1. Comment #153284 by Sally Luxmoore on April 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

There appears to be little danger that this particular brand of religious insanity will be spread via child indoctrination. It seems to be akin to the kind of virus that almost invariably kills its host - definitely frightening, but unlikely to be long-lived.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

2. Comment #153291 by Prankster on April 1, 2008 at 10:56 am

Here's hoping it doesn't but this kind of case seems to be occurring more regulary as regular posters (myself included) will testify

Sick-making....It's bummed me out actually

Other Comments by Prankster

3. Comment #153298 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

I hope those parents rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

4. Comment #153302 by hopeful on April 1, 2008 at 11:13 am

The sad thing is that if the parents are convicted they will undoubtedly blame everything on the devil, or god's will, or because they didn't pray enough. Others in the church will see the whole thing as another "test of faith" and use it to reinforce their delusion.

Other Comments by hopeful

5. Comment #153317 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 11:34 am

3. Comment #153298 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 11:07 am

Careful. If Prof. Dawkins and many other visitors here are correct in their assertion that faith is a virus, that's their defense on a golden platter.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

6. Comment #153344 by decius on April 1, 2008 at 12:07 pm

church that favours faith healing over conventional medicine

Absurd usage of language that sets a false dichotomy, as if faith healing had any effect whatsoever or could indeed represent an alternative to "conventional" medicine. This disgusting pandering to nonsense is a caricature of fairness and wrongfully passes as unbiased journalism.

Other Comments by decius

7. Comment #153346 by Shaden on April 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm

fides_et_ratio,

Careful. If Prof. Dawkins and many other visitors here are correct in their assertion that faith is a virus, that's their defense on a golden platter.

That's almost what they're being tried for; not treating something deadly when there is a known cure. Which would be the same in their case, since there is a known cure for faith - it's called reason.

Other Comments by Shaden

8. Comment #153348 by Matt7895 on April 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Definitely manslaughter. Definitely a lengthy prison sentence for both of them.

Other Comments by Matt7895

9. Comment #153359 by notsobad on April 1, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Hey, shouldn't the same apply to
Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help
?

Other Comments by notsobad

10. Comment #153366 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

7. Comment #153346 by Shaden on April 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm

If faith were a virus, and

If faith could be treated by reason, and

If reason were a constant, and

If all minds could grasp it,

That would mean you might have a point. But...

If ifs and and were pots and pans, well, there'd be no need for tinkers now would there?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

11. Comment #153367 by JamesDB on April 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm

good good good good and finally

Thats all I need to say here

Other Comments by JamesDB

12. Comment #153368 by JFHalsey on April 1, 2008 at 12:25 pm

This story is chilling, to me. It could have been myself and my wife in this article, if circumstances had been different during our fundamentalism. And our daughter's name is Eva, too :( !
Sad.

Other Comments by JFHalsey

13. Comment #153382 by SweatyPalmSunday on April 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm

While I disapprove of the parents' (lack of) reasoning, I can't say that I am fundamentally opposed to the outcome. This child died when it was fairly young. When children are intentionally killed in the womb by the choice of the parents, pro-choice people like myself do not protest. What is wrong then with parents deciding to kill their child moments after it comes out of the womb? How about days after? 15 months after?

If I call myself pro-choice (which I do) then why should I be opposed to infanticide? If I remember correctly, this system was accepted by ancient Greece, and worked well for them. Of course I am not promoting it, I am just not wishing to jail other people for it. Clearly, there must be some age where we draw the line, but why must that age be before 9 months? Please let me know if you can think of a good answer to this question.

Yes, these people should probably be ridiculed for their negligence and ignorance, but I don't see why they should be jailed for their actions. I tend to agree with the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it."

I'm not sure that this will be a very popular opinion, but I am interested to hear your comments.

Other Comments by SweatyPalmSunday

14. Comment #153384 by Eventhorizon on April 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm

This is so sad. But I honestly think this couple believed that what they were doing was the right thing. What more proof does one need to demonstrate how this stuff erodes any sense of reality. This makes me even more confident that we need to rid ourselves of the devastating virus called faith.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

15. Comment #153394 by Eventhorizon on April 1, 2008 at 12:45 pm

SweatyPalmSunday

If you really cant come up with an answer to your question or see anything wrong with your comment I can only suggest you go away and think about it a little longer!

