if we murdered them than we would be taking away the joy that our baby could possibly bring other parents. She also says that we do not want to see babies killed, that is why we invest our tax money in orphanages instead of baby incinerators. (In class notes, Oct. 18th) This is a highly inadequate response and still leaves her argument with many holes and problems. The first problem is the fact that those are not typical reasons why we do not commit infanticide. We see murdering innocent children as something that is intrinsically wrong and evil. She explains the problem more as one of impracticality. Why kill a baby when it could make someone else happy? It’s not the welfare of the infant that we’re considering when we’re considering why we don’t have the right to kill them; it’s the happiness of the possible parents. Another problem with her defense is what if you couldn’t find someone who wanted to take the child in as their own? Hypothetically, what if all the orphanages were full, what if there were no couples willing to take in the infant, what if our society wasn’t interested in funding such places that care for unwanted children? Would it then be ok to kill them? Warren would have to say yes. And still there are more problems. Warren’s defense only covers that of infants. She doesn’t have anything to say about other beings that don’t have number one and two of the characteristics. As stated before there are humans who are in a persistent vegetative state. They carry no characteristics of people. Is it our right to kill them? Can we use them in medical experiments and do what we please with their bodies? And what about animals? They hold only consciousness and nothing else. Can we torture animals? Do they not have a right to be treated with love and care? It seems contradictory to say this; after all we take them into our homes and even consider them as part ...
