fbpx
Daily Outrage 

KILLING INFANTS!

0 Comment

Are you outraged by the fact that British nanny Louise Woodward has been freed by Judge Zobel after a jury convicted her of murder in the death of eight-month-old; Matthew Eappen?

Since the DO is part of the progressive intellectual vanguard, we know that it doesn’t make much difference whether Woodward really killed that baby or not. As Steven Pinker and Michael Tooley have explained to us, killing babies is really no big deal.

This DO is NOT about abortion — one way or the other. (And please spare us your diatribes on abortion, regardless of your point of view.) Today’s DO is about killing babies who have very much been born. Babies like Matthew Eappen.

On Sunday, November 2, the New York Times, America’s newspaper of record, carried an article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Pinker argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. “To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other,” Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren’t real people because they don’t have “an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there’s the rub: Our immature neonates don’t possess these traits any more than mice do.”

According to Pinker, “Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates (infants) are not persons, and thus neonaticide (killing an infant) should not be classified as murder.”

Pinker favors a system where “A new mother will first coolly assess the infant and her [sic] situation” and then decide whether to keep the baby or kill it.

Pinker is not the only academic arguing for infanticide. Michael Tooley, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado, makes the SAME argument. Tooley has argued that there should be “some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted.” Other “philosophers” have argued that parents should be able to kill their children “up to the time the (baby) learns how to use certain expressions.”

Tooley believes that parents would like to kill infants “suffering from severe physical, emotional, or intellectual handicaps;” in other words, children that would be a burden to their parents or to society. However, Tooley does not indicate how you determine that a one-week-old suffers from “emotional or intellectual handicaps.”

Furthermore, he believes that if moral objections to infanticide were removed “the happiness of society could be significantly and justifiably increased.” Interesting argument. We imagine the same argument could be used to justify the killing of the mentally ill, the retarded, the severely handicapped, the clinically depressed, and street people. Do you find arguments in favor of infanticide outrageous? Think about this — if you’re an American taxpayer, you help subsidize such thinking. Both MIT and the University of Colorado, like most every other bastion of “higher education” in the United States, are subsidized with tax monies.

We’re hoping that Louise Woodward’s next position is as nanny to either Steven Pinker or Michael Tooley.

(Source: Washington Post)

    Share with a
    friend or family
  • Save this Post to Scrapbook

0 thoughts on “KILLING INFANTS!”

  1. I have a beautiful 1 year old daughter who I could never imagine harming and I feel that these pigs should be killed however they killed their babies. A baby is a prescious gift and if you cannot handle the responsibility then gibe it to someone else. I don’t want to hear these excuse’s that they are scared of their parents or didn’t know what to do. Wake up moron’s killing babies is a sick thing to do and there is no excuse for it. You get more of a punishment if you are caught with acid or pot than you do in killing insocent children. Instead of the war on drugs, why don’t law-enforcenment and the politicians focus on a real problem, like infantcide. That is where the war should be on.

    Time: 9/7/98 (15:45:56)

    It’s a shame Pinker & Toole’s mom’s did not believe in abortion.

    Time: 8/17/98 (15:22:3)

    It’s nearly entirely about potential. The unborne and newly born child both have ENORMOUS potential. Okay, so I agree, Steven B. Hawkins, should have been exterminated at birth because he is a physical FREAK! I want to see a mouse that has his potential…EVER! Having the gall to think that we ahve the right snuff out this potential, is the sick, pathetic, crime.

    Time: 8/11/98 (16:40:41)

    Perhaps Toolley and Pinker would not be with us today had their own theories been practiced by their dear loving mothers. We as loving parents would as < They > said have been spared and our society would have been more beautiful and happy. Without their murderous hearts.Do we dare try on such insanity ?

    I say, Hogwash to their ‘ It takes a village to kill the innocent so < they > can have a beautiful place to inhabit. To these to Quacks I say put on dark glasses not so you want have to see less beauty in these babies but so that you may hide your stupidity.. I am OUTRAGED that we as Americans could even stomach to go where these two have to abode which is in their own sick, sick little minds.. I feel they have very well defined Mental Illness , with themselves as their own subjects.. Let the un-suspecting beware!

    America will not except, Oh that baby is to ugly, ‘ Lets kill it so the world will be a better place.’ God give us a break form such, Please !!!!