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

16. Comment #153398 by alexmzk on April 1, 2008 at 12:50 pm

It led to the passage of legislation in Oregon that repealed the right to a religious beliefs defence in cases of manslaughter, homicide and child abuse.

now if only they could pass this legislation in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Other Comments by alexmzk

17. Comment #153410 by corruptmemory on April 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Granted this won't go anywhere, but can you actually call these people parents? Generally people we refer to as "parents" provide a broad spectrum of care, love, encouragement, help, support, counseling, occasionally discipline, and innumerable positive contributions to the development of another functioning human being.

Given this, in what way are these people "parents". They are progenitors, certainly, but this is not a requirement for being "parents" (ask anyone who has been adopted). Any people who would, not only entertain ignorance, but actually impose it to the literal death of another person cannot be considered parents in my book.

They may have provided some of the above laundry list in other times, but persons who consciously choose to actively harm when viable help is available need to be taken out of the pool of potential parents until they reform their views, and serve prison time for murder.

Other Comments by corruptmemory

18. Comment #153418 by sidfaiwu on April 1, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Hello SweatyPalmSunday,

If I call myself pro-choice (which I do) then why should I be opposed to infanticide?

That's a very good question that I've thought long and hard about. I have an ongoing debate on abortion were I gave some thoughts about infanticide. Here's the relevant section:

...it is easy to see why a woman's prerogative does not extend to after the birth of the child, at least not in our modern society. The main suffering a postpartum mother would experience [would] result from the on-going care of the infant. Infanticide is not justifiable because our society provides an alternative that does not infringe upon the infant's interest in survival and does not require the mother to assume additional suffering; adoption or foster care.

For interested readers, the rest of the debate can be found here: http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/debates/abortion-debate-with-scott/

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

19. Comment #153425 by SweatyPalmSunday on April 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Eventhorizon-
I have thought about this question for a few years. I haven't found a good reason why, say, an abortion one day before birth is perfectly legal and accepted by the pro-choice crowd (myself included), but an "abortion" one day after birth (i.e., infanticide) is a capital offense which nearly all modern-day people find abhorrent.

I'm not saying I don't find infanticide abhorrent, I'm just saying that I don't see a logical reason why I should be categorically accepting of abortions, and categorically condemning of (sufficiently early) infanticide. If YOU know a (good) logical way around this, I'm all ears.

Maybe corruptmemory's comment can help here. Perhaps part of the answer lies in understanding what we mean by "parent."

Other Comments by SweatyPalmSunday

20. Comment #153426 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm

SweatyPalmSunday,

secular liberals usually draw the line at the point in time when an organism attains a certain mental complexity, i.e. a set of mental functions and capabilities such as self-awareness, moral reasoning, understanding, introspection, etc. When exactly does this happen in the case of a developing human? Nearly every rational individual agrees that an organism with human DNA can't be considered a person before the 5th month of pregnancy, but that it can be considered a person around the time that it can communicate via spoken language (and most would say at birth, or a few months before birth).

Of course, if you're looking for an absolute determinant of what constitute a person, you're not going to get it. Human development is a continuum. The toddler who was so stupidly killed by her parents was 15 months old, and therefore capable of understanding simple concepts and of expressing her desires with simple words. I would say that this did not qualify her for all the rights that come with being an adult, but it did grant her the right to exist.

Finally, I find the saying "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it" abhorrent. It is based on the assumption that parents inherently have rights over their children. Why should that be? Because they gave them birth? So the father had sex with the mother, and the mother carried the child for 9 months. I'm sure it can be a trying time, but that's not enough to grant someone the right of life and death over another person.

Parents only have rights over their children as a consequence of their responsibility to raise them to be reasonable, responsible adults. The right to spank a child (lightly) as a punitive and educational tool may logically follow from this responsibility. The right to kill a child does not.

