Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) speaks at a women’s rights rally this month at the State Capitol in Richmond. (Steve Helber/AP)

January 30 at 8:13 PM

 President Trump, Republican lawmakers in Virginia and conservatives across the country attacked Gov. Ralph Northam and other state Democrats on Wednesday after they defended a failed bill that sought to reduce restrictions on late-term abortions.

The furor escalated quickly after Republicans circulated a video of Del. Kathy Tran (D-
Fairfax) acknowledging that her bill, like current law, would allow abortions up to the point of delivery in cases when the mother’s life or health was at serious risk. Northam, a pediatric neurologist, was asked about the issue in a radio interview and gave an answer that was later used by Republicans to suggest he favored killing live babies.

“I’m surprised that he did that. I’ve met him a number of times,” Trump told the Daily Caller when asked about Northam’s remarks. He said he had not seen the governor’s words but had watched the video of Tran.

“I thought it was terrible,” Trump said. “Do you remember when I said Hillary Clinton was willing to rip the baby out of the womb? That’s what it is. That’s what they’re doing. It’s terrible.”

Northam, whose spokeswoman said his words were being taken out of context by Republicans, called the notion that he would approve of killing infants “disgusting.”

“I have devoted my life to caring for children, and any insinuation otherwise is shameful and disgusting,” he said.

The president’s remarks came after former U.S. senator Jim DeMint called the bill “vile” and said Northam should abandon it or resign. Fox News, Breitbart and other conservative news outlets posted stories suggesting that the Democrats embraced infanticide. Tran, the bill’s sponsor, suspended her social media accounts after being besieged with threatening messages.

And Virginia House Speaker Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights) made a dramatic floor speech citing Bible verses to vow to fight against abortion.

Republicans, clinging to a slim majority in an election year when the entire General Assembly is on the ballot, sought to exploit the moment as part of a campaign to paint Democrats as radicals out of step with the state. And the uproar played directly into the national partisan divide, fueling outrage at a time when Democrats are launching presidential campaigns on issues far removed from abortion, an in­trac­table issue in American society.

“What my Democratic colleagues are most concerned about is what this moment actually reveals,” said Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), the House majority leader. “It was a moment of unbridled honesty about their agenda and their legislation and what it actually does.”

It was a surprising turn for legislation that had been introduced — and had failed — each of the past three years without any drama. A companion bill offered in the state Senate more than a week ago failed without comment.

The frontal political assault was also unusual for a chamber that often congratulates itself on the civil “Virginia way,” with GOP leaders joining Northam just last week to tout a bipartisan agreement to clean up coal ash.

In recent weeks, Republicans have sought to focus attention on several Democratic bills that they say would harm the state. Those include bills to enact a $15 minimum wage, move the state away from fossil fuels and provide tax relief to low-income families.

The strategy escalated with the abortion bill, which failed in a subcommittee Monday.

More than half of the bill’s 20 Democratic patrons were elected in 2017 during the surge that nearly erased the GOP majority in the House of Delegates. Among them was Tran, one of a record number of women elected that year and also the first Virginia legislator to nurse her infant on the House floor.

Late-term abortions are permitted in Virginia only when the mother’s life is at grave risk. Tran’s bill would have lifted some restrictions. Instead of requiring three doctors to sign off on the procedure, it would have required only one doctor. It also would have removed language requiring that the danger to the mother be “substantial and irremediable.”

On WTOP radio’s “Ask the Governor” program Wednesday, NBC4’s Julie Carey asked Northam whether he supported Tran’s bill.

Northam expressed support and spoke broadly about his belief that politicians should leave abortion decisions to women and their doctors.

But his comments about third-trimester abortions set off critics. The procedures, he said, are “done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

After which, Twitter erupted.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) retweeted Northam’s comment and added, “I never thought I would see the day America had government officials who openly support legal infanticide.”

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that “Dem Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatrician himself, is defending born-alive abortions.”

And DeMint, the former senator from South Carolina who is chairman of the Conservative Partnership Institute, tweeted: “VA Gov Northam is no moderate, this is one of the most vile, radical pro-abortion positions ever put forward. This is evil. He should recant or resign.”

Northam’s office made clear the governor was talking about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of a delivered baby. Ofirah Yheskel, a spokeswoman for Northam, said the Republicans were mischaracterizing his remarks.

“No woman seeks a third-
trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” she said.

“Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions,” Yheskel said.

Republicans on Tuesday night had begun circulating video of Tran discussing the bill in subcommittee the day before. By Wednesday morning, the Republican Party of Virginia had sent the clip out in a fundraising email.

The clip shows Tran before the subcommittee as Gilbert — who is off camera — grills her about whether the bill allows an abortion up to the moment a woman is about to give birth.

Tran paused at the question, and Gilbert added, “She’s dilating.”

With a grimace and another long pause, Tran said, “Mr. Chairman, that would be, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make a decision at that point.”

“I understand that,” Gilbert said. “I’m asking if your bill allows that.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran replied.

Seeming to catch Democrats off guard, Cox took the extraordinary step Wednesday of leaving the dais to make a speech from the floor — something he said no other speaker has done in his 30 years in the legislature.

Invoking the biblical story of David and verses in the book of Hebrews about God being the builder of all things, Cox said he was horrified last week when the New York state legislature passed a law to make late-term abortions easier to get.

“Governor Northam vowed to enact [the same law] if Democrats take over the House and Senate in 2019,” he said.

“I will never stop fighting for the promise of life, as long as I hold a gavel, as long as I can speak in this microphone,” Cox said to thunderous applause from Republican delegates.

Del. Eileen Filler-Corn (D-Fairfax), the minority leader, stood to respond, upbraiding Republicans for their treatment of Tran and for what she said was misrepresenting the issue.

“It clearly was part of an orchestrated ambush,” she said. The public statements “were made to inflame passions throughout the social media echo chamber. And they succeeded. What was the result? Ongoing harassment, intimidation against the patron, several members of this body, their families and their children.”

The Democratic caucus slammed the Republicans for what it called “sensationalism and fearmongering [that] is more representative of Trump-style national politics rather than the Virginia Way” and pointed out that 91 percent of the member of the Republican caucus are men.

“House Republicans would do well to pay Virginia women — and their women colleagues — more respect,” Democratic spokeswoman Kathryn Gilley said.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants.

Parental infanticide researchers have found that mothers are far more likely than fathers to be the perpetrators of neonaticide[1] and slightly more likely to commit infanticide in general.[2]

Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that “Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.”[3]:61

In many past societies, certain forms of infanticide were considered permissible.



Infanticidio by Mexican artist Antonio García Vega.

The practice of infanticide has taken many forms over time. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as that believed to have been practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world.