    Time: 8/8/98 (0:49:54)

    I will say here and now that I am outraged at the murder of infants who do not live in a country with a socialist economy or attempting to implement one. Even then I think killing babies when you can actually see them is an abomination. These killings should be done from the air using bombs. Bombs are civilized, not like poison gas.

    Time: 7/20/98 (16:2:45)

    In the United States it is a Federal Offense to kill an eagle…… We shouldn’t even be discussing this!

    Time: 7/7/98 (0:21:55)

    After reading about Tooley and Pinker you have to realize these guys are total idiots. Ever wonder what their mothers are thinking now after reading their editorials???

    Time: 7/6/98 (21:20:37)

    ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE SOMEONE ELSE’S FATE FOR THEM?

    Time: 7/6/98 (11:5:49)

    Pinker the stinker and Tooley the goolie I would like to know where I can reach you because I have a little present for you

    Time: 7/5/98 (21:38:14)

    We are going to give people the choice to murder their own children, while telling the most intelligent and well developed members of our society that they cannot end there own suffering. One has to admire the intelligence required by these “college professors”.

    Time: 6/25/98 (9:37:7)

    I think it’s interesting that none of the opponents of Pinker and Tooley on this page have offered their own concept of personhood, attempted to argue against personhood as a criterion of moral judgment, or given any sort of demarcation line to be used in moral disputes. I would suggest to these people that outrage and appeals to moral intuition are no substitute for careful argument and analysis.

    Time: 6/13/98 (18:15:10)

    Pinker + Tooley = Here’s Your Sign.

    ‘Nuff Said!

    Time: 5/25/98 (11:54:32)

    In this age pregnancies can be prevented!

    This is not a matter od choice, it is a matter of responsilbity. Take responsibility for your actions! If you are going to “DO IT” and don’t want children, prevent them before they start. If you are too ignorate to know how there are plenty of places to get information.
    MURDER IS NOT THE ANSWER!

    Time: 5/25/98 (9:4:0)

    Absolutely disgusting!! Do these guys think they are Adolf Hitler or something ?

    Time: 3/29/98 (1:10:3)

    In Germany it started when the Jews were legally made non-persons.

    In the USA it started when Fetuses were legally made non-persons.

    Time: 3/25/98 (10:16:5)

    the Romans did it! Dad Roman had final say over the life of his child just after birth. There is a pattern here that most people miss:

    Present a totally outragous idea today and let it get shot down.

    Get people talking about the ethics of it for “academic ” purposes.

    Get as much publicity on it as possible untill people start becoming desensitized to the idea.

    Have ligislation passed allowing the practice in “justifiable” cercumstances.

    5) Extend the legislation to include total free choice.

    This was the pattern for abortion, removing children from their parents etc. etc….

    Time: 2/5/98 (19:49:36)

    I think a lot of the people who wrote comments don’t fully understand what Pinker and Tooley were saying. To those who wrote something along the lines of “My kid with Down’s syndrome” or “My kid whose legally blind” would be dead, that’s not true. These scientists do not advocate infanticide. They advocate giving the parents the choice. If the parents wanted to keep the child with Down’s syndrome, they get to do that. The state would not be involved in the decision making process, avoiding any type of Nazi-ism or Eugenics.

    I also disagree with the removal of their funding as a way of silencing them. If the majority of the population disagree with these thinkers, they will be silenced simply because no one wants to hear them. Then, their funding would be removed by the sponsoring university and/or other gov’t agency.

    Time: 2/5/98 (11:34:9)

    The talk from Tooley & Pinker about how babies aren’t really people shows how this despicable philosophy is edging to center stage. It was over a decade ago that Dr. James (?) Watson of Watson & Crick (the team that discovered how DNA works) proposed a 3 day period after birth during with the parents could decide to “abort” the child. People this scares me!!!! I know the DO has a glossy glib, hip, “nothing sticks to us” veneer. But this is truly serious. For God’s sake WAKE UP! Doesn’t anybody remember Adolph Hitler and the Nazis??? How about Stalin?? Even closer what about Pol Pot and Idi Amin?? Are we truly so stupid as to think that somehow this could never happen here? Let me ask a question, have you seriously considered emigrating from this country if infanticide becomes legal? I truly have. The scary thing is, if the USA slides into this sewer there really isn’t any place on this planet that will be truly safe. I’d make a wager with anyone stupid enough to think we Americans are immune from this sick self hatred; “Within 5 years, there will be serious discussions within the Legislative branch about legalizing infanticide”. The clock starts now: Feb 5, 1998, name your amount and name your odds. Any takers??