Other Comments by Janus

21. Comment #153429 by Quetzalcoatl on April 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Good. Now what about the parents who let their eleven year old daughter die?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

22. Comment #153436 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Sagan was one of the most eloquent defenders of reason when it came to abortion. Now, I can't recall whether he talked about it in "Billions and Billions," or "Dragons of Eden." Maybe it was somewhere else. But if you haven't read all of Sagan's works, you are hardly a skeptic, are you!? Haha...

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

23. Comment #153437 by lrxst on April 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

I hope those parents rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

Gymnopedie, I assume you were trying to say that you hope the Worthingtons receive a fair trail and if convicted, think long and hard about what they did to their child while the serve their sentences. As western legal tradition takes into account the motivations and mindset of those who commit crimes and it's probably fair to assume that the Worthingtons were absolutely certain what they were doing was best for their son. Eye-watering ignorance doesn't necessarily equate to malice and I am sure they will be dealt with justly.

Otherwise, I'm not sure your pronouncement is anymore or less reasonable that: "I hope those two burn in hell for all eternity for what they did to that child".

Other Comments by lrxst

24. Comment #153449 by Klaatu barada nikto on April 1, 2008 at 1:32 pm

SweatyPalmSunday,

If I call myself pro-choice (which I do) then why should I be opposed to infanticide? If I remember correctly, this system was accepted by ancient Greece, and worked well for them. Of course I am not promoting it, I am just not wishing to jail other people for it. Clearly, there must be some age where we draw the line, but why must that age be before 9 months? Please let me know if you can think of a good answer to this question.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being indifferent to killing of infants, children, or anyone else. No decent human beings want to run up the infant body count. You seem to be saying that this is OK at whatever age we draw the line. The line will never be drawn correctly as there is no correct answer. The distinction between pro-choice and pro-life is to me, education versus legislation, not life versus death.

Actually, I believe that the pro-life movement should change its name to the pro-birth movement until its adherents bother to consider the lives of human beings after they are born.

Yes, these people should probably be ridiculed for their negligence and ignorance, but I don't see why they should be jailed for their actions. I tend to agree with the old saying, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it."

To kill someone is criminal. Their inaction killed their daughter. What of the three remaining childen? If it were simple ignorance then they certainly learned their lesson. Do you think they did? Would they never do this again with one of the other kids? Or will they just let god take as many kids as it needs?

They deserve a long jail sentence.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

25. Comment #153462 by SweatyPalmSunday on April 1, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Janus-

Thank you for clarifying the issue a bit. I think 15 months is probably far into the realm where infanticide should be considered a crime. Thus, in response to Quetzalcoatl, my thought would be that the parents of the eleven year old probably should face legal consequences, although see my other comment about this.


I also agree with Janus that it is impossible to determine exactly where such a "threshold" or "cutoff" age should lie, and that it probably lie between 5 months after conception and say, 1 year after birth. However, our society functions on these artificial cutoffs (legal driving age, voting age, drink age, etc. are not perfect, and will vary among individuals). My question is, why the sharp transition? Why it is abortion so easily accepted by reasonable people, while infanticide is so easily (and vehemently) rejected by these same people?

About the phrase "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it," I don't think we can automatically rule it out as abhorrent. Certainly a 70 year old parent having such an attitude toward their 40 year old child would be in the wrong, but we it doesn't seem wrong for a 29 year old parent to have this attitude toward their 1 month old fetus.

I think there is much gray area on this issue, and therefore it may be unwise to (a priori) have strong opinions on either side.

Other Comments by SweatyPalmSunday

26. Comment #153482 by fides_et_ratio on April 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Nearly every rational individual agrees that an organism with human DNA can't be considered a person before the 5th month of pregnancy, but that it can be considered a person around the time that it can communicate via spoken language (and most would say at birth, or a few months before birth)...

... Finally, I find the saying "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it" abhorrent. It is based on the assumption that parents inherently have rights over their children. Why should that be? Because they gave them birth? So the father had sex with the mother, and the mother carried the child for 9 months. I'm sure it can be a trying time, but that's not enough to grant someone the right of life and death over another person.

