I am posting, for your consumption, a recent comment made here on infanticide, wherein the commenter compares an unborn baby to a rapist and murderer, and argues that just as lethal force is justified to kill a rapist, such is true of babies as well.
Wow.
Just...wow.
I mean, really. Are you joking?
Oh, and, Anon 9:29... check the law. You ARE liable for everything done by your use of deadly force. You ARE. If you kill an innocent while protecting yourself, you ARE legally liable.
As for the rest of your argument, I don't really know how to answer. A baby? Encroaching on the mother? Making a conscious decision to "steal" from the mother? Really?
This has taken the pro-baby killing arguments that I've heard to an all new low.
In the (quite rare, overall) cases where infanticide is committed because of rape, all that is accomplished is that a new victim is created. Now the person who was initially a victim has become an aggressor.
Onto the comment that gives the baby a new "rapist" status.
AP - you give an unborn human rights to encroach upon the mother that you would not give a born human being. No one has the right to take life sustaining resources (blood, food, oxygen etc.) from another by force - whether by murder or rape. That includes an unborn human.
That principle is also why, if you employ deadly force to lawfully protect yourself, and you accidentally kill an innocent, you are not guilty of murder.
"Anon 9:29"
This same "logic" could be used against a three year old. I mean, think of all the money I'd have if my children had not "stolen" it from me, and if the government had not "forced" me to take care of them by prohibiting me from murdering them.
Please tell me this argument was made in jest.
And here we are. Imagine where we will be.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:29 has gotta be a troll. The logic (so called) used is beyond the pale of anything other than pure Marxism.
ReplyDeleteI hope that guy is a troll because his ideas are pretty disgusting.
ReplyDeleteI am pro abortion but our American society does not accept the child as chattel to that degree.
We may act like Ancient Rome but I'd hope we are not that savage or cruel that we no longer care about a future.
That argument is actually quite prevalent in the academic halls of most major universities. It is part of the complete life system philosophy wherein the unborn, infants, and the elderly are not productive members of the social order but mere leeches sucking the resources from those capable of producing for the regime.
ReplyDeleteIt is based in early twentieth century progressivism (George Bernard Shaw, an evil man, was one proponent). It is also the philosophy of many czars and bureaucrats in the current administration who crafted Obamacare. Once those groups can be given that status then it is much easier to justify killing them off to conserve resources for the workers that produce for the collective.
If you look at the words of American progressives of the early twentieth century then you will see that the final solution of the Nazis was perfectly in line with what American progressives believed and preached. Once their belief became reality they pretended that they were disgusted by the genocide of a race of people but they still believe in the killing off of undesirables even to this day (Justice Ginsburg & Rahm Emanuel's brother are examples).
People like that disgust me and unlike them I respect all life though that doesn't mean that I won't push back against those who have become so corrupted that they relish the death of the innocent or helpless.
Talk about someone being educated beyond their abilities.. this asshat can be nothing but a college prof or a third wayer..
ReplyDeletea walking argument for sterilization.
I can't tell you that the guy was jesting, because I think he believes every word he wrote.
ReplyDeleteWe are in deep trouble when a significant portion of the population can justify the murder of the most innocent.
If this person actually believes this train of thought, my contention is that anyone can propose any belief system they rationalize. Given enough support (in numbers of people) that rationalization becomes the predominate law of the land - it becomes a game of numbers. Not good for those in the minority especially now in this country and especially not good for those not (quite) yet born.
ReplyDeletePlease have a look at this interview. It begins to mend the puzzle together. I'm not a big follower of David Icke but this piece has melded a lot of "Why's" together for me.
ReplyDeletehttp://thedailybell.com/3578/Staff-Report-David-Icke-on
Excerpt: "One of the things I have been pointing out now for the best part of 20 years is they obviously want a world government, they want a world central bank, they want a world army, they want a world currency and they want a microchipped population. So if you look at the world currency, what they were faced with were vast numbers of national currencies. So in the totalitarian tiptoe stepping-stone, they needed to get rid of those currencies if they were going to have their single electronic currency, which is what they want. I call this technique problem-reaction-solution."
Resist !!!
It's the same as the gaia worshippers seeking to eliminate half the global population to a 'sustainable level'. It is my most sincere wish that those who advocate that kind of thing to comply with their own philosophy and remove themselves from the planet, thereby solving the population problem.
ReplyDeleteShy III
The most convincing argument for killing babies I've heard to date involves the possibility of eliminating defective people like this from the population.
ReplyDeleteThat was in jest.
Even people like this have the natural right, from conception, to life.
Too bad they deny it to others.
This was not in jest. AP- you were disingenuous in removing the context of my argument. When a woman engages in sex willfully, the possibility of conception is obvious and the risk is undertaken willfully. To abort in such a circumstance is murder. But my argument was about pregnancy resulting from rape. The mother gave no consent - and is not obligated to produce a child for the rapist. Her body has been violated, and I think she has no moral obligation to share it with another person. Obviously you disagree - get over it. You all find my "discussion, debate and dissent" objectionable so I won't post any more. Just don't pretend you want discussion - you just want mutual admiration.
ReplyDeleteBTW, get a law book and look it up. If you have a "righteous shooting" and kill an innocent by mistake, and not malice or neglect, you have not committed a crime. You likely have committed a tort and will be liable for monetary damages.
I didn't learn this from some website or self defense class - I learned this in law school. The principle derives from the common law. There may be states that have changed the common law so much that it no longer applies. But in most states it is still the law. Check with your lawyer.
You are not talking about an accident here, resulting from justified self defense.
DeleteKilling the baby is a conscious choice, not an accident.
Suggesting otherwise is dishonest. Disingenuous.
If, during an encounter where deadly force is allowed, the defender turns his gun on and intentionally kills an innocent third party, what is that?
DeleteThe choice is consciously made to kill a baby. That is where your law scenario falls apart.
You are doing it again.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about the rapist, or the woman.
You are presuming the right to kill the baby. It is about the baby, and it is disingenuous to ignore the one about to be killed.