    Time: 2/5/98 (10:25:42)

    As if “partial birth”?? abortions were not enough murder of living Human Beings, these two geniuses would allow all Mothers a week to decide, whether or not a baby should live or die. Dr. Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death”, certainly could have used their assistance in his endeavors to decide who lives or who does not. I outraged my tax-dollars help support sickos such as these two great “Professors”

    Time: 2/3/98 (13:18:31)

    All i have to say is that mr Pinker and Tooley, are real sick, and hope that they don’t have any children of their own.

    Time: 1/1/98 (21:45:48)

    Infanticide should not be allowed, Woodward was found guilty of murder and should have been jailed. If not guilty she should appeal. Your laws have too many loopholes. Justice should be seento be done both equally and fairly.

    Time: 11/22/97 (7:18:56)

    In your article on infanticide, you stated:

    “We imagine the same argument could be used to justify the killing of the mentally ill, the retarded, the severely handicapped, the clinically depressed, and street people.”

    You apparenyly forgot to include philosophers. Please be more careful in the future.

    Thank you.  

    Time: 11/15/97 (23:40:12)

    Wow! A disgraced WWII philosophy becomes big news at a big American university! Will wonders never cease. Well, why not, this country voted for Ronald Reagen not once but twice and then, ( it must have been mass temporary amnesia) for George Bush once(thank God). This is the NAZI “T4” program revisited. You can read all about it at http://www.writething.com/cybrary/ wit.vic.med.html. I guess that according to this reasoning we can also use them for medical experiments before we kill them. Why not? We use chimpanzees in this manner and they can be trained to use complex sign language and can initiate original thought through sign language. Babies can’t do that. I am sure that Joseph Mengala would have been proud of these guys. All I can say is that I am glad that I took Frank Zappas advice when I was a kid when he said, ” Drop out of schoolbefore your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system. Forget about the Senior Prom and go to the library and EDUCATE YOURSELF if you’ve got any guts. Some of you like pep ralies and plastic robots who tell you what to read. Forget I mentioned it. …Rise for the flag salute.” To these two guys I will leave them with another Frank Zappa quote. At the time it was the closing message to tourists at The Hollywood Whiskey A-Go-Go, on December 1965, but it most definately applies here, “If your children ever find out how lame you really are , they’ll murder you in your sleep.”

    Time: 11/14/97 (7:56:43)

    What this all seems to boil down to is RESPONSIBILITY. If you make a “mistake” and get pregnant and decide you don’t want the baby – just kill it. In our society of victims, it seems that nobody wants to take any responsibility for their actions.

    As far as the Woodward case goes – I believe the spotlight should be taken off the 19 year old nanny who may or may not have killed Matthew. What about the parents?

    Here we have two professionals, who make significan incomes and live in an extrememly expensive part of the Boston Metro area (Newton, where they live, is full of Million dollar plus homes), yet on the salary of two doctors, they are only able to afford cheap indentured servitude to care for their daughter.

    Au Pairs come to the USA to work, taking care of children, for a very cheap salary, and room and board, all for the privilage of living in the U.S. So instead of hiring a professional nanny with experience and a proven track record, the Eappans took the chep road to save a few of their precious hundred dollar bills they dump into their material objects.

    The result is a dead Matthew. But, at least they didn’t have to change all those diapers, or visit all those burdensome playgrounds, or do something really aweful, like teaching their own son how to read and throw a ball. And thank goodness they have someone else to blame for the death of Matthew – they wouln’t want to take time out of their busy schedules to take the responsiblity of that. Maybe they’ll make a more wise decision next time.

    Speking from a VERY STRICT logical and economic point of view, infanticide can be a very effective way to contol the quality of life for those born, and those taking care of the born. But, as someone who has a son, I am repulsed by the thought of someone ending a life just for the sake of convenience.

    The person who can look into the eyes of ANY baby and decide that baby should die, could do the rest of us a favor by planting THEMSELVES 6 feet deep. It will be a wonderful day when more people stand up and start taking responsibility for their actions.

    Time: 11/15/97 (13:9:0)

    If neonaticide (commonly known as infanticide is justified because the infant lacks certain thought processes, why not extend that logic to anyone that cannot use a reasonable thought train considering humans and the sanctity of life?

    If someone considers any human being as less valuable than another, then obviously they must have little value themselves, so could be killed without penalty of law. As for the killing of any innocent making society a better place, look at the record of child and spousal abuse since Roe V. Wade.

