Infanticide

Question: What is the definition of infanticide according to the Central Statistics Office Ireland? I know what the word infanticide means but I am curious as the what is considered infanticide by the CSO in Ireland. Just to clarify, I don't care who creates the definition I just want to know what definition is used. What is classed as infanticide in their statistics.

Answer: The CSO come up with definitions, it's not their job to they just collect and analyse data. When they collect data on something like infanticide they accept whatever definition is laid out in the legislation.

Question: Is Infanticide the best answer to the problem of the mentally retarded? What do you think about Infanticide? Infanticide is the practice of terminating new-borns. It is used to protect communities and the child itself from the financial and emotional problems which arise from allowing the mentally challanged into society. In the Netherlands it is officially illegal but many doctors have carried out the practice so it has been decided that they will not be charged for it if they do it properly. (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/297) Personally I agree with the head doctors in the Netherlands who believe that infanticide is a natural extention of abortion - many defects are not identified in babies during ultrasounds and other screenings, and of course many women are unable to care for new children because of financial issues that might have only come up in the last minute (ie their partner left them moments before the birth). Infanticide will help keeps costs in society down and will promote equality for disadvantaged women. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/297

Answer: killing a living infant?? c'mon....

Question: Is reducing the incidence of child abuse and infanticide a legitimate argument for Safe Haven laws? What do you think of the general principle of offering people various options to prevent them from engaging in criminal behavior? An argument for legal abortions has been that if it were illegal more women would die from botched procedures. Again, the assumption is that it is legitimate to provide an alternative to ameliorate the harm that would otherwise happen when if people were breaking the law. Rather than saying that people just shouldn't have abortions, should abuse children, shouldn't commit infanticide. (I am Pro-Choice, by the way. But I've always thought the "More women would die from illegal abortions" argument was a really bad one.) Isn't the implication of arguments such as these that women simply cannot be trusted to obey the law and cannot be held accountable for their actions? (I mention women, though a custodial parent of either gender may use safe haven laws, because the vast majority of custodial parents of infant children are female.) The jaywalking analogy completely misses the point. The point is that if safe haven laws are based on the assumption that if we don't let people abandon their children then they're going to kill their kids. So instead of saying, "Don't kill your kids", we say that these poor helpless women can't be expected not to kill their kids so we have to offer them an alternative. Are you saying that laws against killing children are comparable to laws against jaywalking? Surely not! But it oddly sounds that way. Why bring up laws that "don't make sense"? Surely you don't think laws against infanticide and child abuse "don't make sense"? Max, I am not talking about battered women's shelters but rather of designated places where parents can abandon their children.

Answer: When a child, usually a baby, gets abandon in an alley, or a trash bin, invariably there are groans and moans about why didn’t the mother use the state’s Safe Haven law to drop the child with at a Hospital ER, Fire Station, or with a police officer? Usually the answer is a lack of knowledge, and/or education, about the Safe Haven programs, but is that really the case? With as much as it is taught about in schools, as well as shown in the news, on the Internet, and other Medias, one has to wonder how any young woman would not know about. No, I think it is more an issue of “This is my child, of my body, to do with as I see fit” attitude. Whether this has grown out of the “Me First” idea, or the right to abort the life of a child, regardless of the child’s stage of development, the fact is that this is the choice that young mother believe they have a right to make. She does not want the child, and does not want anyone else, including the child’s father, to take the child. Yes, there is the usual claim that the man likely ran out on her during the pregnancy, however the number of fathers suing to get children abandon through the Safe Haven program, shows otherwise. At least in those cases where they are actually told they have a child. The number of retroactive child support orders, taken out on men who never knew they have a child, shows just how women will hide the fact from them. The Safe Haven system is a good idea, however a valid effort needs to be made to find the father and allow him to take the child, if that is what he so desires. However, on the other side of the issue, should the men also be allowed the right to abandon their rights to an unwanted child? http://Single_Fathers_N_Safe_Haven_Laws.Dads-House.org

Question: How can anyone call a man like Obama moral when he has staunchly supported & voted for infanticide? This man has voted in favor of infanticide, that when babies are the target of abortion and by some miracle of God should survive and are born alive ? That these babies should be set aside to die. Only someone with a conscience seared shut would even support such a man. Thanks for your answers. God bless.

