What If Arguments For Abortion Were Applied to Infants?
By , Published February 11th, 2012

You would get something that sounds like this…

7 Arguments for Infanticide

 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.

__________________________________________

Murray Vasser is a 25-year-old student who blogs at http://murrayvasser.blogspot.com.
Live Action on Facebook
  • Jthomann

    Maybe we should apply these arguments to college students who think they can equate a live, separate human to a fetus. If you can kill an infant, you can kill a 25 year old contributing nothing to society but flawed arguments based on irrational feelings.

    • Sheldon C.

      Is this your entire argument?

      Your parents must be so proud.

    • Murray Vasser

      Is a fetus not alive?  Is a fetus not separate (unique DNA)?  Is a fetus not human (Homo sapiens)?

      How much do you have to contribute to society before you have the right to live?

    • Alewey2

      The problem is that it has been proven scientifically that the fetus is alive. Even if some don’t believe at conception, it has a heart beat only after a few weeks. It is alive even by scientific standards. You are killing something that is living. It really is not different than this. The only difference is that you can physically see one without special equipment and the other you can’t.

    • Ninek

      We know scientifically and biologically that the fetus, small one, is alive at conception.  We know this because all of the development of the unique alive separate fetus proceeds on its own as soon as conception occurs.  There is no outside source of will that keeps the embryo developing.  It is the embryo’s own life from conception on.  Innately the DNA directs the embryo along the way of growth, a scientifically recognized indication of life. 

      You are trying to be witty, but there’s no denying life begins at conception.

    • I Care

      Ummm.  I think that is part of the point she is raising. When you justify the killing of some, it is easy to justify the killing of others.  When does it stop? The very old and the very young are the easiest targets. The physically and mentally ill are the next easiest targets. People who disagree with the powerful are not far behind.  You (or someone you love) will be on the list eventually.

    • Anonymous

      Scientifically, life exists where there is metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus metabolizes nutrients, grows, reacts to stimuli, and has cells that reproduce.

      Therefore, a fetus is  alive.

      • Hovish13

        I have a bone to pick with a few of your scientific requirements (although I completely agree with your thought)-

        After conception, the fertilized egg/embryo doesn’t grow until implantation. That is, it doesn’t gain mass or size BUT it does DEVELOP- meaning  that it, completely independent of the woman’s body, is changing and maturing. It begins to grow in mass, etc, after implantation, when it receives nutrients from the mother. Another point I must make about ‘growth’ has to do with a TV special I saw very recently about a little girl who was born with a growth deficiency- She stopped growing/developing after she reached the size or a normal 2 1/2 year old. She is no longer growing, but is she not a life? I do not think so.

        Just clarifying some thoughts around the life we’re trying to protect:)

        • Anonymous

           That little girl may not grow in terms of height, but does her hair
          grow? Do her fingernails grow? Does she heal after she has
          scraped herself? That’s still growth. Size is just one type of growth. Yes, that girl is a life. She is growing, just not in the way you’re thinking of.

          Similarly, an older person no longer grows in size (in fact, their vertebrae deteriorate, and they “shrink”), but they are still growing. They are still alive. They still have cells that reproduce, and so they grow skin, hair, nails, bone, muscle, etc.

          If someone were to stop growing, they would die in a matter of days. Cells grow and die at a more rapid pace than you think. A person’s skin needs to be replaced every day or so. That’s just another reason why people need to shower: to get the dead skin off. There has to be a way for skin to replace itself: New skin grows underneath, the top layer of epidermis peels off, and exposes the next layer of the epidermis, and a few layers below that, the top layer of dermis becomes the bottom layer of epidermis. Then a new layer of dermis grows at the bottom of the dermis. The cycle keeps repeating until you die. If skin didn’t grow, people with conditions like dandruff and excema would be bleeding all over the place.

          When you break a bone, the bone cells have to generate more cells, and knit the bone back together. If there weren’t growth, a broken bone would never heal.

          This girl you’re speaking of probably has a deficiency called hypopituitarism, and it’s not as uncommon as you think. People with this deficiency are treated either with injections of growth hormone, or with growth hormone replacement. In other words, to keep her alive, she is getting growth hormones, just from a different place that you or I get it. If she weren’t treated, she would develop a disorder known as “failure to thrive”, in which case she would die if she continued to go untreated.

          Hence, a person who is alive is always growing.

        • Stephanie Lucas

          But also. Most women don’t know they are pregnant until after the heartbeat begins. So when an abortion happens, it’s typically after the “fetus”, or baby as I prefer to call them, has already begun growing.

      • lol this is a joke

        So is that booger you just picked out of your nose.

      • guest

         So is an ebola virus.

        • Meagan

           an ebola virus isn’t genetically human sweety.