    Time: 11/14/97 (6:37:14)

    After giving this matter more thought I must say that Tinkle and Fooley have not finished the job.

    Ok…they say it’s ok for us parents to kill our babies if we decide we don’t want them. That’s fine and dandy. What they haven’t told us is how.

    C’mon guys!! This is not something I do every day. Help me out here. What’s the best way?

    let’s see…suffocation would work. Not too messy either. Of course, the method use in chinese hospitals is efficient; just inject some betadine into the fontanel.

    I suppose the best method is to just put them in a garbage can and walk away. Such a waste though.

    I know!! Why waste perfectly good protein?…….

    Time: 11/14/97 (5:45:25)

    I agree with the two academics re neonaticide. Only I would extend the time limit to the first year after birth.

    I think I recall reading somewhere that in some cultures that a newborn is not recognized as a person until its first birthday.

    As some readers pointed out, most parents love their children, even if defective, and will make every effort to preserve their lives.

    But if the parents who created the infant don’t want it, what interest does society at large have? I would argue none at all.

    Time: 11/13/97 (16:37:5)

    I think what the judge did was correct and jusy . 98% of all comments from friends family etc agrees Judge has courage

    Time: 11/13/97 (11:2:4)

    Comment on abortion: I think it’s terrible that so many young teenagers are getting pregnant so frequently, but if it’s their choice to have unsafe sex, it’s their choice to have a high chance of becoming pregnant.

    It’s not the babies fault if you don’t want it, it’s your own fault because you made that choice. You took the chance of becoming pregnant, now let it have a chance to have a life. Just think of the great life you can be saving—————-
    Nadia

    Time: 11/13/97 (9:23:32)

    Can you send me a copy of the Nov 2 New York Times article re: neonaticiade? Thank you.

    Time: 11/13/97 (8:56:54)

    In response to Wednesday’s Outrage:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with Pinker and Tooley about whether babies are really sentient like older children or adults. However, I think that by considering a newborn to be a full human being (as far as murder goes), you do two things:

    1) You have a safety margin so that you can be assured that as the child gains sentience, it is protected by law. Otherwise, you have a potential for a grey area where it could be difficult to determine exactly when sentience occurs.

    2) You are certain not to undervalue the child’s life. Regardless of whether a child is sentient or not, most parents (hopefully) value the child’s life as much, or more than there own. If killing a child were no more serious than shooting a neighbor’s dog, then the importance of the crime is not proportional to the suffering of the parents. (Perhaps killing someone’s pet should be a more serious crime, but that is another subject entirely).

    This, of course, ignores the possibility of a soul. If Children have souls (as per Christian doctrine), then killing them is murder from the point of conception onward. I am agnostic, and have no children myself, so my viewpoint is somewhat removed from the issue.

    Rick Smathers

    Time: 11/13/97 (8:53:56)

    P. Garrison wrote: “We only have this one little globe – and it’s getting smaller all the time.”

    How come losers like this are never the ones to volunteer to check-out themselves? They always seem to want to kill someone else to make space for themselves. It does expose the lack of depth of their conviction.

    He also wrote: “But these philosophers should be supported… because… their statement alone provokes the debate.”

    Letterman could use this quote for his Top 10 list of “Stupidest Things Ever Said”.

    I pity your children Mr. Garrison.

    Time: 11/13/97 (7:53:47)

    Steven Pinker is right about one, and only one, thing: birth is an arbitrary milestone. Although not a person in our Western legal system (and I would not favor changing that), biologically, logically, and morally a human being is a human being from conception.

    This fact makes it impossible to discuss infanticide, euthanasia, and the killing of defectives and useless eaters in a context separate from abortion.

    The latter necessarily leads to the former and we see this unfolding before our eyes in our own time. Whether Pinker and the others acknowledge it (or even are aware of it) or not, human sacrifice is their religion, as it has been for countless millions over the centuries.

    In the final analysis, Biblical Christianity alone, and the Western moral and ethical system that grew out of it, is capable of arresting the satanic/pagan slide down the slippery slope of unimpeded evil.

    Those who won’t stand for something will fall for anything!

    Time: 11/13/97 (7:49:19)

    This was already well-stated by duane carothers, but I need to say it myself.