Answer: Morality is relative. My version of morality doesn't match yours identically, nor does anyone else's.

Question: Do you think Selective Infanticide has lead to diverse facial differentiation? There maybe larger reasons why we look so different yet similar to one and other, I've been thinking that alpha males in early human social groups may have practice in infanticide. This would be done when children that were born did not resemble. I believe there may have been much promiscuity with early humans.

Answer: No, infanticide is based on gender not facial features, and even if it was compared to the rest of the population (per capita wise) this is somewhat rare. Sexual preference & and environmental factors is what causes changes in physical appearance (phenotype) of humans. People like symmetrical faces, that has proven over and over again in research ...even computers have been able to indentify cross-cultural beauty and racial diversity beauty...it all is symmytry ..and in order for it to be true "good" research....the data....has to be reproduced in similar studies....becareful....are you actually reading "scientific research" or someone's bullsh*t research? Pre-historic humans practiced infanticide based on survival and sometime superstition, you can't accuratley predict facial features in infants...their features change rapidly in the first 2 years of life. Make sure you are clear and not talking about zygotes or embryos because there is a big difference.

Question: McCanns: in cases of infanticide do parents not still grieve for their dead child ? There have been many 'witneses' over the last week who have stressed to the press that Kate and Gerry have grieved and despaired in private ovver the loss of Madeline. Presumably these 'witnesses' have been persuaded by Mitchell to put this across to show the McCann 'innocence' regarding Madeleines disapearance. However in cases of infanticide do parents not still grieve for their dead child ? HelenS - yes you are right, thats why I'm asking the question Welshcake - you are right about me, but Clarence Mitchell aint lining up these 'witnesses' for nothing, there are many people who believe it was deliberate rather than, like me, just an accident. Snaffle - yes I know the legal description, but the moral description is 'parents killing their own child/ren'... Madeleine was 3 years old. Misty Blue - got to rush, my g/f is in the shower. Going out soon so you know need to worry about more ;-)

Answer: Yes they do grieve. A friend's ex-wife, became a single mum and had post-natal depression. At a low point she gave her two-year old daughter an overdose and then drowned her in the bath. Then she dressed her up in a pretty dress, laid her on the bed and went out into the street sobbing "help me, my baby's dead". She was tried and convicted and spent some time in Holloway and my friend wrote to her while she was in there. She was often upset and talked of her beautiful daughter. After her release she was still on medication and still seemed quite unbalanced. She phoned my friend on one particular night and she was hysterical. He was so concerned that she was going to harm herself that he phoned the police to warn them. They sent an officer round to her flat and he rang the bell. She stuck her head out of her first floor window and asked him what he wanted. He asked if she was OK and she said "yes". The officer left. The following day she threw herself under a train. I would say that was a combination of grief and guilt. This was approx 1980-1985, I've tried to find a link but can't, must be too old, sorry. As a pure coincidence, this was in Leicestershire. (where a two year old was murdered yesterday) http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132384&command=displayContent&sourceNode=232710&home=yes&more_nodeId1=132393&contentPK=18595382

Question: What are the laws regarding infanticide? Are there special laws regarding infanticide? I couldn't really find anything on google, and I'm doing a satirical essay on abortion (not that that really matters). Is it regarded as any other first degree (premeditative) homicide, or do different rules apply? Thanks!

Answer: Infanticide comes under the murder laws... However, since abortion isn't murder, I'm not quite sure where you're going with that... Now, if you were comparing abortion to self defense....

Question: Why is abortion allowed and not infanticide? What makes the newborn baby morally superior to the fetus? How is the newborn anymore of a person - a rational, autonomous agent with preferences - than is the fetus? Why allow abortion and not infanticide? I wasn't making any Catholic argument, Happy Hiram. The question is intended as a thought experiment. I just don't understand why "pro-choice" advocates don't take their positions to their logical extremes as does, for example, Peter Singer.

