Infanticide and Abortion Double-Standard

Another sticky conundrum and ethical dilemna for you all to ponder...


In many countries, especially among poor indigeonous peoples, abortion is not a viable option, and infanticide is a regular practice: children are smothered or killed in various methods. The reasons are usually the same as with any mother who chooses aboriton: they simply cannot handle a child. This practice is usually banned publicly, but accepted privately by many societies in the world, especially in poor regions of Asia. Do these women not have the right to commit these acts? After all, her babies are dependant upon her, which gives her partial ownership of them, and if neccessary she can get rid of them. Is this practice any worse than abortion? The answer to me is no.

So let me ask you a rhetorical question to think about: do you have a problem with infanticide?

If yes, then is it for any/all of the below reasons?
-Killing a child after you can physically see it killed seems wrong.
-A child's cries/sound make me think of it as a human being.
-Babies are cute and cuddly.
-Babies are more self-aware and intelligent than a child in the womb.
-Once a baby is not attached to its mother, it is an individual.


You dont have to admit it, but if any of these reasons effect your judgement of infanticide, you may want to think again, because the differences between a late-term baby and a newborn are purely cosmetic and superficial. For all intents and purposes, an infant has the intelligence of a farm animal, and is not very self aware. What really makes a human being and human being is the ability to learn, adapt, and grow with the knowledge we gain over time, which we translate into our invidual personalities.

Because of our human emotions, most people would have a problem with infanticide because it seems like a clear and visible violation of human life. That is becuase we perceive images of death greater than the concept of death in words. Its all about image, really. Its OK to kill something that doesnt look human (or if we dont actually see it), but terrible to kill a newborn. Yet it is practiced around the world, for the same justifications as women who have access to readily-available abortion clinics.


The point I am trying to make here is that most people have a double standard based upon convenience and PERCEPTION. This boils down to two general rules. 1) If it is convenient to us, it is justifiable. 2) Our visual and physical perception of the world controls our ethics.

The same goes for many other aspects in people's lives, but I think Ive made enough people cringe without having to bring up where the chicken sandwich you are eating actually came from...

Deep..

Well you just blew a hole in everything i thought i ever believed in

No response from others? This one should be a kicker in here, its controversial enough and involes abortion, where are ya all?

Must be too much for everyone i think... Me too..

I suddenly no longer think abortion is a good idea,damn

Sadly, people will still come by in here and say fetus doesn't have feelings, and that early fetuses are not late-term ones nor babies.
and potential of giving birth to abnormal babies.

what has this world come to?..it's sad you know, how could anyone for 9months keep a child alive within them.. feeling it live and grow everyday for 9 months for almost a yr. to give brith.. an as it crys, reaching out the only way it naturly knows how and you shut it up, keep it from breathing any hope of life of love. the mother kills her baby...premeditated i should say...thats as cold as it gets for me...there should be no life worth taking and to choose your life over your own child's for no solid reason..just so you can get knocked up again in 6 weeks???...we are so easily detached from the soul's our selves..it sickens me..

of our selves****

Abortion isn't legal because its convenient, its legal because before a certain point it is a foetus not a baby.
Your argument is invalid.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a human from the very first cell division, life has begun and development continues for decades AFTER birth, so the birth itself is just one more step on the way.
However, I support a woman's right to decide.
Infanticide is a fact, and will continue until we bring those benighted nations into the modern world, so it's more a crime AGAINST them than BY them, IMHO.

Thats why the ethics of late term abortions are more arguable than early ones. This argument however collapses when it comes to early term abortions.

The problem with the killing babies as opposed to fetuses is more the fact that we're primates. It's built in to us to protect our young. It's an instinct that almost every one of us has. This is why people who think of fetuses as babies find abortion abhorrent and why most people find the practice of infanticide repugnant.

Things would be so much smoother for more people if abortion was available to everyone who needs it.

The human that a woman is pregnant with is her young.
Fetus is a term used to describe a level of physical maturity of a human being. Since when are human beings not primates? What you think of someone doesn't make them any less human. Nobody needs an abortion.

Hmmm... Your argument would present quite a problem for the pro-choice side if abortion was allowed all the way up to term. You're very right in your point that there is little difference between the fetus a day before birth and the baby a day after.

However, abortions are not legal that far along, and many pro-choices don't even agree with them that far along. Babies do not have self-awareness, but they are aware of the world. They are accutely aware of pain.

However, I am not entirely against late-term abortions at a doctor's advice, as painful as the idea is. So I suppose as painful as the idea of infanticide is, I'm not totally against that either, particularily among poverty-stricken countries. If the baby will only starve to death, what else is a mother to do after all? Suffocation hurts, but starvation will hurt longer. As depressing as it is, sometimes death is dealt as a kindness.

i have seen documentaries,where african people take there babies and young into the bush,leave them to die from hunger or more likely be killed,maybe it's just me,but i find that far worse than smothering a new born,it might just be,that i would be wondering what happened to my child,i couldn't bury my child,but i think both are very wrong,i also believe a baby is a baby from conception,we don't tell people oh at the moment we are carrying a featus but will be carrying a babby,after 20-22 week's,we alway's say i'm having a baby,i don't agree with abortion either,but it's not my place or right to tell some body else it's wrong,all 3 of the examples i have given,have been going on for centuries,and will continue to go on,although i find it very sad x

This really is just an argumentative post trying to guilt those who choose to say it's my choice into feeling bad. I've been over my stance on abortion many times, and still get called a murderer bc I like the fact that I was able to choose to have my children.

Personally, I feel that no one has the right to invade that area of my body without my permission, and although I have not, and would not partake in "conventional abortion" by all rights the choice to not have anymore children, and the taking of steps to prevent getting pregnant in the first place is my right, and in essence, isn't that kind of like aborting a child, literally every month of my life (and yes, this is a motto of mine).

I agree. I'm sure people have heard of mothers lifting cars off of their children in order to protect them. The instinct, in most people, is strong; which leads to abortion on the verge of being illegal.



I agree, if the doctor thinks the pregnancy is detrimental to the mother and thinks she should abort, then the women should.

If the mother-to-be decides 8 months in that she can't handle it, or "changes her mind" then that, I don't agree with.

Death can be considered a kindess, especially in third world countries, or in starving times. If my child was starving and I couldn't provide for him or her (me, living in a third world country dirt a** poor) then I would most definately consider putting it out of its misery. Why let the child die slowly? Why let him/her suffer when there is no need for it? It would be nearly impossible, but a must.

**My response to the first quote contradicts my response to the above quote(Yeah, I'm calling myself out, no need to feed me to the lions for it) But wanting a child out of harms' way plays into the instinct instilled in most humans to protect their young. The actions are completly and totally circumstantial. Death can be considered a safe-haven, if you will. Most regard death as being closer to God. Who is safer than one in God's hands?