    If Pinker and Tooley had their way, they I would have been deprived of my precious little Daniel, merely because he has an extra chromosome, know as Down Syndrome. We cannot avoid the fact that this thinking, as well as other ‘geniuses’ such as Kevorkian, are just a logical extention of our society’s acceptance of abortion.

    This slippery slope only leads to genocide like Hitler promoted, and who know where from there!

    Time: 11/13/97 (7:10:5)

    As a prof. of medicine, I must agree with Pinker. From the 20th week a fetus has distinctly human brainwaves, including cycles of REM sleep (ie the fetus DREAMS). Birth IS an arbitrary milestone.

    As Dr. Natheson, who performed thousands of abortions and co-founded Natl. Abortion Rights League found out when he put an ultrasound machine to the task of abortion: a fetus and a neonate are different only as to location.

    It is an outrage that you shut your eyes to this fact.

    JR, former atheist, former homeless Cuban immigrant, former fetus…

    Time: 11/12/97 (22:19:57)

    while in agreement with your assessment of the psuedo/intells; why slam mice?

    Time: 11/12/97 (19:54:27)

    I am outraged that <Zephyrus (zephyr@letterbox.com)> considers a discontinuation of funding these two bozos with extorted funds to constitute a ‘silencing.’

    Am I ‘silenced’ because nobody is extorting money to pay me to indoctrinate college students?

    Time: 11/12/97 (19:28:39)

    It is very obvious to me that neither of these two idiots have children. I have three, one is legally blind and she is a true blessing in our lives. According to their arguments, she would probably have been killed and everyone would be better off. What an outrage!

    The only possible way I could endorse this thinking would be if it only applied to these to numbskulls– I can honesty say this world would be better off without both of them. Give me a couple of minutes with each of them and they wouldn’t be a proble or financial burden to the rest os society. These two (expletive deleted) are NOT entitled to the same air that I breath.

    Time: 11/12/97 (19:28:35)

    I wonder if Tinkle and Fooley watch the history channel?

    I suspect they must. Their ideas are well documented in a plethora of black and white footage.

    Even the trusty old bible discusses infanticide in several places.

    What a wellspring of original thought these (ex. deleted) must think they are!!

    I’ve had better inspiration sitting on the porcelain throne reading the editorial page of my local newspaper.

    Jeff

    Time: 11/12/97 (19:27:32)

    Regarding today’s Outrage: How do I email Pinker and Tooley and let them know how cold and wrongheaded they are? I’m so mad that I can’t think of what I would say right now, but I know I can later.

    Time: 11/12/97 (18:59:9)

    Oops. I was so anxious to send the message about Tinkle and Fooley I forgot to fill in my name and email address.

    Time: 11/12/97 (18:49:8)

    Just a couple of days ago the DO quoted George Washington saying, “I am a soldier, so that my son can be a farmer, so that his son can be a poet.”

    I would like to add to that quote if I may. George’s grandson was a poet so that his sons and daughters could make this a decent, free society so that we could establish academic institutions that could foster free thinking.

    Now we have “free thinkers” who are not even original; not to mention “free.” Do these…named Tinkle and Fooley really think they have come up with some original thought?

    Hell, even a high school graduate like myself has heard their drivel.

    Get original you boneheads!! You are way behind Hegel, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and a host of other human filth.

    Thanks for the warning DO. I’ll be sure not to send my kids to any college they teach at.

    Jeff

    Time: 11/12/97 (17:40:15)

    Not much outrage here over the judge’s decision. As in the Simpson trial, the jury erred by making a finding based on their emotions rather than the facts.

    I don’t care that Louise lied on the stand. Her lack of ethics apparently was intended to offset the fact that the mother also lied. If not at least in part guilty herself, why would a mother attempt to have her four year old son lie to improve the state’s case? I would hate to be the last one seen with someone who dies.

    This jury would convict me of premeditated murder!

    Time: 11/12/97 (17:8:45)

    Since, as taxpayers, we subsidize these folks who, at the public trough, are paid to think, might I suggest that we also include those who are on welfare, and AFDC for genocide? Buy cutting costs, we can afford many more thinkers to show us the way to the higher moral ground!

    Time: 11/12/97 (15:16:50)

    Well, this street leads to the avenue of creating an “ideal” society, a la Nazi Germany, which could also lead to the boulevard of eugenics in general. Balanced on the other side of the coin is human overpopulation and depletion of the environment. Big questions, no easy answers.

    But these philosophers should be supported, in my opinion, not because their views are either right or wrong, but for the simple fact that their statement alone provokes the debate.

