On legality of Infanticide

[mippus]

I mean no flaming at all.

When I read the title of this thread I was irritated, but then I saw Bluewing started it so I wanted to read it after all. And then it hit me...

I see you use your own idea on what human is, as a starting point to draw another conclusion. As a form of rational gymnastics this may be fun, but that is where it ends. To many people this exercise is very shocking. As a father of a one year old, I am no exception...

EDIT: it took me a couple of minutes to write this post, so I realize other people have reacted in the mean while...

 

[SillyGoose]

You need to pay attention to the distinction between what the law is and what it ought to be. Laws that are inefficient must be replaced with those that are efficient, as is the case with the inefficient law concerning prohibition of infanticide.

I think it would be inefficient to prohibit throwing away property like cars, chairs and TVs as this interferes with our autonomy. For the same reason it is inefficient to prohibit one to discard with infants or the mentally ill.

No, I can do anything I want and pay attention to anything I want -- because I feel like it Woooo, doesn't that feel good?

How are you to know that the infant that is okay to be thrown away wouldn't be the one to cure cancer in 20 years? Is that more important than one persons autonomy who chose to have a child and has many options of giving up their responsibility of raising their child other than killing their child?

There are many other methods for people who shouldn't be parents to give up their child.

Your offered method is cruel and inhumane.

 

[Enyo]

Infanticide or killing recently born children is considered a crime because such an entity is regarded as a human being.

Abortion, however is not considered a crime because a fetus is not regarded as a human being.

Once a fetus can live outside the womb, it becomes a human. A recently born child can survive outside the womb, therefore, it is a person.

Until it can survive on its own outside the womb, it's in mom as a parasite. The recently born, while still in need of assistance, can breathe on its own and digest food on its own. Someone else can take care of those needs if the parents are unwilling to do so. There are certainly others in society who would gladly adopt said child. (At least, in US and Canadian society. Can't speak for anywhere else, since I've never lived there.)

 

[kyuuei]

I mean no flaming at all.

When I read the title of this thread I was irritated, but then I saw Bluebell started it so I wanted to read it after all. And then it hit me...

I see you use your own idea on what human is, as a starting point to draw another conclusion. As a form of rational gymnastics this may be right, but that is where it ends. To many people this exercise is very shocking. As a father of a one year old, I am no exception...

Exactly. His conclusion is based on a personal opinion. Luckily, law is not based on one single person's opinion on a matter, but rather the majority of how a nation feels.

 

[phoenix13]

What is a human being? Quite obviously the psychological sense of self or the capacity for an intellectual conception of the world is the essence of man. An infant does not have a mind of a human. He is in closer affinity with most animals than humans for this reason.

I agree with this: consciousness/awareness and the capacity to deliberate distinguishes us from animals (eventhough we are animals, but you know what I mean). Babies fail at the latter.

...
A normal child may be dispensed with until he has reached the age of 2, or clear-cut psychological functioning. A child afflicted with mental retardation may be killed until he has reached the age of 5.

Thus in summary, one should not be awarded the basic human rights until one becomes human or acquires a psychological sense of self, until then he is to be regarded as property of those who do have such a sense of self.

Where did 2 and 5 come from?
How do you determine whether or not a 2 year old has a sense of self? How crude a sense are we talking about (is it simply an awareness that one is separate from the external environment)?

What a sense of self is, and when exactly you get it sounds every bit as fuzzy as the abortion debate about when life starts (during fertilization, embedding in the uterus, etc.). That makes your proposition every bit as fuzzy for the purposes of law making as abortion (because many people will have good reasons to disagree). Interesting thoughts, though.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I mean no flaming at all.

When I read the title of this thread I was irritated, but then I saw Bluebell started it so I wanted to read it after all. And then it hit me...

I see you use your own idea on what human is, as a starting point to draw another conclusion. As a form of rational gymnastics this may be right, but that is where it ends. To many people this exercise is very shocking. As a father of a one year old, I am no exception...