A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e., hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[4][5]

On at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[6] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below).

Paleolithic and Neolithic

Many Neolithic groups routinely resorted to infanticide in order to control their numbers so that their lands could support them. Joseph Birdsell believed that infanticide rates in prehistoric times were between 15% and 50% of the total number of births,[7] while Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15% to 20%.[3]:66 Both anthropologists believed that these high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture during the Neolithic Revolution.[8]:19 Comparative anthropologists have calculated that 50% of female newborn babies were killed by their parents during the Paleolithic era.[9] From the infants hominid skulls (e.g., Taung child skull) that had been traumatized, has been proposed cannibalism by Raymond A. Dart.[10] The children were not necessarily actively killed, but neglect and intentional malnourishment may also have occurred, as proposed by Vicente Lull as an explanation for an apparent surplus of men and the below average height of women in prehistoric Menorca.[11]

In ancient history

In the New World

Archaeologists have uncovered physical evidence of child sacrifice at several locations.[8]:16–22 Some of the best attested examples are the diverse rites which were part of the religious practices in Mesoamerica and the Inca Empire.[12][13][14]

In the Old World

Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in SardiniaPelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950–720 BCE.[citation needed] In Carthage “[child] sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith”.[attribution needed][8]:324 Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the CanaanitesMoabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods.

Ancient Egypt

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide.[15] The religion of the Ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundling or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as “copro -” to memorialise their rescue.[16] Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared.[17] Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence.[18] Egypt was heavily dependent on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate the land and in years of low inundation severe famine could occur with breakdowns in social order resulting, notably between 930–1070 AD and 1180–1350 AD. Instances of cannibalism are recorded during these periods but it is unknown if this happened during the pharaonic era of Ancient Egypt.[19] Beatrix Midant-Reynes describes human sacrifice as having occurred at Abydos in the early dynastic period (c. 3150–2850 BCE),[20] while Jan Assmann asserts there is no clear evidence of human sacrifice ever happening in Ancient Egypt.[21]


According to Shelby Brown, Carthaginians, descendants of the Phoenicians, sacrificed infants to their gods.[22] Charred bones of hundreds of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites. One such area harbored as many as 20,000 burial urns.[22]Skeptics suggest that the bodies of children found in Carthaginian and Phoenician cemeteries were merely the cremated remains of children that died naturally.[23]

Plutarch (c. 46–120 AD) mentions the practice, as do TertullianOrosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (from the Hebrew taph or toph, to burn) by the Canaanites. Writing in the 3rd century BCE, Kleitarchos, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, described that the infants rolled into the flaming pit. Diodorus Siculus wrote that babies were roasted to death inside the burning pit of the god Baal Hamon, a bronze statue.[24][25]

Greece and Rome

Medea killing her sons, by Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix (1862).

The historical Greeks considered the practice of adult and child sacrifice barbarous,[26] however, the exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece, it was even advocated by Aristotle in the case of congenital deformity — “As to the exposure of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live.”[27] In Greece, the decision to expose a child was typically the father’s, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders.[28] Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not considered to be murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.[29] This very situation was a recurring motif in Greek mythology.[30] To notify the neighbors of a birth of a child, a woolen strip was hung over the front door to indicate a female baby and an olive branch to indicate a boy had been born. Families did not always keep their new child. After a woman had a baby, she would show it to her husband. If the husband accepted it, it would live, but if he refused it, it would die. Babies would often be rejected if they were illegitimate, unhealthy or deformed, the wrong sex, or too great a burden on the family. These babies would not be directly killed, but put in a clay pot or jar and deserted outside the front door or on the roadway. In ancient Greek religion, this practice took the responsibility away from the parents because the child would die of natural causes, for example hunger, asphyxiation or exposure to the elements.

The practice was prevalent in ancient Rome, as well. Philo was the first philosopher to speak out against it.[31] A letter from a Roman citizen to his sister, or a pregnant wife from her husband,[32] dating from 1 BC, demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:

“I am still in Alexandria. … I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it.”,[33][34] “If you give birth to a boy, keep it. If it is a girl, expose it. Try not to worry. I’ll send the money as soon as we get paid.”[35]

In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to die by exposure.[36] The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. The concurrent practices of slavery and infanticide contributed to the “background noise” of the crises during the Republic.[36]

Infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in 374 AD, but offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted.[37]

According to mythology, Romulus and Remus, twin infant sons of the war god Mars, survived near-infanticide after being tossed into the Tiber River. According to the myth, they were raised by wolves, and later founded the city of Rome.


In this depiction of the Binding of Isaac by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld, 1860, Abraham is shone not sacrificing Isaac.

Judaism prohibits infanticide, and has for some time, dating back to at least early Common Era. Roman historians wrote about the ideas and customs of other peoples, which often diverged from their own. Tacitus recorded that the Jews “regard it as a crime to kill any late-born children”.[38] Josephus, whose works give an important insight into 1st-century Judaism, wrote that God “forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward”.[39]

Pagan European tribes

In his book GermaniaTacitus wrote in 98 AD that the ancient Germanic tribes enforced a similar prohibition. He found such mores remarkable and commented: “[The Germani] hold it shameful to kill any unwanted child.” It has become clear over the millennia, though, that Tacitus’ description was inaccurate; the consensus of modern scholarship significantly differs. John Boswell believed that in ancient Germanic tribes unwanted children were exposed, usually in the forest.[40]:218 “It was the custom of the [Teutonic] pagans, that if they wanted to kill a son or daughter, they would be killed before they had been given any food.”[40]:211 Usually children born out of wedlock were disposed that way.

In his highly influential Pre-historic TimesJohn Lubbock described burnt bones indicating the practice of child sacrifice in pagan Britain.[41]

The last canto, Marjatan poika (Son of Marjatta), of Finnish national epic Kalevala describes an assumed infanticide. Väinämöinen orders the infant bastard son of Marjatta to be drowned in marsh.

The Íslendingabók, a main source for the early history of Iceland, recounts that on the Conversion of Iceland to Christianity in 1000 it was provided – in order to make the transition more palatable to Pagans – that “the old laws allowing exposure of newborn children will remain in force”. However, this provision – like other concessions made at the time to the Pagans – was abolished some years later.


Christianity rejects infanticide. The Teachings of the Apostles or Didache said “thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born”.[42] The Epistle of Barnabas stated an identical command, both thus conflating abortion and infanticide.[43] Apologists TertullianAthenagorasMinucius FelixJustin Martyr and Lactantius also maintained that exposing a baby to death was a wicked act.[4] In 318 ADConstantine I considered infanticide a crime, and in 374 ADValentinian I mandated the rearing of all children (exposing babies, especially girls, was still common). The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was homicide, and in 589 AD, the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the custom of killing their own children.[37]

Middle Ages

Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[5]:16 According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference”.[44]:355–356 At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.[45]

Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.[46] In GotlandSweden, children were also sacrificed.[47]

In the High Middle Ages, abandoning unwanted children finally eclipsed infanticide.[citation needed] Unwanted children were left at the door of church or abbey, and the clergy was assumed to take care of their upbringing. This practice also gave rise to the first orphanages.

However, very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide.[48]


Some Muslim sources allege that pre-Islamic Arabian society practiced infanticide as a form of “post-partum birth control”.[49] The word waʾd was used to describe the practice.[50] These sources state that infanticide was practiced either out of destitution (thus practiced on males and females alike), or as “disappointment and fear of social disgrace felt by a father upon the birth of a daughter”.[49]

Some authors believe that there is little evidence that infanticide was prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia or early Muslim history, except for the case of the Tamim tribe, who practiced it during severe famine according to Islamic sources.[51] Others state that “female infanticide was common all over Arabia during this period of time” (pre-Islamic Arabia), especially by burying alive a female newborn.[8]:59[52] A tablet discovered in Yemen, forbidding the people of a certain town from engaging in the practice, is the only written reference to infanticide within the peninsula in pre-Islamic times.[53]


Infanticide is explicitly prohibited by the Qur’an.[54] “And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves too; surely to kill them is a great wrong.”[55] Together with polytheism and homicide, infanticide is regarded as a grave sin (see 6:151 and 60:12).[49] Infanticide is also implicitly denounced in the story of Pharaoh’s slaughter of the male children of Israelites (see 2:497:1277:14114:628:440:25).[49]

Ukraine and Russia

Femme Russe abandonnant ses enfants à des loupsCharles-Michel Geoffroy (fr), 1845

Infanticide may have been practiced as human sacrifice, as part of the pagan cult of PerunIbn Fadlan describes sacrificial practices at the time of his trip to Kiev Rus (present day Ukraine) in 921–922, and describes an incident of a woman voluntarily sacrificing her life as part of a funeral rite for a prominent leader, but makes no mention of infanticide. The Primary Chronicle, one of the most important literary sources before the 12th century, indicates that human sacrifice to idols may have been introduced by Vladimir the Great in 980. The same Vladimir the Great formally converted Kiev Rus into Christianity just 8 years later, but pagan cults continued to be practiced clandestinely in remote areas as late as the 13th century.

In Kamchatka, babies were killed and thrown to the dogs.[56]:105 American explorer George Kennan noted that among the Koryaks, a Mongoloid people of north-eastern Siberia, infanticide was still common in the nineteenth century. One of a pair of twins was always sacrificed.[57]


The Svans killed newborn females by filling their mouths with hot ashes.[56]:106

United Kingdom

Infanticide (as a crime) gained both popular and bureaucratic significance in Victorian Britain. By the mid 19th century, in the context of criminal lunacy and the insanity defence, killing one’s own child(ren) attracted ferocious debate, as the role of women in society was defined by motherhood, and it was thought that any woman who murdered her own child was by definition insane and could not be held responsible for her actions. Several cases were subsequently highlighted during the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1864-66), as a particular felony where an effective avoidance of the death penalty had informally begun.

The New Poor Law Act of 1834 ended parish relief for unmarried mothers and allowed fathers of illegitimate children to avoid paying for “child support”.[58] Unmarried mothers then received little assistance and the poor were left with the option either entering the workhouse, prostitution, infanticide or abortion. By the middle of the century infanticide was common for social reasons, such as illegitimacy, and the introduction of child life insurance additionally encouraged some women to kill their children for gain. Examples are Mary Ann Cotton, who murdered many of her 15 children as well as 3 husbands, Margaret Waters, the ‘Brixton Baby Farmer’, a professional baby-farmer who was found guilty of infanticide in 1870, Jessie King hanged in 1889, Amelia Dyer, the ‘Angel Maker’, who murdered over 400 babies in her care, and Ada Chard-Williams, a baby farmer who was later hanged at Newgate prison.

The Times reported that 67 infants were murdered in London in 1861 and 150 more recorded as “found dead”, many of which were found on the streets. Another 250 were suffocated, half of them not recorded as accidental deaths. The report noted that “infancy in London has to creep into life in the midst of foes.”[59]

Recording a birth as a still-birth was also another way of concealing infanticide because still-births did not need to be registered until 1926 and they did not need to be buried in public cemeteries.[60] In 1895 the Sun (London) published an article “Massacre of the Innocents” highlighting the dangers of baby-farming, in the recording of stillbirths and quoting Braxton-Hicks, the London Coroner, on lying-in houses: “I have not the slightest doubt that a large amount of crime is covered by the expression `still-birth’. There are a large number of cases of what are called newly-born children, which are found all over England, more especially in London and large towns, abandoned in streets, rivers, on commons, and so on.” He continued “a great deal of that crime is due to what are called lying-in houses, which are not registered, or under the supervision of that sort, where the people who act as midwives constantly, as soon as the child is born, either drop it into a pail of water or smother it with a damp cloth. It is a very common thing, also, to find that they bash their heads on the floor and break their skulls.”[61]

The last British woman to be executed for infanticide of her own child was Rebecca Smith, who was hanged in Wiltshire in 1849.

The Infant Life Protection Act of 1897 required local authorities to be notified within 48 hours of changes in custody or the death of children under seven years. Under the Children’s Act of 1908 “no infant could be kept in a home that was so unfit and so overcrowded as to endanger its health, and no infant could be kept by an unfit nurse who threatened, by neglect or abuse, its proper care and maintenance.”



Burying Babies in China (p.40, March 1865, XXII)[62]

Short of execution, the harshest penalties were imposed on practitioners of infanticide by the legal codes of the Qin dynasty and Han dynasty of ancient China.[63]

Marco Polo, the explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi.[64] China’s society practiced sex selective infanticide. Philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BC, who developed a school of law, wrote: “As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.”[65] Among the Hakka people, and in YunnanAnhuiSichuanJiangxi and Fujian a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called “baby water”.[66]

Infanticide was known in China as early as the 3rd century BC, and, by the time of the Song dynasty (960–1279 AD), it was widespread in some provinces. Buddhist belief in transmigration allowed poor residents of the country to kill their newborn children if they felt unable to care for them, hoping that they would be reborn in better circumstances. Furthermore, some Chinese did not consider newborn children fully “human”, and saw “life” beginning at some point after the sixth month after birth.[67]

Contemporary writers from the Song dynasty note that, in Hubei and Fujian provinces, residents would only keep three sons and two daughters (among poor farmers, two sons and one daughter), and kill all babies beyond that number at birth.[68] Initially the sex of the child was only one factor to consider. By the time of the Ming Dynasty, however (1368–1644), male infanticide was becoming increasingly uncommon. The prevalence of female infanticide remained high much longer. The magnitude of this practice is subject to some dispute; however, one commonly quoted estimate is that, by late Qing, between one fifth and one quarter of all newborn girls, across the entire social spectrum, were victims of infanticide. If one includes excess mortality among female children under 10 (ascribed to gender-differential neglect), the share of victims rises to one third.[69][70]

Scottish Physician John Dudgeon, who worked in Beijing, China, during the Qing Dynasty said that in China, “Infanticide does not prevail to the extent so generally believed among us, and in the north it does not exist at all.”[71]

Sex ratio at birth in mainland China, males per 100 females, 1980-2010.

Gender-selected abortion, abandonment, and infanticide are illegal in present-day China. Nevertheless, the US State Department,[72] and the human rights organization Amnesty International[73] have all declared that China’s family planning programs, called the one child policy, contribute to infanticide.[74][75][76] The sex gap between males and females aged 0–19 years old was estimated to be 25 million in 2010 by the United Nations Population Fund.[77]


Since feudal Japan the common slang for infanticide was “mabiki” (間引き) which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby’s mouth and nose.[78] It became common as a method of population control. Farmers would often kill their second or third sons. Daughters were usually spared, as they could be married off, sold off as servants or prostitutes, or sent off to become geishas.[79] Mabiki persisted in the 19th century and early 20th century.[80] To bear twins was perceived as barbarous and unlucky and efforts were made to hide or kill one or both twins.[81]


Hindu Woman carrying her child to be drowned in the River Ganges at Bengal (1852)[82]

Hindoo Mother Sacrificing her infant (November 1853, X, p.120)[83]

Female infanticide of newborn girls was systematic in feudatory Rajputs in South Asia for illegitimate female children during the Middle Ages. According to Firishta, as soon as the illegitimate female child was born she was held “in one hand, and a knife in the other, that any person who wanted a wife might take her now, otherwise she was immediately put to death”.[84] The practice of female infanticide was also common among the Kutch, Kehtri, Nagar, Bengal, Miazed, Kalowries in India inhabitants, and also among the Sindh in British India.[85]

It was not uncommon that parents threw a child to the sharks in the Ganges River as a sacrificial offering. The British colonists were unable to outlaw the custom until the beginnings of the 19th century.[86]:78

According to social activists, female infanticide has remained a problem in India into the 21st century, with both NGOs and the government conducting awareness campaigns to combat it.[87] In India female infanticide is more common than the killing of male offspring, due to sex-selective infanticide.[88] In China for example, the sex gap between males and females aged 0–19 years old was estimated to be 25 million in 2010 by the United Nations Population Fund.[77]


In some African societies some neonates were killed because of beliefs in evil omens or because they were considered unlucky. Twins were usually put to death in Arebo; as well as by the Nama people of South West Africa; in the Lake Victoria Nyanza region; by the Tswana in Portuguese East Africa; in some parts of IgbolandNigeria twins were sometimes abandoned in a forest at birth (as depicted in Things Fall Apart), oftentimes one twin was killed or hidden by midwives of wealthier mothers; and by the !Kung people of the Kalahari Desert.[8]:160–161 The KikuyuKenya‘s most populous ethnic group, practiced ritual killing of twins.[89]

Infanticide is rooted in the old traditions and beliefs prevailing all over the country. A survey conducted by Disability Rights International found that 45% women interviewed by them in Kenya were pressured to kill their children born with disabilities. The pressure being much higher in the rural areas, with every second mother being forced out of three.[90]


Literature suggests infanticide may have occurred reasonably commonly among Indigenous Australians, in all areas of Australia prior to European settlement. Infanticide may have continued to occur quite often up until the 1960s. An 1866 issue of The Australian News for Home Readers informed readers that “the crime of infanticide is so prevalent amongst the natives that it is rare to see an infant”.[91]

Author Susanna de Vries in 2007 told a newspaper that her accounts of Aboriginal violence, including infanticide, were censored by publishers in the 1980s and 1990s. She told reporters that the censorship “stemmed from guilt over the stolen children question”.[92] Keith Windschuttle weighed in on the conversation, saying this type of censorship started in the 1970s.[92] In the same article Louis Nowra suggested that infanticide in customary Aboriginal law may have been because it was difficult to keep an abundant number of Aboriginal children alive; there were life-and-death decisions modern-day Australians no longer have to face.[92]

South Australia and Victoria

According to William D. Rubinstein, “Nineteenth-century European observers of Aboriginal life in South Australia and Victoria reported that about 30% of Aboriginal infants were killed at birth.”[93]

James Dawson wrote a passage about infanticide among Indigenous people in the western district of Victoria, which stated that “Twins are as common among them as among Europeans; but as food is occasionally very scarce, and a large family troublesome to move about, it is lawful and customary to destroy the weakest twin child, irrespective of sex. It is usual also to destroy those which are malformed.”[94]

He also wrote “When a woman has children too rapidly for the convenience and necessities of the parents, she makes up her mind to let one be killed, and consults with her husband which it is to be. As the strength of a tribe depends more on males than females, the girls are generally sacrificed. The child is put to death and buried, or burned without ceremony; not, however, by its father or mother, but by relatives. No one wears mourning for it. Sickly children are never killed on account of their bad health, and are allowed to die naturally.”[94]

Western Australia

In 1937, a reverend in the Kimberley offered a “baby bonus” to Aboriginal families as a deterrent against infanticide and to increase the birthrate of the local Indigenous population.[95]

Australian Capital Territory

Canberran journalist in 1927 wrote of the “cheapness of life” to the Aboriginal people local to the Canberra area 100 years before. “If drought or bush fires had devastated the country and curtailed food supplies, babies got short shift. Ailing babies, too would not be kept” he wrote.[96]

New South Wales

A bishop wrote in 1928 that it was common for Aboriginal Australians to restrict the size of their tribal groups, including by infanticide, so that the food resources of the tribal area may be sufficient for them.[97]

Northern Territory

Annette Hamilton, a professor of anthropology at Macquarie University who carried out research in the Aboriginal community of Maningrida in Arnhem Land during the 1960s wrote that prior to that time part-European babies born to Aboriginal mothers had not been allowed to live, and that ‘mixed-unions are frowned on by men and women alike as a matter of principle’.[98]

North AmericaInuit

There is no agreement about the actual estimates of the frequency of newborn female infanticide in the Inuit population. Carmel Schrire mentions diverse studies ranging from 15–50% to 80%.[99]

Polar Inuit (Inughuit) killed the child by throwing him or her into the sea.[100] There is even a legend in Inuit mythology, “The Unwanted Child”, where a mother throws her child into the fjord.

The Yukon and the Mahlemuit tribes of Alaska exposed the female newborns by first stuffing their mouths with grass before leaving them to die.[101] In Arctic Canada the Inuit exposed their babies on the ice and left them to die.[44]:354

Female Inuit infanticide disappeared in the 1930s and 1940s after contact with the Western cultures from the South.[102]


The Handbook of North American Indians reports infanticide among the Dene Natives and those of the Mackenzie Mountains.[103][104]

Native Americans

In the Eastern Shoshone there was a scarcity of Indian women as a result of female infanticide.[105] For the Maidu Native Americans twins were so dangerous that they not only killed them, but the mother as well.[106] In the region known today as southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practiced infanticide of females on a large scale. Wives had to be obtained from neighboring groups.[107]


Bernal Díaz recounted that, after landing on the Veracruz coast, they came across a temple dedicated to Tezcatlipoca. “That day they had sacrificed two boys, cutting open their chests and offering their blood and hearts to that accursed idol”.[108] In The Conquest of New Spain Díaz describes more child sacrifices in the towns before the Spaniards reached the large Aztec city Tenochtitlan.

South America

Although academic data of infanticides among the indigenous people in South America is not as abundant as that of North America, the estimates seem to be similar.


The Tapirapé indigenous people of Brazil allowed no more than three children per woman, and no more than two of the same sex. If the rule was broken infanticide was practiced.[109] The Bororo killed all the newborns that did not appear healthy enough. Infanticide is also documented in the case of the Korubo people in the Amazon.[110]

The Yanomami men killed children while raiding enemy villages.[111] Helena Valero, a Brazilian woman kidnapped by Yanomami warriors in the 1930s, witnessed a Karawetari raid on her tribe:

“They killed so many. I was weeping for fear and for pity but there was nothing I could do. They snatched the children from their mothers to kill them, while the others held the mothers tightly by the arms and wrists as they stood up in a line. All the women wept. … The men began to kill the children; little ones, bigger ones, they killed many of them.”.[111]

Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia

While qhapaq hucha was practiced in the Peruvian large cities, child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian tribes of the region is less documented. However, even today studies on the Aymara Indians reveal high incidences of mortality among the newborn, especially female deaths, suggesting infanticide.[112] The Abipones, a small tribe of Guaycuruan stock, of about 5,000 by the end of the 18th century in Paraguay, practiced systematic infanticide; with never more than two children being reared in one family. The Machigenga killed their disabled children. Infanticide among the Chaco in Paraguay was estimated as high as 50% of all newborns in that tribe, who were usually buried.[113] The infanticidal custom had such roots among the Ayoreo in Bolivia and Paraguay that it persisted until the late 20th century.[114]

Modern times

Infanticide has become less common in the Western world. The frequency has been estimated to be 1 in approximately 3000 to 5000 children of all ages[115] and 2.1 per 100,000 newborns per year.[116] It is thought that infanticide today continues at a much higher rate in areas of extremely high poverty and overpopulation, such as parts of China and India.[117] Female infants, then and even now, are particularly vulnerable, a factor in sex-selective infanticide. Recent estimates suggest that over 100 million girls and women are ‘missing’ in Asia.[118]


In spite of the fact that it is illegal, in BeninWest Africa, parents secretly continue with infanticidal customs.[119]

North Korea

According to “The Hidden Gulag” published by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, the People’s Republic of China returns all illegal immigrants from North Korea which usually imprisons them in a short term facility. Women who are suspected of being impregnated by Chinese fathers are subjected to forced abortions; babies born alive are killed, sometimes by exposure or being buried alive.[120]


There have been some accusations that infanticide occurs in the People’s Republic of China due to the one-child policy.[121] In the 1990s, a certain stretch of the Yangtze River was known to be a common site of infanticide by drowning, until government projects made access to it more difficult. Recent studies suggest that over 40 million girls and women are ‘missing’ in China (Klasen and Wink 2003).[122]


The practice has continued in some rural areas of India.[123][124] Infanticide is illegal in India.[125]

According to a recent report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) up to 50 million girls and women are missing in India‘s population as a result of systematic sex discrimination and sex selective abortions.[126]


Killings of newborn babies have been on the rise in Pakistan, corresponding to an increase in poverty across the country.[127] More than 1,000 infants, mostly girls, were killed or abandoned to die in Pakistan in 2009 according to a Pakistani charity organization.[128]

The Edhi Foundation found 1,210 dead babies in 2010. Many more are abandoned and left at the doorsteps of mosques. As a result, Edhi centers feature signs “Do not murder, lay them here.” Though female infanticide is punishable by life in prison, such crimes are rarely prosecuted.[127]


In November 2008 it was reported that in Agibu and Amosa villages of Gimi region of Eastern Highlands province of Papua New Guinea where tribal fighting in the region of Gimi has been going on since 1986 (many of the clashes arising over claims of sorcery) women had agreed that if they stopped producing males, allowing only female babies to survive, their tribe’s stock of boys would go down and there would be no men in the future to fight. They agreed to have all newborn male babies killed. It is not known how many male babies were killed by being smothered, but it had reportedly happened to all males over a 10-year period and probably was still happening.

England and Wales

In England and Wales there were typically 30 to 50 homicides per million children less than 1 year old between 1982 and 1996.[129] The younger the infant, the higher the risk.[129] The rate for children 1 to 5 years was around 10 per million children.[129] The homicide rate of infants less than 1 year is significantly higher than for the general population.[129]

In English law infanticide is established as a distinct offence by the Infanticide Acts. Defined as the killing of a child under 12 months of age by their mother, the effect of the Acts are to establish a partial defence to charges of murder.[130]

United States

In 1983, the United States ranked eleventh for infants under 1 year killed, and fourth for those killed from 1 through 14 years (the latter case not necessarily involving filicide).[131] In the U.S. over six hundred children were killed by their parents in 1983.[132]

In the United States the infanticide rate during the first hour of life outside the womb dropped from 1.41 per 100,000 during 1963 to 1972 to 0.44 per 100,000 for 1974 to 1983; the rates during the first month after birth also declined, whereas those for older infants rose during this time.[133] The legalization of abortion, which was completed in 1973, was the most important factor in the decline in neonatal mortality during the period from 1964 to 1977, according to a study by economists associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research.[133][134]


In Canada 114 cases of infanticide by a parent were reported during 1964–1968.[135] There is ongoing debate in the Canadian legal and political fields about whether section 237 of the Criminal Code, which creates the specific offence and partial defence of infanticide in Canadian law, should be amended or abolished altogether.[136]


From 2013 to March 2018, 28 infanticides cases done by 22 mothers and three stepmothers were reported in Spain.[137][138] The most famous case was the murder of Bernardo González Parra in 1910 perpetrated by Francisco Leona Romero, Julio Hernández Rodríguez, Francisco Ortega el Moruno and Agustina Rodríguez.[139][140]

Modern proposals

In a 2012 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a philosopher and a bioethicist jointly proposed that infanticide be legalized, calling it “after-birth abortion”, and claiming that both “the fetus and the newborn are potential persons”. Many replies were published to this article.[141]

Child euthanasia

Euthanasia applied to children that are gravely ill or that suffer from significant birth defects is legal in the Netherlands under rigidly controlled conditions, but controversial.[142] Some critics have compared child euthanasia to infanticide.

Explanations for the practice

There are various reasons for infanticide. Neonaticide typically has different patterns and causes than for killing of older infants. Traditional neonaticide is often related to economic necessity – inability to provide for the infant.

In the United Kingdom and the United States, older infants are typically killed for reasons related to child abusedomestic violence or mental illness.[129] For infants older than one day, younger infants are more at risk, and boys are more at risk than girls.[129] Risk factors for the parent include: Family history of violence, violence in current relationship, history of abuse or neglect of children, and personality disorder and/or depression.[129]


In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, “loopholes” were invented by those who wanted to avoid the damnation that was promised by most Christian doctrine as a penalty of suicide. One famous example of someone who wished to end their life but avoid the eternity in hell was Christina Johansdotter (died 1740). She was a Swedish murderer who killed a child in Stockholm with the sole purpose of being executed. She is an example of those who seek suicide through execution by committing a murder. It was a common act, frequently targeting young children or infants as they were believed to be free from sin, thus going straight to heaven.[143]

In 1888, Lieut. F. Elton reported that Ugi beach people in the Solomon Islands killed their infants at birth by burying them, and women were also said to practice abortion. They reported that it was too much trouble to raise a child, and instead preferred to buy one from the bush people.[144]


Many historians believe the reason to be primarily economic, with more children born than the family is prepared to support. In societies that are patrilineal and patrilocal, the family may choose to allow more sons to live and kill some daughters, as the former will support their birth family until they die, whereas the latter will leave economically and geographically to join their husband’s family, possibly only after the payment of a burdensome dowry price. Thus the decision to bring up a boy is more economically rewarding to the parents.[8]:362–368 However, this does not explain why infanticide would occur equally among rich and poor, nor why it would be as frequent during decadent periods of the Roman Empire as during earlier, less affluent, periods.[8]:28–34, 187–192

Before the appearance of effective contraception, infanticide was a common occurrence in ancient brothels. Unlike usual infanticide – where historically girls have been more likely to be killed – prostitutes in certain areas preferred to kill their male offspring.[145]

UK 18th and 19th century

Instances of infanticide in Britain in 18th and 19th centuries is often attributed to the economic position of the women, with juries committing “pious perjury” in many subsequent murder cases. The knowledge of the difficulties faced in the 18th century by those women who attempted to keep their children can be seen as reason for juries to show compassion. If the woman chose to keep the child, society was not set up to ease the pressure placed upon the woman, legally, socially or economically.[146]

In mid-18th century Britain there was assistance available for women who were not able to raise their children. The Foundling Hospital opened in 1756 and was able to take in some of the illegitimate children. However, the conditions within the hospital caused Parliamentto withdraw funding and the governors to live off of their own incomes.[147] This resulted in a stringent entrance policy, with the committee requiring that the hospital:

Will not receive a child that is more than a year old, nor the child of a domestic servant, nor any child whose father can be compelled to maintain it.[148]

Once a mother had admitted her child to the hospital, the hospital did all it could to ensure that the parent and child were not re-united.[148]

MacFarlane argues in Illegitimacy and Illegitimates in Britain (1980) that English society greatly concerned itself with the burden that a bastard child places upon its communities and had gone to some lengths to ensure that the father of the child is identified in order to maintain its well-being.[149] Assistance could be gained through maintenance payments from the father, however, this was capped “at a miserable 2 s and 6 d a week”.[150] If the father fell behind with the payments he could only be asked “to pay a maximum of 13 weeks arrears”.[150]

Despite the accusations of some that women were getting a free hand-out there is evidence that many women were far from receiving adequate assistance from their parish. “Within Leeds in 1822 … relief was limited to 1 s per week”.[151] Sheffield required women to enter the workhouse, whereas Halifax gave no relief to the women who required it. The prospect of entering the workhouse was certainly something to be avoided. Lionel Rose quotes Dr Joseph Rogers in Massacre of the Innocents … (1986). Rogers, who was employed by a London workhouse in 1856 stated that conditions in the nursery were ‘wretchedly damp and miserable … [and] … overcrowded with young mothers and their infants’.[152]

The loss of social standing for a servant girl was a particular problem in respect of producing a bastard child as they relied upon a good character reference in order to maintain their job and more importantly, to get a new or better job. In a large number of trials for the crime of infanticide, it is the servant girl that stood accused.[153] The disadvantage of being a servant girl is that they had to live to the social standards of their superiors or risk dismissal and no references. Whereas within other professions, such as in the factory, the relationship between employer and employee was much more anonymous and the mother would be better able to make other provisions, such as employing a minder.[154] The result of the lack of basic social care in Britain in the 18th and 19th century is the numerous accounts in court records of women, particularly servant girls, standing trial for the murder of their child.[155]

There may have been no specific offence of infanticide in England before about 1623 because infanticide was a matter for the by ecclesiastical courts, possibly because infant mortality from natural causes was high (about 15% or one in six).[156]

Thereafter the accusation of the suppression of bastard children by lewd mothers was a crime incurring the presumption of guilt.[157]

The Infanticide Acts are several laws. That of 1922 made the killing of an infant child by its mother during the early months of life as a lesser crime than murder. The acts of 1938 and 1939 abolished the earlier act, but introduced the idea that postpartum depression was legally to be regarded as a form of diminished responsibility.

