Man kills newborn daughter because he couldn't afford to keep her

[Seives-Sliver]

WTF? Murder is murder

Sorry don't reply to this I'm on the wrong account at the wrong place. Sorry Sorry. This account isn't mine (the one above)

 

[Seives-Sliver]

...WTF?

 

[Circusfreak]

Holy crowley. SATANISM AWAY!


No seriously, what the hell is wrong with people x.x

how does this have anything to do with satanism?

 

[Thaius]

"Well at least she didn't have an abortion" i hear god say

I'm sorry, but no. For one, if you're suggesting religion is somehow "more okay" with murder than abortion, you need to get your facts checked before you go . Secondly, despite what you said in a later post, lack of abortion did not push this man to commit this terrible act. That's about as logical as blaming video games for the latest shooting. There are plenty of alternatives to dropping a friggin' cinder block on a baby's head. This choice was not made because the only other alternative, abortion, couldn't happen and because of that the only thing to do is kill the baby. Something is severely wrong this man, and this situation is entirely inapplicable to saying, "Well abortion would have made this all better!" I'm sorry, but it's a point entirely devoid of validity.

 

[Sunrider]

He's disgusting and she's a whore.

I don't really think there is anything left to add.

Thumbs up on that.

captcha: exceedingly well read <--- I always knew these weren't random!!

 

[Kraj]

SNIP

First of all, great post. This is an excellent example of how science can and SHOULD be used to solve ethics problems. We shouldn't base these things just on religion or our natural instinct, as these are often in accurate or restrictive.

Oh, and another reason to ban late-stage abortions is that they also present a serious health risk to mother.

However, one little detail:

Abortion before the brain is formed? No problem.
Abortion AFTER the brain has formed? Big problem.

I, as an atheist, don't believe in the soul. At all. I'm also not one of those people who think that "human life beings at conception". Life exists before and after conception (sperm cells are technically "alive" in a biological sense),but human life only, ONLY begins with the formation of the brain.

Not quite. Yes, after the nervous system and the brain have started forming there is nervous impulses but these do not represent human sentience. I would say that the limit for abortion should just past this point, right before meaningful brain signals.

Again, this is just a detail in an anotherwise great post.

hmm... my 2 cents: i thought that "presupposing you believe in a soul" a sentient being is one capable of higher level rationalization and reason, and most commonly a form of empathy and moral calender.
...
there are a lot of ADULTS who don't have one or multiples of these traits, much less an undeveloped or even very young infant brain.

OT:
the guy is screwed up, the girl is embarrassing, both are are paragons for the worst humanity has to offer... and the most shameful.

True, some adults have.... well, malformed brains that remove their ability to empathize with people. Some famous psychopaths (charles whitman for one) had brain tumours or brain maladies that pretty much eliminated their ability to properly think through moral situations. And yes, some adults don't really think things through or use their brain to their full potential.

However, it is still wrong to kill these people because it removes the possibility that the might one day use their brain or have a cure for such a malady/disease. In the case of destroying an embryo or an early stage foetus, my point is that the have no brain at all. Their brain doesn't exist, period. Therefore, there is no "person" to kill. With people who merely don't use their brains or have malformed brains, we need to err on the side of caution and assume that they might be capable of higher-order thinking.

It's also the reason I don't want people to kill those with learning deficiencies. Again, the science of sentience or cognizance is very messy. We know, fairly certainly, that consciousness and higher order thinking is a function of the brain, but we don't know exactly which systems in the brain are responsible for which mental functions - we have a general idea (we know fairly well what part of the brain is responsible for the ability to interpret language), but it's still not nailed down.

That's why I'm one of those "super cautious" types. An embryo has no brain at all, so it's fairly safe to say that it has no ability to think or feel. It's not a person because there is ZERO brain. But for late term foetuses, the criminally or pathologically violent or the mentally.... challenged, we know that the brain is still there. As long as the brain isn't completely destroyed (as in the patient cannot see, hear, move or think and only the brain stem remains), then we've got to err on the side of caution.

I'm just super, super cautious. Some would call me nit-picky. So that's my (current, susceptible to change in light of really good evidence) morality:

1) Does it have a brain or a mostly intact/formed brain? Then try to preserve it's life. Even if the person has brain damage, as long as most or hell, even half the brain is still there, it is good to err on the side of caution to keep the patient/subject/foetus alive (as long as it doesn't threaten the life of the mother in the case of a foetus. If it does threaten the life of the mother then.... well, sorry, but you've got to save the mother's life)
2) Does it have no brain or is 90% of its brain gone? Then it's probably not worth saving. I can't be sure.... but if the frontal lobe, the occipital lobe, and most of the other lobes are gone..... is there still a person left to save? If the brain isn't there, then it's fairly safe to say that there isn't really isn't a "human" or a "person" there. Human DNA is not the qualifier of a human life. HeLa cells have human DNA, but they're not a human life. Human cognition is the definition of human life.

As others have said.... I can't be sure that just because there is a brain that the person is thinking or fully aware or fully human. But I have to be cautious and assume there is. It's not perfect, but it's the best moral system I can come up with: Brain? Try to save if possible. No Brain or almost no brain? Don't even bother.

I wish I could be more exact... but I didn't go into neuroscience. Had the option, didn't take it. Sort of wish I had.

You went into the detail that I thought would result in a TL/DR!
I thank you for that, and I'm sorry if I implied that it's okay to kill people with less than "ideal" brain functioning, that was not my goal, and it would be pretentious for me to assume that I could comment on the absolute morality of such an action. I'm not commenting on a scientific view, just a philosophical one, "being a philosophy major"
Oh that last comment creates an interesting question; where do you draw the line between "brain, no brain, almost no brain?"

 

[Tilted_Logic]

I just can't comprehend what goes through some peoples' minds.... What gets me most about this story isn't even the fact he's a sick bastard, but that they already had a child. What the hell is that kids' life going to be like knowing his father murdered his baby sister?

 

[Fbuh]

We need a balanced justice system. An eye for an eye type of thing. He should get his head smashed in with a cinder block.

I am not entitled to say anything on abortion, because I do not want to get drawn into such an argument, and I am not a pregnant woman faced with such a decision.

Coming from a person who's fiance had a miscarriage a while back, I am entitled to say that people do not hold precious the things they have in life, and that there are many other people who have trouble conceiving that would have loved to take care of a healthy newborn baby.

Now excuse me while I go lose my faith in humanity again. Hopefully something will happen by the end of the day to restore it.

 

[Rottweiler]

There is no excuse for this couple's actions. I cannot condemn them enough, especially when they had so many options to save the baby.

 

[Espsychologist]

Just as a thought, what is the difference, besides that found in the law, between this and killing a baby by way of abortion? One wonders when the discrepancy will no longer matter.

 

[Jakub324]

Firstly, use a condom you fucking hillbillies, second, has he ever heard of adoption?

 

[Siberian Relic]

NO. Don't you even try to use the "potential" argument. Because you're not using it properly. If you truly cared about the "potential" argument, you wouldn't stop at abortion. No. You would take the stance of the Catholic church and admit that every sexual act has the "potential" to create a person, and thus all forms of birth control should be outlawed. But even the Catholic church isn't following through properly with this argument.
Why stop at sexual acts? All sperms and all unfertilized eggs have the potential to make people. If you want to follow through properly with the "potential" argument, you should argue that its should be illegal to allow menstruations, as it is a lost potential to make a person.

"All those women had to do was to have sex. Their bodies clearly had the potential to conceive. Why didn't they? they may have just missed out on creating the next Da Vinci or Einstein. They are denying the world potential people by wasting perfectly good eggs. And where are the men? they should be fertilizing these women!"

If you truly wanted to go through with the "potential argument" THAT is what you should be saying. An if you think it's absurd, then you may realize how we see your argument. Abortion is done wile the foetus is still just a bunch of cells, with no brain or nervous system available to classify it as a living being. Once the foetus has reached the stage of brain activist, then it would be murder to abort it, but no legal abortion is done after that stage.

EDIT: This argument is also useless, as we live in a world where we already have problems with overpopulation. If we were underpopulated, your argument would still not be valid, but the argument to make as many new people would.

Well, the problem I have, ultimately, with abortion isn't the process of the development of the fetus, but the fact the process isn't entirely or even largely dictated by direct parental influence. A woman doesn't dive in with her hands to mix and shape and assemble. She doesn't devote entire thought sessions to enabling growth in cardiac, nervous, or cranial areas. It's more involuntary than voluntary, so destroying a fetus before it can develop its nervous system or brain functions irks me because, when left to develop, it will have those systems and functions (obviously barring circumstances beyond human control). It's not like making a video game; if you start production, you have to follow through with the process because the game won't make itself.

Now, to your point: "every sexual act has the 'potential' to create a person" - I don't disagree with that at all. The problem I find is in justifying abortion in light of that. If we know that all sexual encounters could result in a child, and no contraceptive is 100% effective 100% of the time, why do we insist on assuming that small percentage of conception taking place will happen to someone else? If you can't support a child or you don't want a child, why plant the seeds? Is it really so much to ask that a couple willing to sleep together also be prepared for the potential for a child? Are we beyond expecting responsibility of ourselves? Are we above having to suffer the consequences of making mistakes, hasty decisions, or ill-informed decisions?

To cap this post, I readily concede my example for "potential" was a spectacularly flimsy one. I'll make a note to avoid that.

 

[Dana22]

You have no idea what that fetus might become one day. Want a cure for cancer? Well, the one who would've discovered it was aborted in the '80s, so too bad. How about the next Great American President? Whoops, that one bit the dust before it could "germinate", so no luck there.

Your appeal to probability is irrelevant in this discussion. Though, you should go to Africa. Most of it seems to follow your philosophy, since they have the highest fertility rate in the world. But also highest poverty rate and infant mortality.

But you, sitting in your comfy chair, sipping cold drinks and browsing internet have obvious moral high ground. You know better whats best for others, because how dare they abort fetuses that could be the next jesus or obama !

 

[JochemDude]

They could have put it up for adoption or just have an abortion. Just when you think you're faith in the good of mankind can't drop any lower...

 

[HellenicWarrior]

Far out, that's horrific. I'm studying Psychology and I think if i presented that to some of my lecturers they'd lose their composure and actually call someone evil. Even the method of execution...

Just brutal. One of the only times I wouldn't mind if the death penalty were used.

 

[darkonnis]

failings on every level.
Its almost like this was a "sudden" thing, like "oh by the way, im having your kid, now.". They've had 9 months (7-8 at the very least) to do something about it, at what point does this become a rational decision. Their friends, their family anybody who know and did nothing failed, for simply not informing them that abortion or adoption are all possible, legal and compared to all possible alternatives, morale.
I hope they both go down for murder, end of.

Off topic -
This is not the same as abortion, this is just plain bang out of order.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't adoption a thing?

I could've sworn it was...

god people can be stupid

It's a lot harder than it seems. Its no excuse, that's why people anonymously droop babies at hospitals, police stations or churches.

I'd rather go through the hard process of putting the child up for adoption than smash its head with a brick, but that's me.

 

[SsilverR]

THIS is why i'm pro abortion

 

[fundayz]

Ideally, we should have a machine that could scan a foetus's brain for signs of cognition, pain recognition, etc, but until then..... I just feel we've got to be really careful. Mabye a formed brain doesn't automatically mean the foetus is capable of self-awareness or feeling pain, but the presence of the formed brain, in my opinion, implies the possibility that the foetus could. In this case, should we err on the side of caution?

I'm still working this issue out in my head.

I agree completely. Until we develop the technology to detect meaningful brain function in live foetuses I think it's best to draw the line at crude brain function.

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

I wonder if he could have afforded a condom...