I presume from what you've said that abortion is equivalant to infanticide at 5 months old (in the womb).

Also, given your last statement, what gives any woman the right to have an abortion?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

27. Comment #153490 by corruptmemory on April 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm

With regard to abortion/infanticide, unfortunately I personally cannot come up with any particularly coherent way to address this issue. Looking at the problem of killing from an absolutist point of view is a non-starter. The consequentialist approach seems like the only ethical approach (what would happen to this girl if she did or did not have an abortion... are the consequences in either case support the abortion?). This leads to a "take each case as it comes" situation, which is the closest thing I can come to in terms of being comfortable.

I am a firm pro-choice supporter. The limit when society will accept an abortion as not murder is clearly a difficult problem. I certainly take most of the argument about the fact the early fetuses have no to nascent nervous systems and "feel" the most comfortable under those circumstances. But amoebas react to their environment *as if* feeling pain, so even a collection of 150 cells constituting a human fetus undergoes at least cellular death. Should I care? Is pain/suffering the most important variable in this regard?

The reality is we kill. We kill all the time. We kill to eat. We kill to "protect" (family, war), we kill to advance (science, war). Every person will come to their own conclusions regarding their comfort level regarding what they can conscienably justify. There will much overlap in our mutual justifications. Some justifications we will collectively see as unethical or wrong, many, will be tough to accept, but at least "understandable".

There is an undeniable ugliness to being human as much as there is beauty. My personal view is in order to be a full-spectrum human you need to "engage" (not necessarily act on) the "full-spectrum" of our humanity. So, both "negative" and "positive" emotions/states need to be engaged consciously.

If some of you are at the point where you *would* accept physician-assisted suicide (I accept this is a valid option for ending one's life) what about already born infants with devastating conditions? (I struggle with this).

Here, consider a recent headline on "The Onion"

"Miracle of Birth Occurs for the 83 Billionth Time"

Should we consider the "relative cheapness" of human life in our thinking? Can it be used as a justification? In either case why or why not? Clearly, no easy answers forthcoming.

Other Comments by corruptmemory

28. Comment #153498 by geru on April 1, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I guess the parents defend their actions thinking that this was God's will. If they had any sense, they would probably wonder why God finds necessary to kill children of these kinds of fundamentalist Christians, while the children of less religious parents survive more often.

Their logic must be that it's better to die at 15 months, than live to be 80 years old by compromising on some religious principles.

And I can only imagine that dying of an infection isn't a very nice way to go...

Other Comments by geru

29. Comment #153501 by SweatyPalmSunday on April 1, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Klaatu barada nikto-

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being indifferent to killing of infants, children, or anyone else.

I am not saying I am indifferent to infanticide, just as someone who says they are pro-choice doesn't mean they are indifferent to abortions. Of course we would like to minimize the number of occurrences, but this does not mean we should outlaw such actions.

To kill someone is criminal.

Yes, but why is it criminal? Something being criminal does not make it wrong (take the easy example of a slave escaping from their owner 200 years ago). It seems that you find killing permissible in the case of certain unborn babies. My question was not whether or not such actions are criminal (they clearly are illegal), but whether or not such laws are good laws.

corruptmemory-
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The late comedian Bill Hicks has some comments along these lines, but I won't site them here as they could be taken the wrong way.

Other Comments by SweatyPalmSunday

30. Comment #153519 by MelM on April 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Geoff posted this link (on the Dawkins.net Kara post) to an 1998 story about the "Followers of Christ". The 1999 Oregon law has done well as a deterrent until now.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/deadbabies.htm

Wikipedia also has an article about this group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ_(Oregon_church)


This local news report was linked by righton yesterday.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_033008_news_faith_healing.1742971c.html

From KGW.com (April 1)
In court Monday, the Worthingtons were charged with manslaughter and criminal mistreatment. A grand jury concluded that the faith healing couple's refusal to get medical treatment for their sick toddler caused the child's death.

