• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

On legality of Infanticide

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
I like your style. I come up with "extreme rationalizations" on par this with occassionally, but I would not have chosen to let such a notion out into the wild.

How about Moronicide? You could use crushed vicodin on a cheese cracker as bait to get the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

I don't agree with the Infanticide argument. Infants have an incredible capacity for learning, and that learning starts from the moment the baby IPOs into the big bad world, possibly even a little sooner. It is that ability to learn is arguably one of the most important aspects of our cognitive ability.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I like your style. I come up with "extreme rationalizations" on par this with occassionally, but I would not have chosen to let such a notion out into the wild.

How about Moronicide? You could use crushed vicodin on a cheese cracker as bait to get the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

I don't agree with the Infanticide argument. Infants have an incredible capacity for learning, and that learning starts from the moment the baby IPOs into the big bad world, possibly even a little sooner. It is that ability to learn is arguably one of the most important aspects of our cognitive ability.

The standard for claiming human rights is very low. Most adult morons would have more than enough to claim them.

Potential of infants to learn is irrelevant as that is, strictly speaking non-existent, that is what could be and not what is.
 

mippus

you are right
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
906
MBTI Type
Intp
Enneagram
5w6
Hm, just a side remark: the value of this thread is that it treats a very strong social taboo. Hence the great amount of emotional responses (even with BW, be it irritation).

To me it proves the validity of taboos. I still don't know if every taboo should be fought. This discussion might lead to some people thinking the taboo suppresses us, and thus that killing infants could be acceptable.

PS: whatever your opinion on BW, one has to give him credit for finding a very strong topic ;)
 

mippus

you are right
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
906
MBTI Type
Intp
Enneagram
5w6
Okay: even in your extremely rational approach, you never stated that infanticide would be in any form desirable. You do credit it with some more acceptability (only from the infant's parents' point of view), but never desirability.

However, seen the very strong emotional reactions on your post, it appeared to be clear that people forgot about this, and reacted to you as if you do find infanticide desirable. (I even claim that these reactions lead you to leave the track of rational approach and step into the pitfall of provocation.)

The fact that this is so hard to discuss on the rational level you wanted it to stay on, demonstrates that such a discussion is bound to end up in caricatures of people believing you to be some sort of monster and others believing you to be some kind of monster. The latter would then possibly step into cognitive dissonance and actually start to feel (yes, I know ;)) it is okay to commit infanticide. This -even to you- would still be a serious crime. Discussing it thus lead to misinterpreation that lead to disaster. Better to have left the subject untouched then.

As I said: a side remark.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Okay: even in your extremely rational approach, you never stated that infanticide would be in any form desirable. You do credit it with some more acceptability (only from the infant's parents' point of view), but never desirability.

However, seen the very strong emotional reactions on your post, it appeared to be clear that people forgot about this, and reacted to you as if you do find infanticide desirable. (I even claim that these reactions lead you to leave the track of rational approach and step into the pitfall of provocation.)

The fact that this is so hard to discuss on the rational level you wanted it to stay on, demonstrates that such a discussion is bound to end up in caricatures of people believing you to be some sort of monster and others believing you to be some kind of monster. The latter would then possibly step into cognitive dissonance and actually start to feel (yes, I know ;)) it is okay to commit infanticide. This -even to you- would still be a serious crime. Discussing it thus lead to misinterpreation that lead to disaster. Better to have left the subject untouched then.

As I said: a side remark.

Aha, very clear and soundly reasoned explanation.

As you mention, I certainly do not find infanticide agreeable with my moral sentiments, though I support the legalization of such a practice because of the aforementioned pragmatic value it brings to society.
 

Anja

New member
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
2,967
MBTI Type
INFP
Blue Wing. I've read the first of your threads. Your reputation precedes you like an alluring late-night snack.

I think you should get out of the house and go dancing more often. You'll never have trouble attracting partners to dance with you.

My thought was to be entertained by the interactions here because this thread is a perfect example of something not being what it appears at first glance. Magic! You make magic happen!

You're good, Dude. Never going to lack for conversationalists. But it's kinda hard on an INFP to watch someone willing to take such a beating for a little fun.

Imagine I'll add my name to your list of avid readers, if not actually waltz around the floor with you. :hi:
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Blue Wing. I've read the first of your threads. Your reputation precedes you like an alluring late-night snack.

I think you should get out of the house and go dancing more often. You'll never have trouble attracting partners to dance with you.

