Here we see the effects of the moveable feast idea for morality combined with the very real slippery slope.

The authors apply the same pragmatic and utilitarian views used to justify abortion, and conclude that infanticide should be permitted under the same terms.

The wages of moral relativism are, in this case, advocacy of the deaths of living infants.

What difference do a few inches of tissue make... Inside or outside, you should be able to kill it?

Why should the government be involved in it.

Why wasn't this link just added to the other what if thread.


http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1602590

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Here we see the effects of the moveable feast idea for morality combined with the very real slippery slope.

The authors apply the same pragmatic and utilitarian views used to justify abortion, and conclude that infanticide should be permitted under the same terms.

The wages of moral relativism are, in this case, advocacy of the deaths of living infants.

The "morality" issue falls flat on it's face given innocent, living, breathing human beings can also be taken out simply based on religious, political, judicial and military decisions. Given that, why are the unborn an exception?

As humans we have a long and sorid history of leaving unwanted babies out to die of exposure, starvation or being killed by animals. Morality has always been relative.

Farmer Joe went running into town and hollard at Ole Doc. Brown. " Come quick, Ethel is havin the baby. "

Doc Brown replied " I can't right now Junior, little billie bob needs his appendix out or he'll die."

Farmer Joe says " what on earth am I to do ?"


Doc says " well, you birthed dog, cats sheep and such, It aint no different, just let nature take it's course."

A week latter Ole-Doc was going into the merchantile when he ran into Junior. " So how 'd the delivery go "

Joe Junior said " It was just like you told me Doc. I let nature take it's course. We be the proud parents of a bouncinn baby boy, Junior Junior. Only had one problem thou. "

" Whats that?" asked Doc.

Then joe says " I had a hell of a time gettin momma to eat the afterbirth."

62, you've had a few good ones lately, that wasn't one of 'em.

Originally Posted by 62pilot

Farmer Joe went running into town and hollard at Ole Doc. Brown. " Come quick, Ethel is havin the baby. "

Doc Brown replied " I can't right now Junior, little billie bob needs his appendix out or he'll die."

Farmer Joe says " what on earth am I to do ?"


Doc says " well, you birthed dog, cats sheep and such, It aint no different, just let nature take it's course."

A week latter Ole-Doc was going into the merchantile when he ran into Junior. " So how 'd the delivery go "

Joe Junior said " It was just like you told me Doc. I let nature take it's course. We be the proud parents of a bouncinn baby boy, Junior Junior. Only had one problem thou. "

" Whats that?" asked Doc.

Then joe says " I had a hell of a time gettin momma to eat the afterbirth."

Originally Posted by n00b-E

62, you've had a few good ones lately, that wasn't one of 'em.

I disagree nOOb-E growing up on a farm I have watched that a lot of times. I think its funny.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

The "morality" issue falls flat on it's face given innocent, living, breathing human beings can also be taken out simply based on religious, political, judicial and military decisions. Given that, why are the unborn an exception?

Can you prove your contention by providing for us a single case covered by your statement, in which it was legal to *intentionally* target and kill a specific innocent person with killing them being the full intent and desired end result?

Or will we be treated to more moral evasions and psuedo equivalencies like other other pro abortion arguments?

Unwanted babies, sick old people, retarded people.
Seems this has been done before.....

I’ve seen videos of abortions; you know, the ones where they scramble the Braine with some sort of tool? It’s horrifying. Myself, it’s not my business. There are a ridiculous number of un-wanted kids in this country. When the foster homes, etc. are empty, then we can talk.

If a human isn't wanted, they're better off dead! Yes, how humane.

Don't suppose anyone ever considered waiting until babies are old enough to ask if they want to die if they are not wanted?

Of course not. It might inconvenience the parents or those who demand to pay then complain about the costs they demanded to bear in the first place.

Look at the basis of the arguments. Inconvenience. Cost. It comes down to one of those two as reasons to take a human life. The OP authors have merely taken it beyond the birth canal, which is perfectly logical as they note since all the abortion arguments still apply. If a being with unique DNA is 'the mother's body' inside her, it certainly remains so outside her, and so on.

The complete cluster one arrives at by attempting to continue logical consistency in 'progressive' ideas is aptly demonstrated by the subject of the OP. Morality inversions.

Originally Posted by Real Ira

Don't suppose anyone ever considered waiting until babies are old enough to ask if they want to die if they are not wanted?

Oh, hells-to-the-NO! Why, just having an in utero ultra sound done would be a "violation of the womans rights".