Maia defends Infanticide
May 28th, 2006 at 7:53 am by David FarrarMaia defends Infanticide, saying:
But if a woman feels like she has no other choice but to wrap her baby up in a rubbish bag, I’m still on her side and will not judge her. I think the mother is more important than a new-born baby.
I’m staggered by such a view. Because this is not talking about the life of the mother (she has sucessfully given birth) vs the life of the child. Maia is saying it is more important that a mother can decide not to be a mother, than the life of the child.
I wonder whether she even has time limits for up until what age one can kill your baby? One week, one month, one year?
At the end of the day it all seems to be part of a world-view where no woman can ever be judged to do anything wrong, because she is oppressed. Every allegation of rape must be taken as correct, every bad thing done by a woman is not the fault of the woman, but of society. Obviously a world-view which is not my own.
If people comment on this issue, I would ask them to be restrained with their language.
Tags: New Zealand
May 28th, 2006 at 8:12 am
I thought that infanticide was murder. If the mother doesn’t want the kid then she can still put it up for adoption, there are plenty of people who do want one and can’t.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:28 am
David why should we be restrained with our language you are after all talking about someone that would murder a helpless ianfant.
Prehaps Maia should be gratful that she wasn’t wrapped in a rubbish bag at birth. There would atleast be one less wacko in the world.
I think Maia needs to seek professional help !!!
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:33 am
What a disgusting comment from Maia. Let’s try Maia’s logic with a little twist
But if a man feels like he has no other choice but to wrap his baby up in a rubbish bag, I’m still on his side and will not judge him. I think the father is more important than a new-born baby.
Anyone who would have uttered such a comment in sincerity would rightfully be lynched, probably by a mob lead by Maia.
It’s one thing for Maia to defend a woman’s right to abortion, but that surely doesn’t include the “fourth trimester” – even in her topsy turvy universe. I’m eith Gaz – whatever happened to advocating for adoption or foster homes?
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Attack the views, not the person is what I am saying. And to be fair to Maia she has said she would do such herself.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:36 am
For Romans it was what 12-14 something like that.
A bit more forceful than a “time out”.
Does she wants us to stage death games at the cake tin as well?
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:53 am
“I thought that infanticide was murder.”
Legally – no. Infanticide as a crime (and I realise that this particular definition wasn’t where everyone was going) carries a maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment (significantly less that murder or manslaughter):
“S 178 Crimes Act
Vote:(1) Where a woman causes the death of any child of hers under the age of 10 years in a manner that amounts to culpable homicide, and where at the time of the offence the balance of her mind was disturbed, by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that or any other child, or by reason of the effect of lactation, or by reason of any disorder consequent upon childbirth or lactation, to such an extent that she should not be held fully responsible, she is guilty of infanticide, and not of murder or manslaughter, and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.
…”
May 28th, 2006 at 9:02 am
The sad thing is that wrapping her baby in a rubbish bag does nothing to protect the mother anyway. In the long term, feelings of guilt, remorse and shame are going to do more harm than any of the feelings (no matter how intense) that motivated the infanticide itself.
More blunty, they’ll regret it when the hormones get back into whack and should be dissuaded from killing their baby for their own good.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 9:31 am
What is next? A polite debate with Dr. Mengele and tea and sandwiches after?
Maia is just an extension of the consensus that it is permisable to terminate the unborn.
The consensus disgusts me.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Such a view is very childish. It really means that a woman is never held to being responsible, and can forever pretent that nothing she does has any consequences for others – even if it means their death.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 10:18 am
To be fair, most of her commentary was about pre-industrial revolution society. The view that infanticide is a defensible form of contraception in 21st century Western society is bizarre, and one I have never encountered in any feminist circles.
The elephant in the living room is the name of the blog ‘Capitalism bad…’ ~ hello~ it has been capitalism which has given women the support and choices they have today.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 10:32 am
She’s not exactly running around saying “Infanticide is good”: To me it seems more akin to imagining those situaitons (may they always be hypothetical for us all) of just when and how do you decide to value one life over another. For example, you’re a parent, and the house is on fire, you have two children but can only save one, which one do you save?