My thought was to be entertained by the interactions here because this thread is a perfect example of something not being what it appears at first glance. Magic! You make magic happen!

You're good, Dude. Never going to lack for conversationalists. But it's kinda hard on an INFP to watch someone willing to take such a beating for a little fun.

Imagine I'll add my name to your list of avid readers, if not actually waltz around the floor with you. :hi:


Haha..the beating akin to that of hitting a tank with a tennis ball.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
It is not artbitrary because there are objective methods of determing one's cognitive ability. There is a difference between seeing the world analytical, or from an intellectual standpoint, and merely acting on impulse. One becomes human whenever he begins to clearly achieve the former. Likely at 2 years old. This is when children are able to speak in full sentences and memorize the basic entities of their observations.

Your reasoning is sound, but what about practical application? You said that the age two just happens to be the age when a human has some basic threshold of cognitive ability. What about children that speak at 9 months? What about 4 years? I infer from your earlier reasoning that it's the actual ability that should be the cut-off, not the age, correct?

So then, who's gonna pay for doing cognitive ability tests for all children all the time to determine when they get their rights? If we didn't do these tests, we'd have extreme problems over infanticide in court cases, since the child in question would already be dead. That route seems much less efficient for our society than to just make it illegal to kill babies at any age.

If we were to just make an age threshold, the children that talk at 9 months just get screwed. The first option is impractical, the second immoral (because murder, according to your definition, would be committed and not properly punished).
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Your reasoning is sound, but what about practical application? You said that the age two just happens to be the age when a human has some basic threshold of cognitive ability. What about children that speak at 9 months? What about 4 years? I infer from your earlier reasoning that it's the actual ability that should be the cut-off, not the age, correct?

So then, who's gonna pay for doing cognitive ability tests for all children all the time to determine when they get their rights? If we didn't do these tests, we'd have extreme problems over infanticide in court cases, since the child in question would already be dead. That route seems much less efficient for our society than to just make it illegal to kill babies at any age.

If we were to just make an age threshold, the children that talk at 9 months just get screwed. The first option is impractical, the second immoral (because murder, according to your definition, would be committed and not properly punished).

All killing of children ought to be authorized by the state. Unauthorized killing shall be regarded as murder.

All testing will be conducted at the expense of the legal guardian.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Okay, well now it seems you're changing your original argument. You said before that unauthorized killing would be akin to vandalizing a car.

Re: testing -- is it a necessessity to test your children in this way? Do you think people should have their children registered as humans? If so, that would be a huge huge huge economic cost. Otherwise, according this last response, testing is useless anyway, unless the child is being targeted by the state. Honestly, though, if the state wants to make a case that a child should be killed, shouldn't they pay the cost of testing? If they killed the child without testing, they would face aftermath that would be inefficient as well.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Okay, well now it seems you're changing your original argument. You said before that unauthorized killing would be akin to vandalizing a car.

The car analogy was merely to point out that the child is property. However, additional procedures are necessary because such property has potential to hold higher value.

Otherwise, according this last response, testing is useless anyway, unless the child is being targeted by the state. Honestly, though, if the state wants to make a case that a child should be killed, shouldn't they pay the cost of testing? If they killed the child without testing, they would face aftermath that would be inefficient as well.

Dont get it...

Whats the inefficiency in conducting a 5 minute test?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
You really think a 5 minute test could conclusively determine whether or not someone has some set of specific cognitive abilities? How would this test work? And how would people determine what this set of traits would be?

Also, what if a child would pass this test on one day and fail the next? What about mute children? What about children that just don't choose to show their abilities in a certain way, even if they have them?

You seem to think there could be some machine that would scan the brain and output "human" or "not human". Is this part of your assumption set in this argument?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
You really think a 5 minute test could conclusively determine whether or not someone has some set of specific cognitive abilities? How would this test work? And how would people determine what this set of traits would be?

Also, what if a child would pass this test on one day and fail the next? What about mute children? What about children that just don't choose to show their abilities in a certain way, even if they have them?

You seem to think there could be some machine that would scan the brain and output "human" or "not human". Is this part of your assumption set in this argument?

Generally there are clear-cut signs of a developing intellect that we are looking for. For example the basic ability to speak in full sentences. Or identify a physical object. Children either have it or they do not. They display either of the two on consistent basis.