Answer: Because a fetus isn't a baby yet obviously. This question is stupid. You're just trying to find a new way to call abortion murder.

Question: Why did Moynahan feel partial birth abortion was the closest thing to infanticide yet Obama want it legal? Why did liberal Moynahan consider it infanticide and Obama consider it politically necessary? Oh my, the liberals appear to be shying away from this one.

Answer: Obama wanted it to remain legal strictly because he felt that it was the politically expedient position for him to take. At least with the extreme left of his party, which are the ones that vote in the primaries. To argue that there are instances where the mothers life is at risk and therefore it is sometimes necessary is ridiculous. The name of the procedure is quite telling as to the nature of the act. The child is delivered breach, and then held from being able to come completely out ot the womb. It is then killed by piercing the skull with a pair of scissors. If delivery of the child was going to kill the mother, then it would kill her to deliver it all but the head as well. The only life in danger here is that of the child. It is infanticide clear and simple. Murder in every reasonable definition of the word. Anyone who believes that murdering a perfectly viable child is ok is despicable at the very least. It amazes me that so many Americans would cast their vote, to make a man that believes something like this is acceptable; our next president. God help our nation; because the electorate didn't have the wisdom to help itself!

Question: Is Abortion just a prettier more Politically Correct Liberal Sugar coated word for INFANTICIDE? What a cute lil ol word Abortion is, too bad it means the same damn thing that Infanticide does.

Answer: And prochoice is a "prettier more politically correct liberal sugar coated word" for abortion or infanticide.

Question: How can we solve the problem of female infanticide? There have been numerous instances of female infanticide in India on account of poverty, social conditioning, etc. We need to change the mindset of the people and this can be done only by education. So vote for this online petition to prevent female infanticide here: http://www.myidea.co.in/voteonidea.php?i=749&smo=blgs

Answer: Your best strategy is to get people of like mind to place ads in papers and / or billboards / websites that highlight and document the problem. Then you list the top five Indian products . . . . and call for boycott. It is amazing how linking money to politics works . . . You can't FORCE India to crack down . . . but .. . . when Indian companies start losing profit THEY can put pressure on Indian politicians that you could never dream of. Dan in Miami

Question: Whats the difference between infanticide and abortion? Why is one illegal and the other not?

Answer: One is the stopping of life and the other is destruction of life. Either way, the baby dies. And remember, we were all zygotes at one point or another.

Question: Is infanticide something a good person would do? Now that I'm talking about how God is a stupid baby killer, is it really right to get mad at others for aborting their unwanted zygotes and calling THAT infanticide, while disregarding the fact that you do it because your infanticide committing "God" told you to?

Answer: Infanticide is godly!: Psalms 137:9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock. Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Question: Why does the imprisonment concerning infanticide exceed no more than 5 years according to Canadian law? Shouldn't cases such as these require life imprisonment, resulting in the accused receiving a charge of first or second-degree murder?

Answer: Because infants aren't fully developed people. At most they are just starting to develop personhood. Do you think someone who kills somebody's pet dog (without their consent) should be jailed for life?

Question: How would an abortion ban affect infanticide rates? I've read that we already have the highest rate of any developed nation.

Answer: I'm guessing it would increase it, but who knows. I think it would be more likely to increase child abandonments but not necessarily infanticide. Harriet

Question: What makes people think that infanticide is acceptable yet assisted suicide is a crime? Isn't that back asz wards? infanticide= abortion

Answer: Don't you love how liberals think that if you call it by a different name it somehow makes it ok to kill it? They call a baby a "zygote" and suddenly it's expendable. There are several circumstances where abortion will never be disallowed, and shouldn't be; rape, incest, and life threatening conditions to the mother.

Question: How did people deal with infanticide during the Renaissance?