    • Musiciangirl591

      um…. a person’s a person no matter how small…. unborn, born, all alive and human  

    • ndgp82

      Good point ! Where does it stop then?

    • Mary

      And, who decides whether the 25 year old is worthy of living, not contributing to society?
      This REALLY IS what was discussed in some intellectual circles during the beginning of this century.  The goal was to improve mankind just as you improve a breed of horse or a pig – breeding, preventing reproduction of less desireable animals.   Yes, the Margaret Sanger group of like minded intellectuals.
      Applying breeding techniques to humans, which was openly discussed, including increasing reproduction of desirable traits, stop reproduction of undesirable traits, and ridding society of the sick, the elderly, those with permanent disabilities led to Germany in the 20′s and 30′s.
      Google Margaret Sanger, then follow the leads and learn.  She thought she was doing a good thing, just as the Democrats today think that the HHS mandate is a good thing.

  • Jay E.

    The only difference is that an infant is born. That’s it. 

    • Alewey2

      Both are still alive though. :)

  • Bpbasilphx

    The trouble is–these arguments for infanticide are being raised now.

    A woe-man in Congress from Kookyfornia has said that the child is NOT a person with human rights until the mother decides to take the child home.

    • Shelly200

      Hey, do you remember who this congress woman is/what exactly she said? If so, do you have any links to that info? I’m not surprised someone would end up saying this, but I’d like some specifics so I can use this in debate/conversation. Thanks! 

  • Guest
    • Amy S.

      <> I’m utterly speechless, that they have actually legislated that it’s okay to kill a newborn?!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001485371359 Grace Garner

    Spot-on.

  • Sweet Marmot

    I’m not sure we pro-lifers should openly write such things.  We know that we don’t believe it ourselves. But there are the Peter Singer types out there who will take these ideas seriously, run with them, and try to convince society of them.  Can’t happen you say?  Don’t count on it.  I once thought nobody would ever think of killing the elderly or disabled just to get rid of them and the inconvenience they bring to individuals and society. 

    Now in the year 2012, guess what, it’s happening, especially in the Netherlands.  Now they have mobile units that go to homes to kill people who are inconvenient.  How long before this comes here? 

    Peter Singer, a so-called “ethicist,” already is preaching that infanticide should be illegal.

    • Murray Vasser

      Thanks for expressing your concerns, but I think it is a little silly to think that we will prevent infanticide by hiding the suggestion from people.  We will do much more for the cause of life if we force people to confront the logical conclusions of their horrendous beliefs.

    • Alewey2

      If we hide everything then no one will ever become aware of situations. We can’t just hide it. It must be known.

  • Pingback: What If Arguments For Abortion Were Applied to Infants? | Foundation Life

  • Lovemydog8

    There are countries that are already killing BORN children, up to age 2. Canada charges women who KILL their babies AFTER birth with the “lesser” charge of INFANTICIDE. It’s happening and coming to a country near you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/banana.jackson Anna Jackson

    The worst part of this is that there are probably many pro-aborters who would actually secretly agree with every item on this list.  Some horrible day, this will probably be a reality.

    • bubbalouwee

      It can be incredibly discouraging and totally disheartening when souls are supporting the culture of death.  Check out the following website thewarningsecondcoming.com.  Click on the message on abortion and it will take you to a message given by Jesus Christ on 12/16/2010.  Spread the message.  If they will not listen to Jesus Christ, do you really think they will listen to us?  The message cuts right to the heart, and Jesus says the sin of abortion is greater than the sin of murder because the children are helpless.

      • Bonnie Foxx

        bubbalouwee,
        Jesus Christ did not publish a message on 2010. God speaks to us through his Word, the Bible. 

        • bubbalouwee

          God can do whatever He wants, including giving messages through chosen souls.  Have you ever heard of Our Lady of Guadalupe, she put an end to the Aztec Indians performing human sacrifices when she appeared to Juan Diego in 1531.  Have you ever heard of Our Lady of Lourdes, she appeared to St. Bernadette in 1858?  Or Our Lady of Fatima, she appeared to St. Francisco, St. Jacinta, and Lucia, three children in Fatima, Portugal in 1917?  Communism is now global.  Jesus is using chosen souls in our own time to prepare souls for His Second Coming.  Check out Our Lady of Garabandal.  The warning is drawing close.  Check out Our Lady of Medjugorje.

          • Charles

            Roman Catholic superstition is unhelpful here. Read your Bible. Try Hebrews 1:1-2 on for size. God cannot contradict Himself, therefore inspired “messages” post Christ’s coming are highly suspect. What’s Galatians 1:8-9 say? 