    There are big, world-wide issues that we as one human family have to look at, beyond the posturing of individual nations or groups. We only have this one little globe – and it’s getting smaller all the time.

    Time: 11/12/97 (14:17:57)

    I do not agree with the reasons given by Mr Tooley or Mr Pinker; but would like to respond to the suggestion that they should be in any way, deprived of taxpayer funding.

    If there is disagreement, it should be met on their own ground – that of truth or falsity of ideas. By ‘silencing’ people with outrageous ideas, we limit their freedom of speech (it could be ourselves, when we have a good, but unconventional idea which rubs others the wrong way initially).

    Time: 11/12/97 (13:23:57)

    The jury was wrong in finding the au pair guilty of murder. If she did in fact kill the baby, the judge was correct.
    Those who think killing a baby is somehow less evil than killing an aduit share a perverted conscience.

    Time: 11/12/97 (13:14:14)

    Does this philosophy suggest that, in the interest of fairness, children (or their representatives) will be offered a window of opportunity in which to kill their parents without societal sanctions?

    Time: 11/12/97 (12:34:34)

    Check out Dave Bootes’s comment… “No sense into getting into why.” Why the hell not? <p> The Nazis killed the ‘undesirable’ elements of their society as well (i.e. mentally ill, gay, jewish, etc.). And the Nazis brought in all kinds of itellectually/mentally depraved so called biologists and other so called scientists to support their view point.

    <p> Either you respect human life or you don’t (like do leave out abortion for this discussion and lets focus on a person that has been born.). If we can contemplate that a baby’s life could be terminated because of some subjective formula than watch out.

    Our rights as Americans are very much intertwined with a belief that says all mankind, humans, people, etc. are born with inaliable rights.
    <p> So, if a baby can be said not to posses these rights than what about you and I?

    Time: 11/12/97 (12:2:20)

    This is a total non-issue and a diversion from the serious issues of the day; e.g., the proposed right to commit puppycide and kittycide without the assessment of a medical committee’s opinion as to the cuteness of the proposed victim.

    Along this same line of thought, I think taxpayers should be entitled to kill philosophers, because, at least in the case of Steven Pinker and Michael Tooley, they indeed suffer severe emotional and especially intellectual, handicaps.

    Could someone tell me what planet are these two from? And why are taxpayeres subsidizing them in any form or fashion?

    -Jeff Smith

    Conpare this story with the recent “Positive Press” story found at http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/ current/news01.htm. Parrots are able to grasp complex constructs that babies don’t get until the age of 5. There’s something counterintuitive here. Parrots are more worthy of “personhood” than babies? Whoops!

    Re DO of 11/12/97 – “Killing Infants”

    No sense in getting into why, but I agree with the BASIC concept put forth by Steven Pinker of MIT.

    Reply

  2. all i can say is just because other cultures perform acts of neonaticide it does not justify this partcular action in our society. although many try to reason by saying “but they [other cultures] do it” it is not a socially acceptable act in western society. also these mothers must be totally self-involved to think of a baby as a “thing” that is “in the way”. how disgusting. i’m the same age as many of the teenage girls who recently have committed these acts, and by no chance whatsoever would i ever harm a child or be so greedy as to take its life for my own good! If your old enough to have sex your old enough to handle the responsibility.

    Reply

  3. How about we also get the right to off the doctors, and psycho-logists who spout this garbage, until they grow up and stop practicing.

    Reply

  5. I can’t believe that ANYONE could EVER look at a sweet innocent little BABY and ACTUALLY KILL that baby. What have we come to? People once held life sacred. It is SO sad to see how people have ruined this beautiful world we live in. Wouldn’t it be so so wonderful to be able to live in peace together and never have to worry about EVIL, because that’s what that garbage is that those two morons are spewing. I can’t wait till God passes Judgement on this ruined world and takes the good away from the evil so we can finally live in peace.

    Reply

  6. And just when I thought it was safe to send the kids off to college, I read this! This has GOT to be the most absurd thing I gave EVER read! Infanticide should be legal for the “first week or so of life”??!! Tell me this is a joke! As the parent of not one but TWO handicapped children (one physicaly and one mentally) I DO NOT view them as a burden to me OR to society! They are NOT puppies that piddled on the damned carpet! They are HUMAN BEINGS! I would never CONSIDER murdering my children, no matter WHAT! These men need to have their private parts put into a vice in a burning barn, then given a hacksaw. Will they burn or will they cut it off? And Darwin thinks HIS seat is hot!? Wait til these guys face that day!