Its shocking indeed because of the personal values we hold. We have been conditioned to feel this way by society and by our biological dispositions, but this has nothing whatever to say with regard to the rationality of this view.

As a father of a one year old, your child should not have human rights, but ought to be seen as your property. Not the property of the state. Because an open society is desirable (another long argument which need not be made at this point), individualism is to be promoted over collectivism, for this reason it is better that the state be given little control over the lives of individuals than a lot. Thus, the outcome of his life until he becomes legally human is in your hands. I have given an argument for why my definition of what 'human' is should be accepted. Again, the fact that many people find it shocking is irrelevant.

 

[Jack Flak]

This attitude is incompatible with science and philosophy and is responsible for the ignorance in this world which in effect leads to much suffering. We have incurred many problems in this world because of our ignorance with regard to how the world works and how we must deal with it. The only way we can avoid being ignorant is by asking questions.

Oh, it's very compatible with philosophy. Because on my death bed, I won't be thinking about the time I asked the internet if killing babies was okay.

 

[Usehername]

People.

Read. The Thread. Don't just react.


Read. Read the whole thing.

Then think.


/end conservative Christian iNtJ speaking.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Just because you feel that it is not a human being at infancy doesn't mean someone else does not feel the opposite.

The objection people have in abortion is that people feel ALL babies are human at the state of conception, and want to save their lives.
People are arguing if children not even born yet are considered humans or not. Taking it a step further to say children ALREADY born are not considered human does not make sense, society still has not settled the step before that. It's like asking "Should we go to Pluto?!" when we haven't built the rocketship yet.

The debate on when a human becomes a human will continue to go on forever. To assume your way is the only right way would be a bit childish in my opinion. No one will be completely satisfied with any decision made. You're upset now that the system is not your way, but imagine how many people would disagree with you if yours was implemented? To think "Oh well, it's the right way to me." would also be selfish. I think the current system is enough to try and satisfy both parties. Those whom believe children are born humans, and those whom believe that they have a right to choose when a child comes into the world.
I don't have a PhD or anything, but I do think that's pretty relevent to your arguement about killing babies at the will of the parents.

Your arguement is too vague? What if the mother wants it dead and the father does not? Society hasn't come to an agreement on unborn children, so why are you concerned with children already born?

There are cases where people have been in comas for years, then come out and functioned in society. What if the state simply said before that time "They're in our custody, and we don't want to keep babying this human and spending our money unaware of what will happen to it!" and decide to stop the funding of supporting the individual? They didn't have a chance to fight for themselves. Thats what the human rights laws are all about: Giving those who cannot defend themselves the time they need to be able to do so.

No, I can do anything I want and pay attention to anything I want -- because I feel like it Woooo, doesn't that feel good?

How are you to know that the infant that is okay to be thrown away wouldn't be the one to cure cancer in 20 years? Is that more important than one persons autonomy who chose to have a child and has many options of giving up their responsibility of raising their child other than killing their child?

There are many other methods for people who shouldn't be parents to give up their child.

Your offered method is cruel and inhumane.

Once a fetus can live outside the womb, it becomes a human. A recently born child can survive outside the womb, therefore, it is a person.

Until it can survive on its own outside the womb, it's in mom as a parasite. The recently born, while still in need of assistance, can breathe on its own and digest food on its own. Someone else can take care of those needs if the parents are unwilling to do so. There are certainly others in society who would gladly adopt said child. (At least, in US and Canadian society. Can't speak for anywhere else, since I've never lived there.)

Exactly. His conclusion is based on a personal opinion. Luckily, law is not based on one single person's opinion on a matter, but rather the majority of how a nation feels.

You're forgetting something. All of you! It is not an NF forum. It is not a matter of feel!


It is a matter of a carefully contrived argument.

