Women have a right to infanticide

sick.

Another one ! [link to www.theglobeandmail.com]

Agreed. There is no difference between an abortion and infanticide....except a few weeks.

Oh how passionate we are to save the children but kill the baby.

I can't remember the last time my wife went to a fetus shower...? Abortion is murder.

This is quite true. Most western women who kill their kids get sent to a psych ward & let out 2 years later because they were somehow a 'victim' of an evil husband....
Most men get the chair or lethal injection.

The best way to achieve efficient population control is sterilization.

Either ALL human life is to be protected or NONE of it is. It can't be both ways.

So if I feel a person is an inconvenience or is some how a deterrent to my own well being, I should be allowed to just kill them regardless of the situation.

We have a generation of killers on our hands and many of them are in positions of power.

But a murderer is still just that no matter the twisted and contorted justifications.

"Enlightenment" my ass! This is atavistic instead.

Yes, one should eat anything one kills.

Instead of enlightmnment we have some serious devolution going on now.

Lower IQ's and basic animalistic tendencies now abound with street killings, higher homicide rates, etc. Calling it otherwise does not change the crude nature of such solutions.

Crude and stupid is the new cool. Heavy on the stupid part.

You obviously don't have children, do you, OP?

Attribute those facts to the 'garbage generation.' Generations of fatherless children.

Murray N. Rothbard, in his The Ethics of Liberty, wrote...

" The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.[2] Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.

It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will."

[link to mises.org]

No, but neither does the American government.

children are not disposable. you should have been, but that is not the answer, regardless.

It's the modern age. Everyone get sterilized at birth and if they are authorized to have children at a time the State deems appropriate then the proper scientific procedures will guarantee only the finest pedigree. Don't you agree?

Old people are disposable. Why not children ?

If this was common in the past how is it "progressive"?

It was done away with to progress or move forward.

Only if you believe that patriarchal medieval philosophy leads to progress. Most modern progressives have embraced the Greek philosophy of infanticide as being truly progressive because unaffected by Christianityé

OP is joking
this would be unacceptable, while we are at it, lets protect the unborn, shall we??

And thats not the only thing. Abortion is a very serious matter from a biblical point of view. WHO MURDERED CLARICE?...

[link to www.chick.com]

If they can't defend themselves, why should they deserve our protection ? Read Nietzsche.

Which is why I always fight labels like "progressive" or "conservative". They are far from accurate.

Seriously?! Nietzsche?!

LMAO!!!

A self-serving, childish maniac who couldn't control the fact that he didn't get everything he wanted all the time.

Why not just revert back to a child-like state while maintaining your ability to read and write, then you will be Freddy all over again.

The culture of death is alive and well.
All of the unrepentant murderers of babies will have their justice one day at the White Throne Judgment of God, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Repent!

That's not quite what was proposed, but it's horrid, just the same. In short, mothers who murder their children, up to one year after they're born, will get a bit of a pass. They'll not be tried for homicide if it's determined that they had post-partum depression when they killed their kids. They'll receive a sentence of TWO years in prison. You read that right; it's not a typo. You don't have to be the most pro-life person in the world to despise this monstrosity.

That's right...you are a evolutionist...survival of the fittest?
Well the Maya would sacrifice hundreds of people and cut out there hearts so they could have good crops...why don't we do that again?....BTW....you go first

This comment has merit. Infanticide isn't particular to our time and place, though. It was common in ancient times. It is practiced in Third World countries. China had a bad record of it due to its one-child law. There was a time in Rome when a parent could kill their child....at any age.

Why aren't more of "enlightened and progressive" feminists anti-abortion? I bet that most of them think that capital punishment is barbaric. Logic dictates that they also should be against killing young human life, guilty of no crime.

They have the free choice to do it, doesn't make it right. In the same way a person has the free choice to walk into a primary school and gun down little kids, doesn't make it right. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Rubbish. The "fetus" is a human being, not merely a part of the mother's body. The mother is free to remove her spleen or tonsils if she wishes to do so. It goes without saying that said organs will have no genes from the father to be found within them.

A right is much more than a choice. It is almost like a responsbility.