In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.
Every democratic country has laws which are motivated by the way people feel emotionally. Check out this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#/media/File...
12 weeks in Germany, 24 weeks in the UK. Why is there such a difference? Because these laws are based on how people feel.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homi...
Calling it a hole in the rules is inaccurate. It's not a person. You can disagree if you want.
My post was informational and intentionally lacking opinion.
The hole in the rules called out, from the OC you linked:
A handful of private member's bills introduced in Parliament over the last couple of decades have tried to remedy what seems to be an arbitrary distinction in law. The most recent was in 2016, when Saskatchewan MP Cathay Wagantall tabled Bill C-225, which would have made it a "separate offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child during the commission of an offence against the child's mother."
[deletia]
I'm just replying to the other countries laws and including Canada. Which is related to the article really, more so than many countries.
You seem to think I am siding on a negative opinion, but I am not.
0: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/private-members-bill-violen...
That's a non-argument. People did all kinds of horrible things in the past (human sacrifice, cruel corporal punishment, slavery) and yet it is now obvious to us that these things are bad. I think it is safe to say that infanticide is one of the things that we don't need to debate in modern times.
At best this is an attempt at persuasion by “Everyone else is doing it and so should you.”
In fact, if something is perceived as horrible by most people in current society, I think the burden is on you to explain why and when it is justified. (So far your only argument was that people in the old times did it, which is no argument at all.)
I find it personally revolting that people would assent to my own murder. I am the product of an unplanned pregnancy, and it is mere happenstance that I was not strangled, torn limb from limb, had my skull crushed, and my spine snipped apart at the nape of the neck, then carefully extracted piece by bloody piece, reassembled in a dish (to make sure that nothing was left behind to infect mom - abortions are "safe"), and dumped in a biological waste bin to be incinerated. I escaped that fate, but others do not, so I abstain from meat on every Friday of the year.
I do not understand why you and all the others would not assent to my grisly murder as an infant, as a 50-year-old, or perhaps not even as a feeble and helpless 96-year-old hospital patient, but you would readily take up the speculum and scalpel just because I had an umbilical cord attached.
Apologies, but I could not find any recommendations for killing babies. Please clarify.
Practical Ethics 3rd ed [2011], Peter Singer https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=02C20FF721FBFC562268D14...
Perhaps an earlier edition advocated infanticide?
https://libgen.is/search.php?&req=singer+Practical+Ethics&ph...
I believe the relevant section is page 169 of this: https://www.stafforini.com/docs/Singer%20-%20Practical%20eth...
Some of the text is copied and pasted below, but it should be read and interpreted in context:
ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE
There remains one major objection to the argument I have
advanced in favour of abortion. We have already seen that the strength of the conservative position lies in the difficulty liberals have in pointing to a morally significant line of demarcation between an embryo and a newborn baby. The standard liberal position needs to be able to point to some such line, because liberals usually hold that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus but not a baby. I have argued that the life of a fetus (and even more plainly, of an embryo) is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or a month old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.