Population control

Marvin Harris estimated that among Paleolithic hunters 23–50% of newborn children were killed. He argued that the goal was to preserve the 0.001% population growth of that time.[158]:15 He also wrote that female infanticide may be a form of population control.[158]:5Population control is achieved not only by limiting the number of potential mothers; increased fighting among men for access to relatively scarce wives would also lead to a decline in population. For example, on the Melanesian island of Tikopia infanticide was used to keep a stable population in line with its resource base.[6] Research by Marvin Harris and William Divale supports this argument, it has been cited as an example of environmental determinism.[159]


Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology has proposed several theories for different forms of infanticide. Infanticide by stepfathers, as well as child abuse in general by stepfathers, has been explained by spending resources on not genetically related children reducing reproductive success (See the Cinderella effect and Infanticide (zoology)). Infanticide is one of the few forms of violence more often done by women than men. Cross-cultural research has found that this is more likely to occur when the child has deformities or illnesses as well as when there are lacking resources due to factors such as poverty, other children requiring resources, and no male support. Such a child may have a low chance of reproductive success in which case it would decrease the mother’s inclusive fitness, in particular since women generally have a greater parental investment than men, to spend resources on the child.[160]

“Early infanticidal childrearing”

A minority of academics subscribe to an alternate school of thought, considering the practice as “early infanticidal childrearing“.[161]:246–247 They attribute parental infanticidal wishes to massive projection or displacement of the parents’ unconscious onto the child, because of intergenerational, ancestral abuse by their own parents.[162] Clearly, an infanticidal parent may have multiple motivations, conflicts, emotions, and thoughts about their baby and their relationship with their baby, which are often colored both by their individual psychology, current relational context and attachment history, and, perhaps most saliently, their psychopathology[163] (See also Psychiatric section below) Almeida, Merminod, and Schechter suggest that parents with fantasies, projections, and delusions involving infanticide need to be taken seriously and assessed carefully, whenever possible, by an interdisciplinary team that includes infant mental health specialists or mental health practitioners who have experience in working with parents, children, and families.

Wider effects

In addition to debates over the morality of infanticide itself, there is some debate over the effects of infanticide on surviving children, and the effects of childrearing in societies that also sanction infanticide. Some argue that the practice of infanticide in any widespread form causes enormous psychological damage in children.[161]:261–262 Conversely, studying societies that practice infanticide Géza Róheim reported that even infanticidal mothers in New Guinea, who ate a child, did not affect the personality development of the surviving children; that “these are good mothers who eat their own children”.[164] Harris and Divale’s work on the relationship between female infanticide and warfare suggests that there are, however, extensive negative effects.


Postpartum psychosis is also a causative factor of infanticide. Stuart S. Asch, MD, a Professor of Psychiatry at Cornell University established the connections between some cases of infanticide and post-partum depression.[165],[166] The books, From Cradle to Grave,[167]and The Death of Innocents,[168] describe selected cases of maternal infanticide and the investigative research of Professor Asch working in concert with the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office. Stanley Hopwood wrote that childbirth and lactation entail severe stress on the female sex, and that under certain circumstances attempts at infanticide and suicide are common.[169] A study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry revealed that 44% of filicidal fathers had a diagnosis of psychosis.[170] In addition to postpartum psychosis, dissociative psychopathology and sociopathy have also been found to be associated with neonaticide in some cases[171]

In addition, severe postpartum depression can lead to infanticide.[172]

Sex selection

Sex selection may be one of the contributing factors of infanticide. In the absence of sex-selective abortion, sex-selective infanticide[dead link] can be deduced from very skewed birth statistics. The biologically normal sex ratio for humans at birth is approximately 105 males per 100 females; normal ratios hardly ranging beyond 102–108.[173] When a society has an infant male to female ratio which is significantly higher or lower than the biological norm, and biased data can be ruled out, sex selection can usually be inferred.[174]

Current law


In New South Wales, infanticide is defined in Section 22A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) as follows:[175]

Where a woman by any willful act or omission causes the death of her child, being a child under the age of twelve months, but at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, then, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this section the offence would have amounted to murder, she shall be guilty of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of such child.

Because Infanticide is punishable as manslaughter, as per s24,[176] the maximum penalty for this offence is therefore 25 years imprisonment.


In Canada, a mother commits infanticide, a lesser offence than homicide, if she killed her child while “not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed”.[177]

England and Wales

In England and Wales, the Infanticide Act 1938 describes the offence of infanticide as one which would otherwise amount to murder (by his/her mother) if the victim was older than 12 months and the mother was not suffering from an imbalance of mind due to the effects of childbirth or lactation. Where a mother who has killed such an infant has been charged with murder rather than infanticide s.1(3) of the Act confirms that a jury has the power to find alternative verdicts of Manslaughter in English law or guilty but insane.


Article 200 of the Penal Code of Romania stipulates that the killing of a newborn during the first 24 hours, by the mother who is in a state of mental distress, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to five years.[178] The previous Romanian Penal Code also defined infanticide (pruncucidere) as a distinct criminal offence, providing for a punishment of two to seven years imprisonment,[179] recognizing the fact that a mother’s judgment may be impaired immediately after birth, but did not define the term “infant”, and this had led to debates regarding the precise moment when infanticide becomes homicide. This issue was resolved by the new Penal Code, which came into force in 2014.

United States

In 2009, Texas state representative Jessica Farrar proposed legislation that would define infanticide as a distinct and lesser crime than homicide.[180] Under the terms of the proposed legislation, if jurors concluded that a mother’s “judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth”, they would be allowed to convict her of the crime of infanticide, rather than murder.[181] The maximum penalty for infanticide would be two years in prison.[181] Farrar’s introduction of this bill prompted liberal bioethics scholar Jacob M. Appel to call her “the bravest politician in America”.[181]


Since infanticide, especially neonaticide, is often a response to an unwanted birth,[129] preventing unwanted pregnancies through improved sex education and increased contraceptive access are advocated as ways of preventing infanticide.[182] Increased use of contraceptives and access to safe legal abortions[8][133]:122–123 have greatly reduced neonaticide in many developed nations. Some say that where abortion is illegal, as in Pakistan, infanticide would decline if safer legal abortions were available.[127]

Screening for psychiatric disorders or risk factors, and providing treatment or assistance to those at risk may help prevent infanticide.[183] However, in developed world significant proportions of neonaticides that are detected occur in young women who deny their pregnancy, and avoid outside contacts, so they may have limited contact with health care services.[129]

In some areas baby hatches or safe surrender sites, safe places for a mother to anonymously leave an infant, are offered, in part to reduce the rate of infanticide. In other places, like the United States, safe-haven laws allow mothers to anonymously give infants to designated officials; they are frequently located at hospitals and police and fire stations. Additionally, some countries in Europe have the laws of anonymous birth and confidential birth that allow mothers to give up an infant after birth. In anonymous birth, the mother does not attach her name to the birth certificate. In confidential birth the mother registers her name and information, but the document containing her name is sealed until the child comes to age. Typically such babies are put up for adoption, or cared for in orphanages. [184]

Granting women employment raises their status and autonomy. Having a gainful employment can raise the perceived worth of females. This can lead to an increase in the number of women getting an education and a decrease in the number of female infanticide. As a result, the infant mortality rate will decrease and economic development will increase.[185]

In animals

Infanticide occurs in other animals, such as in Hanuman langurs.

Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species of the animal kingdom since it was first seriously studied by Yukimaru Sugiyama.[186] These include from microscopic rotifers and insects, to fishamphibiansbirds and mammals, including primates such as chacma baboons.[187] Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.

According to studies carried out by Kyoto University in non-human primates, including certain types of gorillas and chimpanzees, several conditions favor the tendency to infanticide in some species (to be performed only by males), among them are: Nocturnal live, the absence of nest construction, the marked sexual dimorphism in which the male is much larger than the female, the mating in a specific season and the high period of lactation without resumption of the estrus state in the female.

See also

References …


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in sciencetechnologyeconomic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

The meanings of progressivism have varied over time and from different perspectives. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from uncivilized conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.[2] Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread across the world from Europe.[2]

The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late-19th century. Progressives in the early-20th century took the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.[3] Early-20th century progressivism was also tied to eugenics[4][5][6] and the temperance movement.[7][8] Contemporary progressives promote public policies that they believe will lead to positive social change.


Progressivism in philosophy and politics

From the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution

Immanuel Kant identified progress as being a movement away from barbarism towards civilization. 18th-century philosopher and political scientist Marquis de Condorcet predicted that political progress would involve the disappearance of slavery, the rise of literacy, the lessening of inequalities between the sexes, reforms of harsh prisons and the decline of poverty.[9] “Modernity” or “modernization” was a key form of the idea of progress as promoted by classical liberals in the 19th and 20th centuries who called for the rapid modernization of the economy and society to remove the traditional hindrances to free markets and free movements of people.[10] German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was influential in promoting the idea of progress in European philosophy by emphasizing a linear-progressive conception of history and rejecting a cyclical conception of history. Karl Marx applied to his writings the Hegelian conception of linear-progressive history, the modernization of the economy through industrialization and criticisms of the social class structure of industrial capitalist societies. As industrialization grew, concerns over its effects grew beyond Marxists and other radical critiques and became mainstream.

Contemporary mainstream political conception

In the late 19th century, a political view rose in popularity in the Western world that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists and a need for measures to address these problems.[11] Progressivism has influenced various political movements. Modern liberalism was influenced by liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill‘s conception of people being “progressive beings”.[12] British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli developed progressive conservatism under “one-nation” Toryism.[13][14] In France, the space between social revolution and the socially-conservative laissez-faire centre-right was filled with the emergence of Radicalism, which thought that social progress required humanism, republicanism and anticlericalism, and which was until the mid twentieth-century the dominant influence on the centre left in many French- and Romance-speaking countries. Similarly in Imperial Germany, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck enacted various progressive social welfare measures out of conservative motivations to distance workers from the socialist movement of the time and as humane ways to assist in maintaining the Industrial Revolution.[15]Proponents of social democracy have identified themselves as promoting the progressive cause.[16] The Roman Catholic Church encyclical Rerum novarum issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 condemned the exploitation of labour and urged support for labour unions and government regulation of businesses in the interests of social justice while upholding the rights of private property and criticizing socialism.[17] A Protestant progressive outlook called the Social Gospel emerged in North America that focused on challenging economic exploitation and poverty and by the mid-1890s was common in many Protestant theological seminaries in the United States.[18]

In the United States, progressivism began as a social movement in the 1890s and grew into a political movement in what was known as the Progressive Era. While the term “American progressives” represent a range of diverse political pressure groups (not always united), some American progressives rejected social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism and class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated and believed that government could be a tool for change.[19] American President Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party and later the Progressive Party declared that he “always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand”.[20] President Woodrow Wilson was also a member of the American progressive movement within the Democratic Party.

Progressive stances have evolved over time. Imperialism was a controversial issue within progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly in the United States where some progressives supported American imperialism while others opposed it.[21]

In response to World War I, progressive President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points established the concept of national self-determination and criticized imperialist competition and colonial injustices; these views were supported by anti-imperialists in areas of the world that were resisting imperial rule.[22] During the period of acceptance of economic Keynesianism (1930s to 1970s), there was widespread acceptance in many nations of a large role for state intervention in the economy. With the rise of neoliberalism and challenges to state interventionist policies in the 1970s and 1980s, centre-left progressive movements responded by creating the Third Way that emphasized a major role for the market economy.[23] There have been social democrats who have called for the social democratic movement to move past Third Way.[24] Prominent progressive conservative elements in the British Conservative Party have criticized neoliberalism.[25]

See also

References …


Story 2: President Trump — A Big Beautiful Border Barrier or Wall Is Required To Stop The Continuing Illegal Alien Invasion of United States  — What about The 30 to 60 Million Illegal Aliens Already in the United States — Part 1 of 2 — Videos —

Tucker: ‘Good chance’ Trump orders national emergency for wall

Expectations for Trump’s State of the Union address

Laura Ingraham Friday Follies!! The Ingraham Angle 2/1/2019

Trump, Pelosi agree on new State of the Union date

Trump: Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall

President Trump: I won’t wait for congressional deal on wall

WATCH: President Trump Talks Border Wall, North Korea To The Media

Trump says Pelosi ‘playing games’ on wall funds

Nancy Pelosi: No money in legislation for Trump’s wall

Will Trump’s wall ever be built?

Trump vows to deport criminal illegal immigrants

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Trump’s plan for deporting criminal illegal immigrants

Trump: It is realistic to deport all illegal immigrants

Historian Victor Davis Hanson on why he supports Trump

The Suicide of Europe

Europe Is Killing Itself

A Nation of Immigrants

Trump says Nancy Pelosi is ‘playing games’ with wall funding

– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 31, 2019

President Trump said Thursday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “playing games” with his demand for a border wall and he doesn’t expect the congressional negotiations to reach a deal on a barrier for the southern border.

“She’s playing games,” the president told reporters at the White House. “If there’s no wall, it doesn’t work.”

Minutes earlier, Mrs. Pelosi vowed at the Capitol that Democrats won’t approve money for a wall as part of negotiations on border security.

She suggested there might be money available for a so-called “Normandy” fence along the southern border, which would stop vehicles but not people on foot.

Upon hearing that, the president said he doesn’t expect a 17-member bipartisan committee to reach a deal on border security that’s acceptable to him.

“I don’t think they’re going to make a deal,” Mr. Trump said. “I don’t expect much coming out of this committee.”