As I mentioned in a comment on Kara page, Oregon passed its "Death With Dignity" act in 1994. Along with the 1999 act on religious exclusion, Oregon made great strides to lessoning the misery of religion. If you've had to witness a hard death, you should understand how benevolent the "Death With Dignity" act is and how outrageous it is that Oregon is still the only state with such a law. Fortunately, we still dont' have a completely nutter Supreme Court and Oregon was able to defend the "Death With Dignity" act against the nutter U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Other Comments by MelM

31. Comment #153522 by Janus on April 1, 2008 at 2:27 pm

SweatyPalmSunday,

I agree with you, although my final conclusion is a bit different from yours. Given the lack of a sharp cutoff point, I'd rather play it safe and make it illegal to kill a human more than 5 months after conception. Being 5 months old would only grant the foetus the right to exist. Other rights come slowly as the human brain develops and as it acquires experience/knowledge. That said, I would consider the murder of a 6 month old foetus to be a lesser crime than the murder of a 10 year old. The former might warrant a few months in prison, the latter a few decades.



fides_et_ratio wrote:

I presume from what you've said that abortion is equivalant to infanticide at 5 months old (in the womb).

Also, given your last statement, what gives any woman the right to have an abortion?

Yes to the first sentence, as I've explained above.

As for your question, before the 5th month after conception the foetus has no rights and is not considered a person. A pregnant woman is therefore free to have an abortion for the same reason that she's free to kill a squirrel or a cow. After the 5th month the foetus is granted the right to exist, which then takes precedence over the rights of the parents over their child.

Other Comments by Janus

32. Comment #153524 by MPhil on April 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Since the passage of the law in 1999

...aaannnd, that means that before 1999, stating (truthfully) that the you committed homicide/manslaughter/child abuse because of religious beliefs would get you a "Oh alright then. There's a good, god-fearing citizen. You may walk free." ?

Other Comments by MPhil

33. Comment #153530 by Gymnopedie on April 1, 2008 at 2:33 pm

When did I say they shouldn't receive a fair trial? It seems pretty clear they neglected their child and it led to the death of the child. Apparently it is then controversial to say they deserve to rot in jail the rest of their lives.

Their intent is irrelevant because they are thinking adults; we aren't talking about kids here neglecting other children. Adults take full responsible for their nonsense. Should we excuse a parent who fires a "holy" bullet into their child's head because he believes the child will grow up to be Satan? Religion is absolutely no excuse, as the beliefs themselves are utterly capricious (or at least can be).

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

34. Comment #153535 by ordeneus on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 pm

SweatyPalmSunday:

"an abortion one day before birth is perfectly legal and accepted by the pro-choice crowd"

Really? Where would that be exactly? I believe you are presenting a false comparison. I don't think many people who support a womans right to choose believe it should be available the day before the child is due.

My personal line is the ability of the child to survive outside of the womb. If it can survive outside the woman, it's a person, before that, it's a blob! Modern medicine makes that younger and younger, and obviously coming up to that limit is a greyish place, 150 cells though? That's not a person, it's a mess in a dish!

Other Comments by ordeneus

35. Comment #153546 by Klaatu barada nikto on April 1, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I am not saying I am indifferent to infanticide, just as someone who says they are pro-choice doesn't mean they are indifferent to abortions. Of course we would like to minimize the number of occurrences, but this does not mean we should outlaw such actions.

I agree.

[EDIT] Sorry, read that wrong. The cutoff age is debatable but should be before birth and as early as possible.

Yes, but why is it criminal? Something being criminal does not make it wrong (take the easy example of a slave escaping from their owner). It seems that you find killing permissible in the case of certain unborn babies. My question was not whether or not such actions are criminal (they clearly are illegal), but whether or not such laws are good laws.

I am pro-choice. I have a beautiful daughter that I chose to have. I wouldn't have made any different choice. I don't find it permissible to kill any unborn children. I simply believe that education is better at dealing with the problem instead of legislation. I also believe that reproductive rights should be decided by those women who are affected by having a child. Yes, I believe men should have some say, but only the ones who stick around. When pro-life crusty old farts and women whose eggs are beyond their expiration date chime in on the subject, I tend not to listen.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

36. Comment #153552 by FightingFalcon on April 1, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Wait a second - are people in this thread ACTUALLY contemplating infanticide? What alternate universe did I freaking stumble into?

