal, while FORGETTING that "simone weil" is just ANOTHER 'one' of 'you', human beings. And, EXACTLY like EVERY 'one' of 'you', human beings, "simone weil" just had DIFFERENT 'thoughts'.

Does conscious humanity exist in which human consciousness and objective conscience abides rather than subjective self justifying interpretations? Such people would have respect for life. But as we are it only exists in us as a potential. Can't blame Simone for being attracted to truth including what respect for life means. But most are content to justify the absurd in a world of absurdities

Have 'you' EVER CONSIDERED that 'you', "nick_a", ALSO have been ATTEMPTING to "justify" the ABSURD.

Also, and by the way, the ONLY "absurdities" 'in the world' are the ones that 'you', adult human beings, MAKE UP and CREATE. Absolutely EVERY 'thing else' is ABLE to be REASONED and Truly LOGICAL.

My advantage over you is verifying that I am the wretched man described by Paul in Romans 7 and learning why it is so. It is the foundation for understanding the meaning and purpose of organic life on earth and the potential for conscious human being. You cannot verify what is meant by respect for life without basic understanding of the human condition.

You prefer to argue over details without any verified wholeness. It is your way but I see it as a lost cause though agreed with by the majority participating in the struggle over opinions.

[Nick_A]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Infanticide was acceptable in Sparta and Rome, so they say.

Infanticide Common in Roman Empire
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813

“Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study.

“The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that ‘until recently, “infanticide”) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective.’”

Very true Walker. It seems there are more methods for killing babies then there are to abort them.

Infanticide has been practiced all over the world throughout the whole of human history. Newborns who have not yet learned to talk have been intentionally killed because they were thought to be:

terminally ill;
experiencing unbearable pain or suffering;
born with unacceptable anomalies;
of the wrong gender, race, class, maternity, or paternity;
political threats;
economic threats;
fitting sacrifices in religious rituals; and
embarrassing, frustrating, or inconvenient.
The single most common reason for the practice of infanticide in the past and present has been the desire to be rid of female newborns. The histories of infanticide and gender bias are interwoven. Not to study them together is to overlook their interdependence.

Human newborns, particularly females, have been intentionally killed in many ways. They have been incinerated, decapitated, and suffocated. They have also been sundered, stabbed, stoned, shot, hung, drowned, struck, shaken, stomped, crushed, raped, poisoned, buried, starved, fed to animals, and exposed to the elements. They have been denied air, food, water, warmth, and protection from diseases. Their blood vessels have been injected with toxic substances and bubbles of air. It is impossible to understand the history of infanticide without taking into account its diverse and often cruel methods.

Babies will have to own guns for self protection. Now for the few students who have not lost their mind to twitter and partial truths, they may ask if all this is true, who or what determines what respect for life actually means? We like to pass the buck to the mother. It may be good for twitter but an intelligent young person still asks what respect for life means and who determines who lives or dies and how is it objectively determined?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Infanticide was acceptable in Sparta and Rome, so they say.

Infanticide Common in Roman Empire
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813

“Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study.

“The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that ‘until recently, “infanticide”) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective.’”

Kristian perverts like NA prefer actual babies to be murdered rather than allow a woman to safely end an unwanted pregnancy in the first 8 weeks, when most abortions are performed. There is absolutely no rational or logical reason for anyone to object to a woman ending her pregnancy safely which is why kristian perverts only have lies to try to disguise their transparent kristian misogyny (which is why so-called 'pro-lifers' are always religious nuts). He doesn't give a tinker's toss about babies. Of course, it's the safety of the procedure that bothers kristian perverts. Women have always aborted unwanted foetuses, using herbal poisons administered by village healers, jumping from heights, poking objects up themselves, and of course the notorious backstreet abortionist. Desperation makes people do whatever it takes. Kristian perverts are fine with all of that because the perception of 'punishment' for 'sin' along with extreme suffering warms the cockles of their hearts.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why don't kristian perverts object to embryos being frozen and stored in fertility clinics for up to ten years, or flushed away when they aren't needed? According to the likes of NA, these are 'babies', therefore discarding them is 'murder'. How long do they think a baby would last if it was frozen and kept in a tank for ten years (or even ten minutes)?

[iambiguous]

Universal given your own set of assumptions?

Nope. Every one -- rich, poor, black, white, theist, atheist, materialist, idealist, realist, arealist, etc. and on and on -- knows he is his own. As I say...

His own what...in regard to infanticide.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Well, he is his own as a slave owner. If in fact he is one. But what is he when it comes to defending or renouncing slavery as a moral issue if not the subjective, existential embodiment of dasein?

Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

What on earth does that even mean in a world where there are those who justify slavery as rational -- even morally sanctioned by God -- for any number of historical, cultural and personal reasons. The slaves may protest all they want but that doesn't make them any less a slave. The only thing that ends that is the political struggle to end slavery itself.

And where do you derive your own rendition of "natural rights"? From God? From some Constitution? From one or another Humanist dogma? From science?

And then those who claim that slavery is "naturally wrong" but that aborting their own unborn fetus isn't. Or that killing their already born baby isn't.