We are unlikely to incur many expanses as a result of conducting such a test because it shall be simple by nature.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
What if the child is able to speak in full sentences and chooses not to during the test?

How do you measure ability? You can only measure performance. That flaw in and of itself makes your entire theory unacceptable, because some children that you would consider human would still be considered legally unhuman.

"Generally" is not even close to good enough when we're talking about killing.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
What if the child is able to speak in full sentences and chooses not to during the test?

How do you measure ability? You can only measure performance. That flaw in and of itself makes your entire theory unacceptable, because some children that you would consider human would still be considered legally unhuman.

"Generally" is not even close to good enough when we're talking about killing.

As aforementioned, children tend to display or not to display these skills consistently. Because they act out on their hunches uninhibitedly, they are out of tune with the kind of conscious thinking necessary to choose not to display such skills during the test. Because small children tend to monitor themselves little, they tend to openly express whatever is going on within them.

We can expect not to encounter the problem you've invoked.
 

Hexis

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,442
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Ok well ive read through most of this thread and feel im ready to throw in my two cents while im online today.

Ok first of all I do agree with BW on some levels, but at the same time for different reasons. I do feel that while an infant is in the womb that they are not considered "human" and it should be for no reason against the law/moral/ethics/reasoning of society to "dispose" of them. But after they are born they are most definitely human, there is no logical arguement against that, there human end of discussion. Now I do feel that children ( i mean about under the age of 18 months or so) who are mentally ill or disabled to the point that they are of no use to society should be "disposed" of by law immediately, but normaly you can find this out while they are still in the womb and its not morally a problem to do so then. But for no reason is a child post-birth not conisidered human and not considered to have rights. I have a son of my own and if you where to ever have children (which I doubt anyone would with you if you ever voiced your oponions on the matter) you would most definitely at some point realise the beauty that a new life brings into this world and realise how (logical or not) ridiculous your conclusions are.

Now im not saying that disposeing of an terminally unhealthy or completely mentally disabled child is wrong, it is most definitely (imo) the best thing to do. But mostly because that is no life to live and if my son where to have been born a vegetable you can most definitely believe I would be the first one to say to "dispose" of him. But that is mostly out of my love for him and how I would hate to know he is liveing an incomplete life and that theres no way for me to even know if hes miserable or not. But at the same time he should NEVER be considerd property, and NO ONE other than me or his mother WILL have the right to decide these things for him, ever!

On another tangent I do feel that the elderly who are mentally ill or people who have basically a negative effect on society should be "disposed" of. This includes anyone who has a dabilatateing diseases that leave them with only the most basic functions and depend on others for survival or for any other reason must depend on others to live and at the same time could be said to not have a grip of reality and cant make any decisions. So for example I feel all people who are clinicaly insane to the point that reality no longer is a factor for their thinking level should be "disposed" of, not sent to a treatment facility just to keep em alive. Kill 'em, end of discussion.

Ok BW on another side note your are going to have to take into account that a "majority" of people (so far everyone but you) will base some decisions on emotions if not the whole of their lives. And that no matter how logical your arguements are and no matter how much sense they make, how that would no matter what be the overall best decision for everyone, your going to have to realize that we as humans are not built on logic but rather emotion and that it will never work. You might say that this is not an arguement for NFs or Feeling has no place here but then I say if it doesnt then this arguement should not even have been brought up. Cause if there is only room for cold hearted (not an insult), calculateing, logical thinkers then your arguement is already dead cause if your arguement cant grow from the input from feelers as well then whats the point. This world will always partially be ran souly by emotions and something robotic like this, no matter how logically correct, will never fly. Just like how i respect your outstanding logic and your ability to set aside your emotions for such a topic, I also demand your respect of my emotions as well as the emotions of others who are trying to have a decent debate with you. And if you fail to recognise human emotion (not only in this debate but all others) as a valid stand point for the backing of an arguement then the only thing I can say is, in the most respectful manner, fuck you BlueWing.

Overall good thread, :nice:.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Consider a child who's been classically conditioned not to speak. Like, say a parent beats their child every time they say anything. Are these children going to pass your test? No. Are they human? Yes.

Sorry man, but you're way off base here, and you're talking about killing babies. You gotta come up with a better argument than that. Plus, your test is so concrete and "cognitive ability" is such a complex matter -- it sounds like you're struggling to rationalize your stance now instead of just giving up. If you want to convince people, make a more full argument and the way this view would be implemented.
 
Top