SweatyPalmsSunday....you actually would allow someone to kill a baby outside the womb? Jesus Christ man, stay away from little kids. I'm serious.

Maybe Theists are onto something when they claim that world-wide Atheism would bring about immoral practices such as organ harvesting, human cloning and infanticide. This thread has seriously disturbed me.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

37. Comment #153555 by annabanana on April 1, 2008 at 2:59 pm

an abortion one day before birth is perfectly legal and accepted by the pro-choice crowd

Says who? On what planet?

Other Comments by annabanana

38. Comment #153558 by Quetzalcoatl on April 1, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Sweatypalmsunday-

I haven't found a good reason why, say, an abortion one day before birth is perfectly legal and accepted by the pro-choice crowd (myself included), but an "abortion" one day after birth (i.e., infanticide) is a capital offense which nearly all modern-day people find abhorrent.

Have you mistyped something here? Who on earth thinks an abortion at eight months is acceptable?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

39. Comment #153565 by MelM on April 1, 2008 at 3:08 pm

OT

Actually, a deep philosophical look at rights is a valid topic for the forum but rather off-topic here but I'll give it a sketchy try.

Rights are the actions we can take to support and further our lives. Rights protect us from others, thus allowing us to live among people. Every action of our life and every breath we take exist because of rights. They don't come from God as the nutters claim; they come the needs of a human life in reality. As with morality, the disconnect with the needs of a human life on Earth that religion has produced is a continuing disaster.

It's rights that are at issue. Until birth, a fetus is part of its mother's body and she needs to have the right over her body if she is to care for her own needs. At birth, this ends and the child has full rights as a human being. Since a child is not capable of using its rights to take the actions needed to fill its needs, the parents are obligated to do it--rationally. A child is not the property of the parents or of the state.

Other Comments by MelM

40. Comment #153573 by the great teapot on April 1, 2008 at 3:13 pm

It is politically correct mantra on this website.
You can kill any child you like, who can not see, in the name of both science and female emancipation.
Quite often lack of consciousness is cited as a reason for legalizing infanticide. I have asked if one can kill someone in their sleep, but got no reply.

Other Comments by the great teapot

41. Comment #153576 by the great teapot on April 1, 2008 at 3:26 pm

MelM
So the mother can legally abort upto the point of birth?

Other Comments by the great teapot

42. Comment #153579 by esuther on April 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Teapot

You have created a straw man. Have fun knocking it down. It will make you feel very brave.

Esuther

Other Comments by esuther

43. Comment #153581 by the great teapot on April 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I have to admit feeding babies is a bit of a drag.
If it intefers with the mothers night life (and thus mental health) who am I, a mere man, to intervene.

Other Comments by the great teapot

44. Comment #153585 by the great teapot on April 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Straw man- the most over used cliche on this site.
Brave? Don't know what you mean. I just like to think the golden rule also applies to those not in positions of power.

Other Comments by the great teapot

45. Comment #153589 by MelM on April 1, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Comment #153552 by FightingFalcon

SweatyPalmSunday's first comment was on the Kara thread; I quote:

5. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150456 by SweatyPalmSunday on March 27, 2008 at 12:18 am

Does anyone remember that vegan couple who were put in jail last year for feeding their baby a strict vegan diet (the baby died from malnutrition)? I didn't agree with that ruling, but I do not see how denying insulin is any different than denying proper nutrition. If we are going to lock up that vegan couple, we should lock up this religious couple too.

Other Comments by MelM

46. Comment #153591 by quantum tuba on April 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Gymnopedie: The Sagan work you are referring to is chapter 15 of Billions and Billions, entitled Abortion: Is it Possible to Be Both "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"? He co-wrote it with Ann Druyan, and I personally think of it as the best thought out treatise on the debate that I have read.

Other Comments by quantum tuba

47. Comment #153600 by phiwilli on April 1, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Some of you may find Lynne Rudder Baker's "Persons and Bodies" of interest. Her view, well-defended, is , basically, that self-consciousness (awareness that I am a self) is essential for personhood, and that that awareness is not present until a good bit after birth. So she says (as I recall), "I was never a fetus." There was (she would say) a fetus that became me - but not a fetus that was me.