      • Anonymous

        What Bonnie said. I read the “message from Jesus” and it said abortion is “heinous and unforgivable.” Jesus would NEVER say abortion was “unforgivable.” It is heinous, no doubt whatsoever. It is a terrible evil. But not the only one. Jesus died for the sins of abortionists and the women they exploit. The site to which you posted the link deserves to be denounced. It is false prophecy. May God forgive the “prophetess.”

        • bubbalouwee

          If you read the entire message Jesus says the sin is forgivable.  He is emphasizing that abortion is a grevious sin but a person can and will be saved but they need to seek forgiveness.  Why is it that people find one thing in a message they do not like and they dismiss the whole thing as false?  Perhaps you put in your own interpretation. 

    • ElwinRansom

       Let’s not forget that President Obama voted (in Illinois state legislature) 4 times AGAINST a law to protect LIVE children who had survived abortions.  They were to be left to die. 

    • Mary

      I have an extended family member who does not believe that when babies are born they do not have souls.  The souls come some time later, but she said she didn’t know when they come!
      Very sad and very scary.

  • http://twitter.com/Conservotop Conservotop

    It is called Mater Familia just Like Romans did during Their time with Pater familia could kill up to 2 weeks after a Birth

  • Lovingthesun67

    When it comes to the point when people have to decide whether something I’m right or wrong based on scientific method, is when we need to check up on our values and what it is exactly that makes us and better than rats.

  • Ayla Stewart

    This is powerful.

  • virginia beam

    I had the exact thought as the previous commenters–that while we see this as exposing the foolishness of pro-abortion rhetoric, there are people who will actually agree with these arguments.

  • http://joyouslyredeemed.blogspot.com/ Sara H

    I’m fairly certain #4 is already practiced. 

  • Mark Q

    Right from the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Well done!

  • bubbalouwee

    Once you justify killing a human being, where does the killing stop?  We are in a massive battle between good and evil.  It should make everyone want to run to Jesus Christ, the side of life.  Those poor souls who support murder have sided with the Satan.  They are in need of prayer or are in danger of being eternally lost.  The primary reason souls go to Hell is because they believe it does not exist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Kimble/100001742531811 Doc Kimble

    Infanticide has been a practice of different cultures throughout human history. It was largely abandoned by the world after the Christian Revolution occurred. Now that Christianity is declining as the predominant moral code for humankind, becoming replaced by secular humanism, infanticide is making a comeback. President Barak Obama favored it for failed abortions, and Dr Kermit Gosnell practiced it routinely, but was arrested for practicing infanticide illegally, i.e. post parturition.

     I think each person should learn that choices have consequences. Many women and men who have participated in infanticide through abortion, despite the acceptance by our culture as being normal and a right, have said that their experience was a horrifying nightmare, leading to suicidal thoughts and reckless behavior patterns.

     The return to ancient practices of infanticide, by whatever methods, has been tried and found unhelpful, I think, in making the world a better place. If we look around, the world is in turmoil everywhere, and it seems as if the world is being run by sociopaths, unlike in recent past eras, when infanticide was largely abandoned, and wars were fought to defend the different homelands,and home with wives and children, against marauding madmen.

     It would suggest that the practice be abandoned, but many cling to the notion that these ancient patterns just need to have a wider application and acceptance to be successful. As has been mentioned here by others, Dr Peter Singer, an ethicist, has suggested in serious academic journals that we write laws allowing infanticide beyond just the common legally acceptable practice of abortion, citing the health of the mother as being the largest benefit.

     A more mature view would be that we should return to defense of all human life, from conception to death, even if it means we have to war against those that wish to do our families and nations harm, for whatever reason. After all, where is the logic in defending a homeland that condones the killing of children the soldiers are defending from harm?

  • Greg

    What about the babies rights and civil liberties? This article is a complete joke.

    • Meagan

       it’s funny you should ask that. the point of the article was to show a parallel. when the same arguments used to justify why abortion is “needed” are instead used to justify infanticide, it points out exactly how you can manipulate the facts in order to push an agenda. it’s considered horrible by sociological standards to kill a born baby, and rightfully so.. it is. the reason is because you are choosing to end a life of another human being. but in the case of a baby who is not born (by law) it is considered okay. the article is pointing out this inconsistency. it is pointing out the fact that our “rights and civil liberties” are ignoring the biological fact that the unborn baby does not magically become human at birth (or at the stage of development that is convenient and agreed upon by public opinion), but is a genetically unique person growing inside his or her mother’s body. obviously the article is not siriously trying to push that infantcide is okay, but is is certainly not a joke. not when human life is being “reasoned” away.

    • Murray Vasser

      Why should a baby have rights and civil liberties, Greg?

    • Kelsey

      Exactly. That’s the point. These arguments are all applied to abortion regularly, but what about the babies’ rights? By moving a few months forward in the timeline, the author was able to illustrate how ludicrous these arguments are. 