Let's face it, some don't argue that "in the absence of God all things are permitted" for nothing. Just ask Vladimir Putin. Or is he citing God too?

if there is no God, what universally applicable philosophical argument could there be able to establish that the killing here was objectively Good or Evil? How would that actually be demonstrated beyond sets of conflicting assumptions?

Love the reframe: how you sneak in objectively...let's stick with the original...

If someone kills their newborn baby and rationalizes it, there either is a philosophical argument to refute that or there isn't. Call it objective, call it universal...whatever. Let's hear it.

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

I gave you your universal: ownness. It doesn't matter if ownness is God-given or just a function of amoral biology. Each and every one, no matter where, no matter when, knows he belongs to himself. Even the man and woman who abort becuz the child is the wrong sex, know this about themselves. The question, then: is what they abort person or meat.

And, above, I responded to this. Ownness in the either/or world and ownness in the is/ought world. In a No God world.

Though, sure, we can just agree to disagree here. Or approach it all from the perspective of, "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine".

I can give you a strictly materialist argument on why, by week 12, it's person.

Do that. Though trust me: there are those out there who will argue that even the newborn baby can be killed because it is not yet a person.

Like there aren't endlessly conflicting assessments here that start from the point of conception and end in any number of different stages in between.

But, okay, lets hear your argument. One I suspect that you are convinced all rational and virtuous human beings are categorically and imperatively obligated to accept in turn.

[attofishpi]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Infanticide was acceptable in Sparta and Rome, so they say.

Infanticide Common in Roman Empire
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42911813

“Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study.

“The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that ‘until recently, “infanticide”) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective.’”

Kristian perverts like NA prefer actual babies to be murdered rather than allow a woman to safely end an unwanted pregnancy in the first 8 weeks, when most abortions are performed. There is absolutely no rational or logical reason for anyone to object to a woman ending her pregnancy safely which is why kristian perverts only have lies to try to disguise their transparent kristian misogyny (which is why so-called 'pro-lifers' are always religious nuts). He doesn't give a tinker's toss about babies. Of course, it's the safety of the procedure that bothers kristian perverts. Women have always aborted unwanted foetuses, using herbal poisons administered by village healers, jumping from heights, poking objects up themselves, and of course the notorious backstreet abortionist. Desperation makes people do whatever it takes. Kristian perverts are fine with all of that because the perception of 'punishment' for 'sin' along with extreme suffering warms the cockles of their hearts.

HELL O Veg!

Ya, most Christians are fucking idiots. In fact, if anyone should comprehend that abortion is the correct thing to do in a unwanted pregnancy, it should be a Christian. Christ 'proved' the ultimate control God has over ALL reality via virgin birth through to turning water to wine etc..

So, yeah - a Christian should do the Christian thing if they are not willing to provide the child with all their love, and send that soul back to He that sent it! Let God replant the soul eventually into a womb that wants a baby.

In fact - an atheist should have more moral objection to abortion than any Christian!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And further proof of their depraved kristian motives is the fact that these perverts are also against contraception (yes, you heard that right) AND (especially) any kind of govt. funded help for unwanted babies. That's Henry Quirk's main concern. He's terrified that 0.0000001 percent of his precious money might go towards helping young (black) women.

[attofishpi]

And further proof of their depraved kristian motives is the fact that these perverts are also against contraception (yes, you heard that right) AND (especially) any kind of govt. funded help for unwanted babies. That's Henry Quirk's main concern. He's terrified that 0.0000001 percent of his precious money might go towards helping young (black) women.

Eh? Everyone know Henry hasn't got any money - and that young black woman is often his pillow on the bench outside the library - where he pops in occasionally to tell the internet we are not free like him.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And further proof of their depraved kristian motives is the fact that these perverts are also against contraception (yes, you heard that right) AND (especially) any kind of govt. funded help for unwanted babies. That's Henry Quirk's main concern. He's terrified that 0.0000001 percent of his precious money might go towards helping young (black) women.

Eh? Everyone know Henry hasn't got any money - and that young black woman is often his pillow on the bench outside the library - where he pops in occasionally to tell the internet we are not free like him.

Aren't libraries funded from taxes? He couldn't go there then...

[attofishpi]

And further proof of their depraved kristian motives is the fact that these perverts are also against contraception (yes, you heard that right) AND (especially) any kind of govt. funded help for unwanted babies. That's Henry Quirk's main concern. He's terrified that 0.0000001 percent of his precious money might go towards helping young (black) women.

Eh? Everyone know Henry hasn't got any money - and that young black woman is often his pillow on the bench outside the library - where he pops in occasionally to tell the internet we are not free like him.

Aren't libraries funded from taxes? He couldn't go there then...

Not in the USA - you gotta pay to go in, or give the librarian a blow job.

[Nick_A]

Those like atto and vege lack any understanding regarding what respect for life means. Their own negativity prevents it. Fortunately not everyone is burdened with such blinding negativity.

[attofishpi]

Those like atto and vege lack any understanding regarding what respect for life means. Their own negativity prevents it. Fortunately not everyone is burdened with such blinding negativity.

That's gold coming from you after suggesting letting a child starve to death. Keep kissing Gods arse, one day he might fart so you know he is there for all your arse kissing.