Worth some reflection (which only selves can do),

Phiwilli

Other Comments by phiwilli

48. Comment #153603 by corruptmemory on April 1, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Abortion/Infanticide:

I think that it might be helpful to think a bit differently on this subject. Try thinking of a human life as being a continuum, starting from conception through death. The fact that, today, life begins in the womb is a result of our biological heritage, more importantly, a heritage as placental mammals. As placental mammals we have a built in "strong" sense of value for our unborn, but someday (perhaps soon-ish) the entirety of a human life could be cultivated entirely without the womb. Are there still justifications for an "abortion", what would that mean? But at that point we would have "re-invented" the progenitor model similar to marsupials, or even birds/reptiles. All of those animals can exert a direct influence on the development of their young in ways that we cannot: they can abandon them if the "need" should arise. In those animals their "built-in" calculus regarding their young is, in some important way, different than ours. In the world I just described would we adjust? Is there any lesson we can gain from thinking about things in these terms? Some of you have used "viability" as the criteria for determining the stage at which abortion would be allowable, the world I describe is synonymous with viability from conception. Would it still be "allowable" to halt the progress of the development of the fetus by terminating it? How about putting the fetus into suspended animation, "pausing" it's development. so, say that a young girl gets pregnant unexpectedly. Would it be "ok" with any of you to put the "baby on hold" in some sort of bank where the "mother" will be required to "withdraw" the child before some date. Even if the child is still unwanted? Is is better to compel bringing into the world children unwanted by their progenitors? Clearly, the fetus cannot "express" wanting to come into the world, is simply does, that is biology. Is mere biology a "will" of its own?

Consider this: I spoke of, an apparent, "built-in" "ethical sense" regarding the value of our unborn, but developing children. Can you conceive of cases where this "built-in" sense (instinct anyone?) can be absolutely "wrong"?

Biology is cruel, and amoral. I would venture to say that it is likely that if you are honest in your thinking you could, regrettably, agree to the termination of a fetus under many of the circumstances I described above. Of course, this innate compulsion to "care generally" about our youth is strongly fueled by some nebulous sense of "innocence" about the developing child. Have they done anything to deserve the termination of their life? One would be hard pressed to come up with anything other than it came along at the "wrong time", or to the "wrong person", or under the "wrong circumstance" (e.g. rape).

In different social/cultural circumstances the calculation about the "practical value" vs. the "moral value" of the unborn child computes differently. I'm not arguing for moral relativism, I am arguing that a broad spectrum of ethical thinking be "crunched" in your thinking.

Again, this dilemma is surfaced, almost certainly, by our biological makeup as placental mammals. As Sam Harris likes to point out, is our intuitive ethical sense a victim of an illusion?

Other Comments by corruptmemory

49. Comment #153607 by Newk on April 1, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I really hope they rot in jail...
Religious or not that its simple child abuse and VERY VERY bad parrenting no matter how you twist and turn the situation ...

Other Comments by Newk

50. Comment #153610 by Dune010 on April 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm

What about a comparison with other animals?

Why is it okay to kill other animals (if indeed it is)? Usually the reasons cited are necessity and their lesser intelligence.

So, if it could be demonstrated that a baby of a certain age was no more intelligent than a pig, would it be acceptable to kill the baby?

I think this is a social issue. People have touched upon the issue of where we draw the line. For other animals, this is made relatively easy for us by the existence of different species. For the developing child there is no comparable cut-off point of which I am aware. Birth provides a convenient substitute. Some of you have commented on the idea of aborting a child one day before birth. If this is abhorrent, is it because we know that by that stage a child has surpassed pigs in some way?

I for one do not know how to judge these things. I do not know what would make a suitable criterion for judging whether a particular creature should be protected. However, I think the socially implications are relatively clear. If we extend the time in which the parent can kill the child until after birth, then the issue of where we ought to draw the line wields greater implications for society.

Other Comments by Dune010