    • Musiciangirl591

      that’s the point she’s getting at…

  • Anonymous

    I was talking with a family member a couple of weeks ago.  She is well educated, well traveled, well read familiar with Christianity and has, in the past, been active in her Temple and successful at her career.
    She told me she does not believe that the fetus has a soul and she does not believe that newborn babies have souls.  I asked her when she thought the babies did get souls, she said she didn’t know. Yes, she thinks abortion is good, not just necessary, but good.
    .
    I was stunned silent. How do you communicate with someone who thinks like this?  Where do you start?

    • MoonChild02

      Since I only know the specifics that you mentioned, it seems like you may be coming at this from a religious point of view. Arguments should not really be from a religious point of view, but a secular scientific one, like when does life begin (conception), the scientific definition of life (metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction), when does the heart start beating (3 weeks), when are brain waves detectable (7 weeks), when do we finish developing (early to mid 20s), when do we finish growing (when we die), etc.

      Arguing with others from a religious point of view will many times end with them
      calling you names, throwing very vicious words around, telling you that
      you can’t “force” your morality on them, etc. Therefore, most arguments should be of a secular scientific nature.

      However, if the discussion is specific to souls and when do we receive a soul, which is a religious topic, you start with the Bible, or as the mention of her going to Temple makes it seem like she may be Jewish, the Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim (the last two are referred to by Hellenistic Jews as the Septuagint, from whence we get the Old Testament). You start with the fact that God created us. Why should we take an innocent life He created? Why would He create a human being without a soul? Adam had a soul from his creation. Eve had a soul from her creation. Then you go into evidence from Scripture that God created us and knew us before birth.

      Psalms 139:13-16, “You formed my inmost being; You knit me in my mother’s womb. I praise You, because I am wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works! My very self You know. My bones are not hidden from You, When I was being made in secret, fashioned in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw me unformed; in Your book all are written down; my days were shaped, before one came to be.”

      Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.”

      Isaiah 49:1, “Hear me, coastlands, listen, distant peoples. Before birth the LORD called me, from my mother’s womb He gave me my name.”

      Isaiah 49:5, “For now the LORD has spoken who formed me as His servant from the womb, That Jacob may be brought back to Him and Israel gathered to Him; I am honored in the sight of the LORD, and my God is now my strength!”

      Psalms 51:7, “Behold, I was born in guilt,
      in sin my mother conceived me.”
      (It doesn’t mean sex is sinful, it’s hyperbole that is common in ancient Jewish literature, meaning that the writer was never without sin, even from conception. How can one be sinful if one does not have a soul for those sins to stain?)

      You can also mention the fact that the Ammonites and Canaanites also did abortion sacrifices, which God denounces in the Bible as abominable practices.

      Amos 1:13, “Thus says the LORD: For three crimes of the Ammonites, and now four— I will not take it back— Because they ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, in order to extend their territory.”

      2 Kings 8:12, “and Hazael asked, ‘Why are you weeping, my lord?’ Elisha replied, ‘Because I know the evil that you will inflict upon the Israelites. You will burn their fortresses, you will slay their youth with the sword, you will dash their little children to pieces, you will rip open their pregnant women.’”

      Jeremiah 7:30-32, “The people of Judah have done what is evil in my eyes, says the LORD. They have defiled the house which bears my name by setting up in it their abominable idols. In the Valley of Ben-hinnom they have built the high place of Topheth to immolate in fire their sons and their daughters, such a thing as I never commanded or had in mind. Therefore, beware! days will come, says the LORD, when Topheth and the Valley of Ben-hinnom will no longer be called such, but rather the Valley of Slaughter. For lack of space, Topheth will be a burial place.”

      • Mary

        MoonChild02 – thank you for such a thoughtful response.
        You have been very help to me, very kind to put so much effort into a response.
        .
        Now, what do I do with people who reject anything from the Bible?
        I wonder that folks like this are so sad and empty inside.

  • Guest1

    We had a judge rule here in Alberta recently that an infanticide was in essence a just a later term abortion…and sentenced the young girl as such. Our culture of death is already justifying their actions as above…God have mercy!

  • Stephanie

    Hmm… so if a life begins when the mother decides to take the child home … why doesn’t the father have rights? It’s not in her body anymore so their only argument (her not “wanting” to carry the child) is out the window. And why don’t the people on the waiting lists to adopt newborns have rights to the baby? I mean, that’s what we do with abused or unwanted kids, we give them to a foster or adoptive family, or place them in a group home until another home can be found. Their selfish arguments are becoming more and more transparent.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jodi-Cathorall/1824925067 Jodi Cathorall

    THEY ARE APPLIED TO INFANTS!!!!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/AQC7KBJXPW2RTFFUPZVEIKXLNU Emily

    Very compelling argument.