    Reply

  7. The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down:
    for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.

    Psalm 37:23-24

    The only way this nation will be redeemed from its sick, non-moral society is through prayer, and grace of the LORD Jesus Christ.

    Reply

  8. babys are born with depth perception and when placed on the edge of a visual cliff(psychological experiment)
    their heart rate increases and they get “nervous” according to research based on vital sign readings
    thusly if a baby gets nervous when near a virtual visual cliff then it must wish not to die

    Reply

  9. dONT YOU THINK THAT IF A BABY
    IS ABORTED THE DOCTOR SHOULD
    BY LAW HAVE TO WRITE A DEATH
    CERTIFICATE? IF NOT WHY ?
    DO THE DOCTORS SAY A BABY UNDER 9 MONTHS OLD ARE NOT HUMAN?I WILL TELL YOU WHY
    THEY WOULD RATHER TOSS THE FETUS INTO A BAG REFRIGERATE
    IT AND LATTER SELL IT FOR $$$$
    TO ELI LILLY FOR???????????

    Reply

  10. pinker and tooley are nuts.
    my son and i looked into each others eyes
    the moment he was born
    he smiled before he left the hospital
    we could not bear to have him circumcised for fear
    the pain would scar him and he would miss
    a bodily part later
    what a joy to have him in our lives since jan of 99
    he is two now and we are thankful everry day for having him
    killing a baby should be worse than killing a cop or politician
    infantcide is murder of someone who has survived birth
    and is a perrson no matter how small

    Reply

  12. I honestly am astounded! Just when I thought the “american” intellect could sink no lower I run across this… I have no couth words to describe this thinking except… stupidity!! Absoluty ludicrious! Who do these “professers” think they are? When they can create a human life from nothing, and I mean absolutly nothing, then I will agree that they have the right to end that life, fit or unfit for our “perfect” society! When will people like this draw the line? At the mentally handicapped who have been alive for 15 years but are not “productive” enough? Isn’t it bad enough that we are already killing off the older generations? Or do these “professors” want every human being to be the perfect blond haired, blue eyed specimen of man? Sounds a little like Hitler if you ask me! I can’t believe that we as a society have even come so far as to question the “life” of, and here is the key, AN ALREADY BORN PERSON! How completely disgusting!

    Reply

  13. Killing anyone at any age is wrong! At what age do these supposedly educated people think is the right age to keep children alive. Our society locks people up for killing kids. Now it’s ok to kill them? Killing is Killing no matter what age the person is.

    Reply

  14. I think that this has got to be one of the most DEPRAVED things I have ever heard!!!!! Abortion is the mother’s right no matter how some may feel about it.
    However, once a child is born, it is a human being and should be treated as such. Just because they cannot form basic thoughts does not give ANYONE the excuse to MURDER them. If that were the case, one could get away with murdering half of our population!!! If a mother does not want a child, she should protect herself from having them…PERIOD!!!!!!!

    Reply

  15. I am dumbfounded, lost for words, shocked. What kind of person could put forth the argument for the killing of innocent babies? THIS guy, and any like him, are the ones that are not really people. Come to New Zealand, mate, and espouse your perverted ideas there – you’ll soon get what’s coming to you – I’ll hit your so hard you be able to whistle out of your arse.

    Reply

  16. I mean – what sort of sick person could look into their own baby’s eyes and want to kill it? That’s what adoption is for – if you don’t want the kid 1) you shouldn’t have been having sex and 2) if it was unnavoidable (e.g. rape) then give it to someone who will care for it and bring it up in an environment where it could be cared for. How would this guy feel if (god forbid) he decides to have a kid, and someone said that it wasn’t a real person and deserved to die?
    NB, I use the word ‘it’ to describe human beings to avoid the cumbersome he/she..

    Reply

  18. if you read this you are a fat useless gay bitch and when you die you will go straight to hell with all the fagits. why the hell do you start a F@#?ing gay bithchathon website like this you F@#?ing dike bitch. GET A F@#?ING LIFE!!!

    Reply

  20. What the hell??? It sounds as if these “philosophers” would fit in very well in a high-powered government job…in the Third Reich. How Hitler-esque is it to determine whether or not a baby will be a burden. These people sound like they would get along great with say…… Himmler? Hess? Hiltr himself?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *