You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘infanticide’ tag.

I love dumb people. Of course, that results in alot of love for thyself, considering how dumb I can be.

But I am not so dumb to think that the police and nurses are independant from the state. Any crime you commit against a person becomes just that much worse when they fall directly below the state – as upstanding citizens of society such as the cops. Yes, they sit above the average person in the state – they have superpowers of arrest, so why mess with them? Also, fines and jail terms are just too hefty now days, especially with all these new laws in W.A.

But that’s enough of that, let us discuss something complex and contentious.

So here I am, once again in Political Science, talking about abortion. It’s a complex and contentious issue.

We are looking at the argument of Michael Tooley. He says if we look at abortion, we must look at infanticide along side that. He also says, that in order to make rights claims, you must have interests and desires to make them. Thus, you only have a right to life if you have an interest and desire to continue to live. And you must also have a self concious ssense of existence and have a memory and future projection of desire to continue to exist. (But what about goldfish who allegedly only have a 3 second memory?)

Of course, lucky for Michael Tooley, he is Canadian. This is because his argument is void in W.A. where infanticide no longer exists as a crime. Post-natally depressed mothers who kill their baby are now charged with murder, which carries a far heftier sentence.

I’m not sure I like Tooley’s argument, he says if you have desires and interests, you have rights. But see, animals have desires and interests (to not be tortured, to be fed, etc) and yet, we don’t give them any rights! Persons have desires and interests, and persons can be more than just human beings, the can be animals too.

So here we now have Tooley’s conclusions, which are rather interesting, and are as copied down from my lecturer’s notes:

1. All abortions are justified (as long as done painlessly)
2. Infanticide is justified
3. OK to kill babies with severe deformities
4. Killing adults that are not persons can be justified
5. Some non human animals may be persons and hence have the right to life
6. Have to accept these conclusions if argue that abortion is ok because the foetus is not a person.

Ok, so this all makes sense, but it seems a little cruel, no? I guess though, he raises a mighty complex question: if you are willing to abort a baby, are you willing to accept that the rest of the above list is fair? If you abort a baby, will you be ok with me killing an adult who has no interests or desires?

I’m baffled. Absolutely baffled.

And I feel incredibly pretentious and deep and intelligent after this little ramble. Hopefully this lasts awhile.

I should depart, and attempt to make up my mind on where I stand on Tooley’s argument.

And also, try and decipher Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument at the same time.


I’m sitting here, in Criminal Law II, and we’re discussing the new Homicide Laws in this sleepy little death toll town (aka Perth, thank you Panda Band for that song). I must say, the repealing of Infanticide upset me, mainly because it’s a section I never got to charge my imaginary clients with.

See, we get “scenarios” that the law dept at uni make up and we have to decide what we charge the imaginary people in the scenarios with, which is a favourite past time of mine: charging these made up characters with various, heinous crimes – without caring what their defences may or may not be.

I also don’t like the idea that I can no longer charge my imaginary criminals with wilful murder – because that’s been merged into murder, which is no fun. I loved condemning the imaginary criminals (good band name by the way) in the scenarios to life imprisonment for wilful murder; it sounds just that much worse. Imaginary crime fighting is my thing, clearly. I should be an imaginary superhero. Can you imagine it? SuperGeorgia! Or something along those lines… As long as I was super buff and had some cool power to control nature like Poison ivy. And I’d need a cooler name, probably something based on whatever power I had. I’m one confused imaginary superhero.

Anyways, back to the law, no more infanticide means that the post-natal-ly depressed mother is now a murderer, who will get a much harsher sentence. Of course, killing your baby is sick, but let’s not make it worse! Let us try and rehabilitate the mother, who is probably super grieving.
There are many more issues we could discuss with these new homicide laws but they’re just not that interesting, or we haven’t discussed them in class yet, thus I haven’t really thought very deeply about them. When I do, I may share them with you.

Until then, I shall continue to fight imaginary crime as an imaginary superhero. Because that is my new life’s calling.

Over and out!
premature cat lady by day, imaginary superhero by night!

There’s Something About Georgia…

excuse me! welcome to my blog.
be in awe. i know you are.
my skin glows neon in the sun.
i enjoy bad pick up lines.

Suitable Responses to my Blogging:

WTG - What the Georgia?
WWGT - What was Georgia thinking?
I am in awe.