User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 177

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default On legality of Infanticide

    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.

    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.

    Because an infant is not a human, he ought not to be granted the right to life and is therefore the property of the state or his biological parents. It is up to one of the two to decide whether the infant should live or die.

    The fact that he has potential to become a human being is irrelevant because law by definition deals with entities that are and not entities that could be.

    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.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    *H8*

  3. #3
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I think your definition of human is too narrow. By this reasoning, someone in a coma, or who's sleeping, or experiencing a psychotic break from reality would not be human, because no person has "the capacity for an intellectual conception of the world" when in such a state.

    I'd define a human being as something with a body that has the potential to use reason, or has the potential for "the capacity for an intellectual conception of the world," not as a thing that is capable of doing so at the present moment.

  4. #4
    E. N.. T... :P RiderOnTheStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Preposterous. I would like the source of this please.
    You can't always do it right, you can always do what's left.

    Thoughts rearrange. Familiar now strange. All my skin is drifting on the wind.~

  5. #5
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    I think your definition of human is too narrow. By this reasoning, someone in a coma, or who's sleeping, or experiencing a psychotic break from reality would not be human, because no person has "the capacity for an intellectual conception of the world" when in such a state.

    I'd define a human being as something with a body that has the potential to use reason, or has the potential for "the capacity for an intellectual conception of the world," not as a thing that is capable of doing so at the present moment.
    I do not see why it is too narrow. Yes, it is true that under this definition someone who is in a coma would not be considered human at the time. At the time he would be considered either property of his loved ones or that of the hospital. He can reclaim his human rights as soon as he returns to the state of conscious cognitive functioning. Does not feel right, though this has nothing to say with respect to the soundness or unsoundness of such a definition of 'human'.

    Your definition of 'human' contravenes the purpose of law, namely to regulate entities that are and not entities that could be. What could be is by definition non-existent.

    Quote Originally Posted by AwesomeCakes View Post
    Preposterous. I would like the source of this please.

    What source? This is my argument.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #6
    Senior Member WobblyStilettos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    331

    Default



    Unfortunately, I've only been studying philosophy for a week, and subsequently am not aware of the full range of fallacys that are possible to commit. Because of this, I am unable to give a clever response with special philosophical terms in it.

    I will, therefore, have to be content with saying this: "That's mean. You're a meany."
    Where you used to be, there is a hole in the world, which I find myself constantly walking around in the daytime, and falling into at night. I miss you like hell. ~Edna St. Vincent Millay

  7. #7
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    The subject of abortion has been the topic for debate for decades. Just because you feel that it is not a human being at infancy doesn't mean someone else does not feel the opposite.

    Typically, a mother with that life being created inside of her, would definitely feel (normally) that the creation between her and her spouse has been since conception a form of life. The arguement can be stated that even if the baby wasn't considered a human the fact that she loved the baby as such would make it live while in custody.. but 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.

    Just the same, a small girl is raped and a child is created. She may lose her life to a child of a horrid crime.. I believe even in the Bible (I remember a long bible study lecture about how abortion is only accepted if it endangers the life of the mother in my Lutheran church) it's stated that the mother can protect her life.. perhaps that baby wasn't meant to be in this world to the mother, and she and her parents makes the decision to save herself (not necessarily a bad decision to make at all.) To make such a decision is her fair choice, it's her life in her hands.

    The problem is, we can't force people to give up their reasons behind abortion. People broken like this will seek abortion legal or otherwise, so legal abortion must remain enstated so that the fetus and mother both don't perish in the attempt. Either way, the current abortion laws give the mother plenty of time to discover the pregnancy, and make the decision (as it could be weeks before the mother realizes she's pregnant at all.)

    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.

    It'd be a shame if you were to discover, in a world where your system is implemented, that your mother in post-pregnancy depression decided she did not want you anymore.

  8. #8
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,678

    Default

    Something tells me that NFs will not like this thread.


    Can you make an argument that it is (not) ok to kill healthy adult person every now and then?

    If you solve this one, there is a possibility that your problem can be sovled with ease.

  9. #9
    E. N.. T... :P RiderOnTheStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    791

    Default

    w/e This is sick. Children 2 and younger may be able to express themselves verbally, but they do feel. They show it through their actions and emotions. How much more human than that can you get?
    You can't always do it right, you can always do what's left.

    Thoughts rearrange. Familiar now strange. All my skin is drifting on the wind.~

  10. #10
    Senior Member SillyGoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    EXXP
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Your theory is stupid.

    My dog isn't human, but by law I'm not allowed to kill her. Even IF (don't believe it) you could prove that a baby or young child was not human yet, doesn't give anyone the right to take their life.
    "My mom told me there was a weirdo on every bus, but I never could find him." Emo Phillips

Similar Threads

  1. Legality of Infanticide
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-19-2015, 02:00 PM
  2. Type based on choice of historical quotes.
    By Jack Flak in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 08:41 PM
  3. on Philosophy of Education
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 06:12 PM
  4. [ENTP] On: Overassessment of entp savvy
    By entropie in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 08:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO