I believe that in cases like these abortion would have been the better choice. I feel for a child that has been birth and then doesn't receive the treatment they need to survive. With the way the law is where you can bring a baby and drop them off with no questions asked there is no reason to have a baby and then procede to kill it.

In these cases abortion would be the better choice. I don't agree with it but to have a baby and then kill it by abonding them is homicide.

If indeed the only choices available are abortion or murder then the lesser of the two evils would have to be abortion because the baby is at least killed in controlled conditions and it is (hopefully) a quick death.

However, both 'rob the baby of its future existence' so that point is moot.

maybe because one is villified already and one is not.

both are vilified.

I think abortion in this situation would have been the best choice. I bet the hardline prolifers would feel this way, too, if only they had the balls to answer.

I posted this topic mainly because of the pro-life attitude of screaming to keep a fetus alive to term and then not giving a damn the second it's born.

I agree that both abortion and infanticide are villified, but think about it in this manner: if we got rid of abortion, infanticide would most likely become more common - would anyone disagree with this? As far as women who kill their babies, perhaps they live in places where abortion is illegal and had no means of transportation to a place where it is legal. I don't know what places have adopted the policy of mothers being able to leave their babies at fire stations if they don't want the babies. I'm sure some of these women have psychological disorders (antisocial tendancies, etc.). I wonder if pro-lifers realize how many more unwanted children will die at the hands of their mothers if abortion is ever outlawed for good worldwide.



when I said future existence, I meant it in terms of life after birth. Aborted fetuses never reach life after birth (but i'm not denying they are alive, so please don't go into a diatribe about that), whereas babies do. The point I was making is that babies get to 'live' in the more understood sense, whereas aborted fetuses do not (they don't get to breathe, see, etc.). I'm not trying to argue or disagree over this - i'm just trying to explain the purpose behind that statement.

of course it would... China is a great xample. Though abortion isn't illegal there - it is in fact used quite a bit to keep their population under control - unwanted babies are still born. These babies are then left to die because they are unwanted. The reason they are unwanted doesn't matter in this particular debate (it happens to be the fact that they re female) and everyone knows why anyway.

To give my opinion on the original question, infantacide is millions of times worse; this is based off of what many of you know as the "viability" theory: once born, that baby has as much of a right to life as you or i. Killing it now, is murder.



right; a fetus dosn't have many, if any, memories to pine over if it is aborted. There is no "loss", in that sense. The fetus hasn't really contribute anything to society either - except an ongoing debate, lol - and make some vomit from his mommy's stomach during morning sickness. I suppose if you want to get really silly, a fetus contribues to the booming busines of maternity clothing, though at the point when most fetuses are aborted, the mother doesn't really have muchneed for maternity clothing.