I no longer consider myself pro-life

[Roy]

Wow, that sounds horrible! Thank you for ripping it out of context.

Feel free to provide the context.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm not against that point; however, it is strange to me to whip up moral outrage against someone for saying that, in some circumstances, we can morally kill infants and children when we think that, in some circumstances, we are morally justified in killing infants and children.

[One Bad Pig]

Feel free to provide the context.

You've already been provided the context, and apparently felt free to imply that any context was immaterial.

[lilpixieofterror]

Man, what a wreck this thread is. The OP is disgusting (par for the course for DE), and completely and absolutely unChristian. Demonic even... That more Christians aren't reacting to it in horror is just...I don't know. Is it just that you're all not taking him seriously. Surprised to see Obsidian of all people being the only one to forcibly come out against it.

Aside from that, I don't know why people have forgotten what Starlight has said about his infanticide nonsense. He has, in fact, stated in the past that there could be moral justification for killing a child as old as three,



No matter how he dresses this up, his view on infanticide is utter insanity, and it's very sad to see some otherwise reasonable skeptics, and even some Christians buying into the argument, or at least thinking it's not so bad. Also, Starlight has been softening the blow by pretending that he's only for infanticide in cases of physical health issues, but that doesn't necessarily follow from his or Singer's view if they're being logically consistent. As seen above, he seems to believe it's morally justified in cases of possible starvation, but why not in common cases used in normal abortions? As the political scientist Peter Berkowitz once put it,

"Singer is right that on the basis of his premises there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of 'severely disabled infants.' But why does he confine the comparison to newborn infants who are severely disabled? He certainly does not confine abortion to severely disabled fetuses. If newborns, like unborn children, are not persons, and it is permissible to abort unborn children regardless of whether they are afflicted or healthy, then newborns, afflicted or healthy, should be subject to killing too, provided of course that 'on balance, and taking into account the interests of everyone affected,' their killing will increase the total amount of happiness or satisfied preferences in the world. Singer certainly offers no good utilitarian reason to confine the killing to severely disabled newborns."

Singer's reply was that there would naturally be parents who would love the child, so therefore it would be wrong to kill a healthy child, but still not as wrong as killing a fully cognitive person.

Also, I don't understand why no one is responding to Tassman's nonsense about Jews and abortion, which has been dealt with so many times that this should be wrote memorization by now. Below are a number of times I've personally dealt with the arguments. Others have taken him to task as well (in particular, Bill the Cat). Are you all just tired of arguing about it, or have you forgotten what was previously discussed? Not only do we have early Christian writings specifically condemning abortion (going back to as early as the 1st century with the Didache), but we also have the writings of 1st century Jewish writers who concur.

[lilpixieofterror]

Note that LPOT is using examples of babies being used as weapons as an excuse for butchering babies that aren't.

[Cow Poke]

Skimmed over what?

[Roy]

You've already been provided the context, and apparently felt free to imply that any context was immaterial.

Feel free to provide the actual context, as opposed to LPOT's self-serving distortion.

[guacamole]

In general, that is the position I hold. What makes me uncomfortable, however, is that we are then arguing that the morality of the action isn't based on the intrinsic value of human life, but instead on what benefits me and mine most in the moment. That's a crappy standard for morality.

[lilpixieofterror]

Feel free to provide the actual context, as opposed to LPOT's self-serving distortion.

My post, from your own link:

In a time of war where children are often used at weapons of war. I know you're a black/white fundy that gets into ignoring critical details to win points, but sorry most intelligent people recognize that there's differences between killing in self defense and killing just because. I am dealing with you though so I should already know nusances are not your strong point.

Are you just unable to read or stupid? I have always maintained that in times of war, killing kids might be justified where they are being used as weapons of war. In your link in the thread you linked in yet again:

That's pretty stupid logic there, but I guess you didn't hear about how the Japanese would throw babies into the air and catch them on their bayonets, eh? I guess you would have surrendered and let these immoral monsters run through your neighborhood and killed your children in the same way?

[lilpixieofterror]

In general, that is the position I hold. What makes me uncomfortable, however, is that we are then arguing that the morality of the action isn't based on the intrinsic value of human life, but instead on what benefits me and mine most in the moment. That's a crappy standard for morality.

Not really because self defense is all about preserving life.

[guacamole]

Not really because self defense is all about preserving life.

That's what I meant by "best for me and mine": my life and the life of my family or countrymen. Were circumstances different, I couldn't kill a child or infant in a car with adequate moral justification. The fact that a terrorist is in a car with an infant or child suddenly makes the action that directly takes the life of that child--a missile fired from a drone, say--morally justified? In practice, the life that previously was immoral to take suddenly becomes an acceptable casualty. In function, I value the life of me and mine as higher than that of the child in the car with the terrorist--that child ceases to have inherent value that prevents an unjustifiable killing, not because his or life is inherently worth protecting. That smacks of the kind of "in the womb/outside of the womb" valuation that some of the pro-choice offer.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's what I meant by "best for me and mine": my life and the life of my family or countrymen. Were circumstances different, I couldn't kill a child or infant in a car with adequate moral justification. The fact that a terrorist is in a car with an infant or child suddenly makes the action that directly takes the life of that child--a missile fired from a drone, say--morally justified? In practice, the life that previously was immoral to take suddenly becomes an acceptable casualty. In function, I value the life of me and mine as higher than that of the child in the car with the terrorist--that child ceases to have inherent value that prevents an unjustifiable killing, not because his or life is inherently worth protecting. That smacks of the kind of "in the womb/outside of the womb" valuation that some of the pro-choice offer.

And this terrorist could very well blow up a checkpoint and kill dozens.

[lilpixieofterror]

Skimmed over what?

Most of what he says.

[Roy]

Note that LPOT is using examples of babies being used as weapons as an excuse for butchering babies that aren't.

Note that Roy ignores my assumption of a population being weaponized to kill you and thus attacks upon children might have a good justification in such a situation.

Note that LPOT is again using examples of babies being used as weapons as an excuse for butchering babies that aren't.

The context was the execution of defenceless babies, in case they became enemies when they grew up:

Source: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?7885-Why-I-am-an-atheist&p=232523&viewfull=1#post232523

The reason why women and children were also targeted by all nations when fighting another nation is that the women would teach the children to hate their enemies and thus war would erupt again in the near future once those children grew up and also killing the children is more humane than leaving them to starve without any parents.

© Copyright Original Source

LPOT characterised killing an enemy's captive and disarmed women and children, including babies, as 'self defense'. She refused to admit that killing an enemy's kids so that they don't grow up is unacceptable. She won't admit it now, either.

[guacamole]

And this terrorist could very well blow up a checkpoint and kill dozens.

What the terrorist could do is irrelevant to whether or not a child or infant has intrinsic value and can or cannot be killed with moral justification. No matter how you slice it, to a certain extent we all believe there are circumstances in which is morally justifiable to kill a child.