Thursday, January 12, 2012

7 Arguments for Infanticide (Satire)

1. Abortion costs money, and many poor people do not have the money to spare on abortion, especially in developing countries. Infanticide, on the other hand, is absolutely free. The procedure requires no doctor’s consultation, no medication, and no follow up visit. It requires no special equipment and can be performed with any number of common household items, such as a kitchen knife or even a shoestring.

2. Criminalizing infanticide is dangerous for women. In societies where infanticide is illegal, young women who do not want their child, but who have neglected to have an abortion, are forced to secretly dispose of their babies in back alleys or public restrooms. Giving birth alone, without any medical care, is extremely dangerous, especially in such unsanitary environments. When legal, however, infanticide is 100% safe. There are absolutely no health risks associated with the procedure.

3. Women have the right to choose. To rob a woman of her infanticide rights is to rob her of her reproductive freedom. Don’t like infanticide? Then don’t do it!

4. Infanticide prevents unwanted children. For example, some mothers do not know that their child is physically or mentally handicapped until after the child has been born. It is a great injustice that these mothers are now forced by the state to raise a child they do not want.

5. Infanticide is ultimately better for children. Unwanted children are much more likely to experience abuse or neglect; infanticide ensures that every child is a wanted child.

6. Infanticide benefits society. In developing countries, particularly those affected by the AIDS epidemic, orphanages are overcrowded and the streets are swarming with homeless children. Countless millions are expended every year to keep these children alive, when the money could be used much more effectively to build economies and create jobs. Infanticide, administered systematically on a large scale, would relieve societies of this burden, thus creating a better world for all.

7. Criminalizing infanticide violates the separation of church and state. Those who oppose infanticide rights do so because they believe it is evil to kill children, but this assertion cannot be proven empirically by the scientific method. Thus it is merely a personal opinion based on religious beliefs, and as such, it cannot form the basis of public policy in a secular democracy.

[Published here by LifeNews.]

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a sad article. I can't believe this was posted.

James Collett said...

It may be sad, but it's essentially the truth. These are mostly the same exact arguments used by those in favor of abortion--and yet this is more "sad" than abortion? Yet another example of how Americans euphemize the evil they tolerate in order to avoid taking responsibility. Thanks, Murray, for a thought-provoking, well-written post!

Anonymous said...

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong! Have you even read "A Modest Proposal"? We CAN'T just stop at infanticide, but need to utilize the meat to feed the living hungry!

I felt horrible just writing that.
But seriously, good points, especially number 7.

Dakota Boy said...

Mr. Vasser,
Could I please copy your article to my blog if I give you full credit?

Thank you

Murray Vasser said...

Sure, feel free to re-post this article. All I would ask is that you don't change the wording and include a link to this blog (www.murrayvasser.blogspot.com).

Harry said...

Is this suppose to be a joke? Or to show how ridiculous the "Pro-Abortion" argument is??

Rhology said...

Murray,

I love this.
Please consider it shared.

Dead-Again Agnostic said...

You, sir, are brilliant! Adding a blurb at the top for context (as Lifesite did) would help clarify your point for those who wander in without knowing where you're coming from. Otherwise, well said!

I'll be adding you to my list of blogs to follow.

Murray Vasser said...

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Of course, this article is satirical. I felt that introducing it as satire would rather spoil the effect, but I trust my readers are sharp enough to figure it out.

Julie said...

1. A lot of infanticides do occur because abortion is not available to low income women

2. As you yourself pointed out: "Giving birth alone, without any medical care, is extremely dangerous, especially in such unsanitary environments." If a woman cannot afford an abortion, it is unlikely that she can afford to go to a hospital to give birth and have the medical attention she needs and deserves throughout that process. So no, infanticide is not "100% safe" considering the birth took place at all in order to have the resulting infant in question. Childbirth is more dangerous than abortion, especially when unsupervised.

3. Women DO have the right to choose. Infanticide is not a reproductive choice, so this "argument" is invalid anyway. Reproductive choice means have the choice of whether, and when, to reproduce in the first place. If a woman has given birth, it's too late for her to make a reproductive choice regarding that pregnancy and resulting infant. Reproduction has already taken place.

4. True. It does prevent unwanted children. But, if ABORTION were legal and access to it was widespread, and not severely and needlessly limited as it is now, ABORTION would prevent a lot of cases of infanticide. The vast majority of abortions take place during the first trimester, very early in development. No matter what you, or anyone else wants to think or believe, MEDICALLY no fetus is viable during this time. And when it gets closer to the point of viability, a doctor examines and evaluates each individual woman and each individual pregnancy beforehand to determine if that particular fetus would be viable. It is simply NOT the same thing, even though that's what I assume you are trying to imply by posting this ignorant blog entry.

5. I think we can all agree that infanticide is not better for unwanted children. Again, you are simply comparing apples to oranges here. A twelve week fetus is NOT a full term infant. Not even close. You do not get to argue as though they are the same thing. The differences are huge and plentiful.

6. AGAIN (this post just gets more incoherent as it progresses), ABORTION access would relieve these problems and would not require full term infants to be murdered after birth. Another invalid argument.

7. "Criminalizing infanticide violates the separation of church and state. Those who oppose infanticide rights do so because they believe it is evil to kill children, this assertion cannot be proven empirically by the scientific method"...actually, it can. No medical professional or scientist is going to argue that taking a full term, breathing, independent person and killing them isn't doing just that. The arguments for and against abortion are about viability and individual personhood, and when that happens. An infant that is alive independently from the woman who carried it and no longer requires the use of HER body to survive is indisputably an independent life and person, therefore no one in their right mind would argue in favor of infanticide based on the arguments for abortion.

Someday I will be able to pass over these sorts of posts and not let them upset me, but today is not that day. I am sick of people who do not understand basic biology trying to tell others what to do with their own bodies, and the contents of them, as well as trying to define life itself and impose these beliefs on others. Yes, THAT DOES fall under the category of "separation of church and state". I'm fairly certain you won't allow this comment through or to stay up, given your obvious stance on the issue, but I think it deserves a thought out response since it smacks of a serious lack of understanding and information.

Half-Baked Nurse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rachel said...

I realize it has been a year since this was posted,but here is my response in case anyone is reading this. Julie- as one who has studied medicine, I can tell you that yes, a 12 week gestation "fetus" is the same as an infant. At 50 days gestation, the heart is beating. By 8 weeks, all internal organs have formed. Have you seen the film "The Silent Scream"? It is proof that the "fetus" can feel pain. How do you explain how in one operating room a surgeon is performing a life-saving surgery on the baby inside the mother's womb, while in the next they are aborting a baby of the same gestational age? How do you explain all of the abortionists who admit that they are killing children? All objective and subjective data points to the "fetus" being a living being. In the case of a woman's right, I heard it best when someone stated that when two right's collide, the greater one takes precedent. The woman had the choice whether or not to have sex. Pregnancy happens. Yes, she has a right to do what she wants with her body, but the baby has a right to exist, and in this case, as is the case with most of our laws, a life trumps a choice.