I agree with this: consciousness/awareness and the capacity to deliberate distinguishes us from animals (eventhough we are animals, but you know what I mean). Babies fail at the latter.



Where did 2 and 5 come from?
How do you determine whether or not a 2 year old has a sense of self? How crude a sense are we talking about (is it simply an awareness that one is separate from the external environment)?

What a sense of self is, and when exactly you get it sounds every bit as fuzzy as the abortion debate about when life starts (during fertilization, embedding in the uterus, etc.). That makes your proposition every bit as fuzzy for the purposes of law making as abortion (because many people will have good reasons to disagree). Interesting thoughts, though.

The 2 and 5 are less than exact figures. We need to concoct rigorous empirical studies in order to extrapolate a more exact figure.

Those are likely the points in time in the lives of children when they acquire the aforementioned psychological sense of self.

 

[Jack Flak]

People.

Read. The Thread. Don't just react.


Read. Read the whole thing.

Then think.


/end conservative Christian iNtJ speaking.

I've philosophized on just about everything you can think of, including the worth of less-sentient human life, but I'm not a total spazz about it.

 

[Enyo]

orry my friend, this is all very interesting but not relevant to objective methodology I have cited in OP with regard to demarcation between a human and non-human.

And I think your methodology is flawed. By that logic, why wait until 2 to declare one human? Why have any laws at all?

Let's just go to a state of pure anarchy and survival of the fittest.

</sarcasm>

 

[Jack Flak]

And I think your methodology is flawed. By that logic, why wait until 2 to declare one human? Why have any laws at all?

Let's just go to a state of pure anarchy and survival of the fittest.

</sarcasm>

That is the point which need be made here, I think. There is a balance between order and chaos in human society, for good reason, and it irritates me when people question it so ignorantly.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And I think your methodology is flawed. By that logic, why wait until 2 to declare one human? Why have any laws at all?

Let's just go to a state of pure anarchy and survival of the fittest.

</sarcasm>

What on earth is the relevance of this?

 

[mippus]

Its shocking indeed because of the personal values we hold. We have been conditioned to feel this way by society and by our biological dispositions, but this has nothing whatever to say with regard to the rationality of this view.

As a father of a one year old, your child should not have human rights, but ought to be seen as your property. Not the property of the state. Because an open society is desirable (another long argument which need not be made at this point), individualism is to be promoted over collectivism, for this reason it is better that the state be given little control over the lives of individuals than a lot. Thus, the outcome of his life until he becomes legally human is in your hands. I have given an argument for why my definition of what 'human' is should be accepted. Again, the fact that many people find it shocking is irrelevant.

Then what would you call killing someone else's one year old child? Vandalism?

 

[Usehername]

I've philosophized on just about everything you can think of, including the worth of less-sentient human life, but I'm not a total spazz about it.

That's all fine, but you're missing the fact that he likely holds more conservative values on the subject than most of the people passionately attacking him.


BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD. YOU JUST REPLIED!!!

Read, dammit!!!

 

[Jack Flak]

Then what would you call killing someone else's one year old child? Vandalism?

Would be criminal destruction of property. (See topic: American Slavery)

 

[kyuuei]

:It is a matter of a carefully contrived argument.

Of which, I believe you are flawed in clearly. If you think it's the right way of doing so, go on and try to pass such a law. If babies make me FEEL like they are humans, than that is what I shall in turn think when I debate. Just because you think babies shouldn't have human rights, it doesn't mean they won't. Like I said.. the laws are in place to protect those until they can protect themselves.. your theory would destroy those protections.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Then what would you call killing someone else's one year old child? Vandalism?

You have no right to harm the child of your neighbor else just like you have no right to damage his car or his house.

 

[SillyGoose]

People.

Read. The Thread. Don't just react.


Read. Read the whole thing.

Then think.


/end conservative Christian iNtJ speaking.

Yeah this ^

 

[Enyo]

What on earth is the relevance of this?

I've taken your logical argument and just gone one step further.