Answer: Legal sanctions against infanticide were introduced in the fourth century as Christianity infused secular laws. The Roman emperor Constantine, a Christian convert, proclaimed the slaying of a child by the child's father to be a crime. Infanticide was punishable by the death penalty by the end of the fourth century. Around the same time, the Christian emperor Valentinian declared that it was illegal for parents to fail to provide for their offspring. Thus, by the Middle Ages, infanticide was no longer condoned by either church or state in Europe. However, as a result of hard times and a high illegitimacy rate, infanticide was the most common crime in Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century. During the Renaissance period, the criminal justice system took a strong position against infanticide. Widespread poverty and political unrest throughout Europe resulted in high infant mortality rates. Legislation in France demanded the death penalty for mothers convicted of this crime. In 1720 Prussia's King Friedrich Wilhem I decreed that women who killed their children should be sewn into sacks and drowned. Infanticide has existed as a separate statutory crime in England since 1922. Under English legislation (the Infanticide Act of 1938), a mother who kills her child within the first year of the child's life is assumed to be mentally ill. The highest crime she can be charged with is manslaughter. English juries are reluctant to sentence women to prison for this crime, while fathers can be charged with homicide.

Question: Does Barack Obama really believe in Infanticide? Does Barack Obama really believe in Infanticide? Or is it a rumor? I like Obama and really want to know if this is true.

Answer: No, that is just twisted. He believes in the right of every woman to handle her body in the way that she sees fit.

Question: How can Obama claim to be a Christian and yet vote in favor of infanticide? Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me Wow Holy cow, a source from a left wing smear site. Compelling.

Answer: Who cares his religious beliefs? It seems to me like he does not have a strong belief when it comes to religions. I myself find it very logical because I think it's ridiculous to believe in a religion %100. I also think it's better to no have strong religious beliefs because it may make people take wrong decisions. I am myself confused about religious, on my Myspace profile it says "Religion: Christian - other". Same thing writes on Mr Obama's profile.

Question: Under what circumstances might human infanticide be excused on religious grounds? Consider the tale of Abraham’s willingness to kill his son, Isaac.

Answer: That people would present Abraham as virtuous for being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac shows how morality has changed; Abraham's willingness to obey would be seen as highly immoral by today's standards. God instructs Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. But at the last moment he is stopped by an angel and told to sacrifice a goat instead. In rabbinic texts and in Jewish liturgy, the episode has the title Aqedah ("binding"), and is interpreted as a perfect self-sacrifice by Isaac that atones for the sins of his descendants. In Genesis, however, no reason is given for God's demand that Abraham should sacrifice his son. The emphasis lies on the terrible challenge that the death of his son poses to the continuation of the line of Israel. It also presents Abraham as a paragon of righteous obedience, for which he is rewarded with a divine blessing. In two respects the story serves as an explanatory myth. According to Hebrew law, the firstborn offspring of humans and animals had to be offered in sacrifice to God but, in the case of human beings, an animal victim could be substituted. The episode explains the origin of this practice and also the origin of the place-name Yahweh-yireh (traditionally rendered Jehovah Jireh). It is said to mean "Yahweh will provide", referring to the ram that was given by God. This follows a pattern that occurs frequently in the Bible, in which a particular place is authenticated as sacred through what is commonly referred to as a theophany, a manifestation of the deity. The Bible refers to eating children in several places. Examples are: Leviticus 26:29 - And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Deuteronomy 28:53 - And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. Jeremiah 19:9 - And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. 2 Kings 6:28-29 describes the desperation of people when there is famine and who can't do anything about it because they're under siege. But it might also be a way of demonising non-Israelites, in this case Samaritans. The reason for the cannibalism is given at verses 8 and 25 : "Then the king of Syria warred against Israel...And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver". It goes on after your quote (verse 30) "when the king (of the Israelites) heard the words of the woman, ... he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh." And the explanation at verse 33 is "Behold, this evil is of the LORD". ("***'s" refers to the 3-letter word that means "donkey". It got censored(!).)