Vote:I think DPF’s post reads as though Maia is advocating infanticide, which is unfair spin.
May 28th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Now Ruth, I don’t recall capitalism “giving” women anything they have today, other than jobs. Or perhaps I missed those leading capitalists of the day at the forefront of the movements for universal adult suffrage and equal pay? Perhaps we should thank capitalism for “giving” us the 40-hour week over the protests of those union scoundrels, while we’re at it…
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I could understand infanticide only in a very primitive society with very limited resources and no access to contraception. Perhaps if they were starving eskimos. Otherwise it seems abhorrent. We have so many options before a plastic bag, that it’s a pretty disgusting idea.
A mate of mine in Fiji who is trying hard to have a baby tells me that a month ago 2 babies were found abandoned on the same day – one in a rubbish bin, the other at the bottom of a well. Both were saved.
Wouldn’t it have been better to put them on someone’s doorstep? You’re making it ‘someone else’s problem’ by forcing them to deal with finding a dead infant in the trash, why not make it a live infant, and then it’s got the chance of a life? There are so many people who want children and can’t have them these days that infanticide is just wrong.
I suppose the people concerned were worried the baby would be traced back to them and they’d be forced to care for it. This is part of the reason a moral state should take care of homeless children, to prevent this kind of debacle.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
For Maia humanity is only adult women or is that womyn.
The rest of us are lesser beings with lesser rights.
Maia is pathologically incapable of seeing things from anyone else’s point of view.
It’s a mental illness
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Ben,
I could understand infanticide only in a very primitive society with very limited resources and no access to contraception.
I recall reading somewhere many years ago that if you look at human demographics throughout history, the only logical conclusion was that the killing of newborn female infants must have been relatively commonplace. The birth-rate in pre-contraceptive societies is exactly and only dependent on the number of females of reproductive age, therefore limiting the number of female children was the most effective tool for matching population to resources for many societies.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Of course we must not loose sight of the fact that this is an incredibably tragic case.
I almost agree with Maia over the matter of charging the mother with Manslaughter. Nothing much to gain by this I would have thought.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Mikey Bill – I reject that absolutely. You are the one outraegously distorting what Maia has said trying to compare it to a who do I save in a fire situation.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:40 am
A moral State would not be providing incentives to the least capable and unfit people to breed children they can’t and won’t care for….by robbing other people of their property in the first place.
The consequences of the Welfare State are well and truly home to roost and the bleeding hearts are screaming “how…why?”
Of course its not certain that a woman killing her child is due to the effects of welfarism in every case but it sure raises the chances of this sort of tragic situation repeating..
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Whats the difference between a baby outside and inside a womb, they are both of equal value
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Whats the difference between a baby outside and inside a womb, they are both of equal value
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
“I wonder whether she even has time limits for up until what age one can kill your baby? One week, one month, one year?”
DPF, isn’t this an anti-abortion arguement as well?
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I’m staggered by that view. I beileve that men and women are equal. We can be equally bad in good.
As I said over at her thread:
“There’s still this disbeilief that women can be capable of harming children, ergo she must have a disorder. Whereas with men, he’s automatically a cold blooded killer even though he may have pyshcatric problems himself.
It seems that gender roles are still engrained in all of us.”
I can’t beileve how anyone can advocate equal rights for women, yet call for a time out when we fuck up because ‘our bodies made us do it.’
Wasn’t one of the arguements against letting women have the vote, gain employment be educated etc. was because we were ruled more by our horomones than our heads?
So which one is it? Can I commit murder and blame it on my hormones or am I rational human?
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Somthing being understandable doesn’t mean it is justified – I can “understand” someone not wanting to take care of an infant and putting it in a rubbish bin (or for that matter raping a woman) – but I can’t tolerate it.
Also Infanticide is not just bad in the harm it does to the baby (although that is bad ehough), it also (like animal abuse) devalues the person who does it and declares them to be likely to be a risk in the future.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Psycho Milt said “Now Ruth, I don’t recall capitalism “giving” women anything they have today, other than jobs”
Right…Capitalism is the only social system that does not politically enshrine sexism, leading to true equality of the sexes
Under capitalism females have the same and equal political rights as males. Under capitalism a woman can easily support herself, whereas in non-capitalist societies she was often looked upon as less than a male. – from capitalism.org
So yes, capitalism has done a hell of a lot for women’s rights – and 99% of feminists are intelligent enought to realise it.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Is there any event that can’t be filtered through your religion and re-emerge as demented bullshit, james?
Here’s a thought – try actually going over there and reading the fucking post. You’ll note that it actually mentions that infanticide has been around a long time, and that it was much more common in pre-industrial times, one obvious feature of which was the lack of a welfare system.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Psycho Milt, There was a welfare system pre- industrial times. For instance, in Britain there was the Elizabethan Poor Law which required parishes to provide pensions to various people, including the aged and deserted women.
I made this comment on Maia’s blog but she has ignored it.
Maia: “But if a woman feels like she has no other choice but to wrap her baby up in a rubbish bag, I’m still on her side and will not judge her”.
“Feeling” something does not make it fact. She had choices. At the birth and at the conception and for a period in between. Adopting your logic, anybody who “feels” they had no choice, in any given situation, is beyond culpability.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I love her comment, “I see why women in different times and places used infanticide as a form of birth-control. I don’t think it was because they were morally deficient, or because they cared about children any less.”
Let’s replace the words women, infanticide, birth-control & chilren with slavemasters, slavery, employment & slaves.
I doubt Maia ilk would find that non-murderous concept so palatable. Anyone who feels they have no choice but to wrap their baby in a rubbish bag is either a fool or simply justifing their murderous selfishness. That lack of choice does not exist today.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Agree with you on welfare Milt. Capitalism has helped women in this way, without a doubt.
Removing the stigma of solo parenthood (and dependence on men)has been a huge step forward.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
I love her comment, “I see why women in different times and places used infanticide as a form of birth-control. I don’t think it was because they were morally deficient, or because they cared about children any less.”
Let’s replace the words women, infanticide, birth-control & chilren with slavemasters, slavery, employment & slaves.
I doubt Maia’s ilk would find that non-murderous concept so palatable. Anyone who feels they have no choice but to wrap their baby in a rubbish bag is either a fool or simply justifing their murderous selfishness. That lack of choice does not exist today.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Lindsay, welfare and charity are not the same thing. By your standard Ethiopia is a hotbed of welfare because of the Red Cross. Damned socialists, they deserve to starve.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Ifanticide Murder Abortion -all disgusting all one of the same evil- the commandment which is intrangent of our society of thou shalt not kill is totally ignored -and patheticly justified
Maia comment is not at all surprising her sick attitude is very common we see this – when ever the newspaper is opened these days there is plenty of evidence we humans have none to little respect for others right to life – when the SAC act was reformed and made abortion legal in certain circumstances in 1977- it was commented then by our wise predicesors that crime violence etc would get to a epidemic situation as more and more in our community like Maia developed a total lack of respect for life -how right they were.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
James Ruth, you say
“A moral State would not be providing incentives to the least capable and unfit people to breed children they can’t and won’t care for”
Is that an official Capitalism(tm) position? Every cult needs it’s enemy, good thinking. Solo mums, easy target.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Ben and Milt, I have blogged a response to both of your comments at http://www.lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Ruth said
Removing the stigma of solo parenthood (and dependence on men)has been a huge step forward
Yes indeed my dear gender warrior, you have removed the dependence on men and replaced it with dependence on the STATE!
And where do you suppose the benevolent mummy state get the funds from.
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
OK… here’s a different, more personal perspective for you. My own.
On the birth of my son I didn’t exactly fall in love with him. I had a substantial haemorrhage (just under 2 litres), was physically and emotionally exhausted, and thinking what the hell am I now going to do with this baby. While I didn’t have any thoughts of hurting my child, I was not overwhelmed with love or excitement. I went home, the ‘hormones’ kicked in, my whole world began to fall apart. It took me months before I faced the fact that my emotions were out of control, that it wasn’t normal to worry that my child was going to die, that it wasn’t normal to feel so incompetent as a mother (despite everyone telling me the contrary), you get the picture.
See, that all happened to me… and I’m a highly educated, well-supported, sometimes even smart human being, plus it was a planned pregnancy. Post-natal depression is hard, psychosis is even more difficult (and may be that is what we’re dealing with in this situation). In my case I avoided the drugs, but in many cases drugs are helpful to get the woman back on track.
Now, I am not condoning the CHOICE that this woman made. Only to say there is a human side to this situation… one day it might be interesting to know what the story is, the regrets (or otherwise) she has, etc. And, I think there have been cases where a man has been in a situation (while not identical) that warrants a similar human view (like the Nelson case of the father who killed his child).
Vote:May 28th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Megs – I have heard some details of this case, and it is a tragedy for all involved. One can feel sympathy for someone driven to this, but also still acknowledge what they did was very very wrong.
At the end of a day a poor infant died what was probably a painful death. You don’t let that happen and not face consequences.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Graeme – thanks for the law clarification, and isn’t that disturbing! Especially the 10 YEARS bit – I understand about hormonal imbalances / post-natal depression etc, but I would think that having the defence for 10 years is a bit extreme. Especially when you have a temporary insanity defence under normal murder / manslaughter anyway?
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 10:10 am
I wonder if Maia would defend the historically common practice in Asia of abandoning girl children because male offspring hold more value in society as support for aging parents? Since children are effectively the pension of the parents in such societies it’s not unreasonable that a family with no male children might feel they have no choice in order to guarantee their survival into old age.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
There has been a gradual change toward opposing violence against infant humans on both left and right sides of politics. The recent debate on the RU486 pill across the Tasman is evidence of this. I think only an Australian greens senator was the only one who spoke in favour of abortion with her T-shirt ‘get your rosaries off my ovaries’. Labor MPs took a solid stance against abortion, front bencher Julia Gillard summing it up with “I have never met anybody who is pro-abortion and I am not”.(1)
I think it is grievous that New Zealand’s legislation has a different penalty for infanticide than other forms of homicide. The offence of manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge in many of these cases and we should let our judges decide the severity of the sentence based on the merits of each case. The temporary insanity defence is a bit soft for anyone who kills another person and a maximum sentence of 3 years is far too low for many of these cases.
(1)http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr160206.pdf
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I don’t understand why Maia thinks ‘the mother is more important than a newborn baby’. Since when is someone more important than someone else?Strange.
Vote:May 29th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
The woman didn’t leave her baby to die because it was a matter of survival. She might have left it to die because she faced a future in a lowly paid job, but it wasn’t a matter of life or death.
If you condone her actions, then you may as well condone killing for other reasons which mean we don’t have good career prospects. Maybe Maia would also condone killing off an older brothers because the family could only afford to educate the oldest boy.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 5:15 am
After reading so many big-house carzy posts of Maia’s, I have started a group blog called:
Capitalism Great; Tree There to be Cut Down as Natural Resource
http://capitalismgreat.blogspot.com
Since Maia deleted every post of mine (no matter how polite) I needed an outlet to contradict her crazy spew.
Others on her site have asked her to define how old a baby should be before the mother has a right to kill it. She has not answered.
By the way, I am the proud father of 4. Somehow I have managed not t murder any of them, not even the teenagers… yet
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 5:22 am
damn typing skills…
That should read “bug-house crazy” not “big-house carzy”
perhaps if I murdered a couple of infants as a sacrifice to the typing gods, I wouldn’t type like a ten-thumbed hippo
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Yes, it does seem that our good friend Maia has a serious issue with opinions that contradict her own. She usually vents by suppressing opinion that makes her question her narrow worldview.
Vote:August 31st, 2008 at 3:30 am
Why would anyone be surprised. Infanticide is legal in the Netherlands. At what point should it not reach here? Certain bioethicists believe it should be legal to kill a child up to 30 days after it is born for ANY reason.
What have we become?
Vote: