On legality of Infanticide

[SolitaryWalker]

I am completely confused.

What's the difference between you saying "Yes." to me first, and then saying "completely the opposite"?

When I said Yes to you , I agreed with you that people should put a grip on their passions and think things through.

 

[Usehername]

When I said Yes to you , I agreed with you that people should put a grip on their passions and think things through.

My xxxJness has drawn too quick a conclusion and bitten me in the ass, I do believe.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Why is this level so important? What benefit would this give society? You do realize that the (ideal) purpose of law is that it benefits society, right? That would be the litmus test, if you ask me.

It is important because only people who are able to think on the intellectual level are able to come up with ideas for society, and to organize the current modus operandi within society. For this reason the human groups of people are far more advanced than the non-human animals.

For the sake of efficiency of functioning in our society, it is desirable that only those who are able to think on an intellectual level should be allowed to make decisions. As those who are not able to do so are less likely to make sound decisions.

My xxxJness has drawn too quick a conclusion and bitten me in the ass, I do believe.

Hyperactive N perhaps too. Conjuring conceptions about how things are without first having collected the adequate concrete (S) information of the external situation.

 

[Didums]

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.

I've been pondering about this too recently. Babies and Children have been dispensed out of necessity (the parents needed to get rid of it to survive, they couldn't keep it alive without endangering their own lives) for centuries without it being a crime but now for some reason we think we are above it. People now see that as brutal and immoral, but to those same people it is okay to kill someone because that person happened to murder someone else. Logical survival methods are deemed 'Bad', whilst illogical revenge instincts are rendered 'Good' (I shouldn't have to explain why revenging a death is illogical and worse than killing an infant.) However it should be noted that an unwanted child should primarily be set up for adoption over just killing it lol. And if it can't get adopted in a timely manner for some reason, then it should be killed in a humane manner.

What really is the difference between an embryo/fetus compared to a baby that has been birthed? The baby is outside of the mother, woopty-doo. It is still equally dependent the mother, its brain is barely developed and its skull will have to harden with time, it cannot consciously control its movement, it has no discernable thought other than primal insticts (food, poop) and its attempts to express these needs can barely be distinguished from one another, it has no traits to distinguish it as an individual other than genetic phenotype and will continue being a bland organism until personality starts developing in toddlerhood.

The only part I disagree with you on is the ages.

If a child reaches the age of two it should be given up to an orphanage. Before then if the parents wish to get rid of it, an adoption agency is prefered, but if they want to go as far as 'putting it to sleep' in a humane fashion than that is their decision as the owners of the child.

Retarded babies.. difficult. This is where there is a huge F-T divide so I don't want to say anything that gets me castrated.. What I'll say is that I disagree with age 5 for the time-span where it can be legally murdered, it should be up to age 2, same as a normal child, but it should be able to be dispensed of to an orphanage up to age 8.

 

[kyuuei]

I am completely confused.

What's the difference between you saying "Yes." to me first, and then saying "completely the opposite"?

He's stating that we need only pure logic to come to a suitable conclusion for all of this.

If that were the only thing that society ever based things on, we'd work all backwards. To me, his statement is illogical, because I mix what I believe with how I think. and I believe that giving anyone the ability to kill anything just because it is incapable of thinking for itself (especially in a temporary timeframe like an infant) is ludacris. The laws we have protect those people until they can defend themselves or it is deemed that they are out of reach of modern society (like someone in a coma or whatever.. when they do give the parents or spouse the options to not try to save them, or pulling the plug if they are dying.. etc.). People do not think rationally as a whole.. to simply say "Here you go! Mom, do you want the baby dead or alive?" is silly to me, because I believe that someone ought to protect the baby.. in this case, the law. And I like it that way. and so does most of society.

 

[Jack Flak]

*remembers why he hates most other INTPs*

 

[cafe]

It's kind of wasteful to just kill them. Maybe we could use them for medical research that would improve the lot of the entire species. Society benefits and parents make a buck or two. What's not to like?

 

[Usehername]

He's stating that we need only pure logic to come to a suitable conclusion for all of this.

If that were the only thing that society ever based things on, we'd work all backwards. To me, his statement is illogical, because I mix what I believe with how I think. and I believe that giving anyone the ability to kill anything just because it is incapable of thinking for itself (especially in a temporary timeframe like an infant) is ludacris. The laws we have protect those people until they can defend themselves or it is deemed that they are out of reach of modern society (like someone in a coma or whatever.. when they do give the parents or spouse the options to not try to save them, or pulling the plug if they are dying.. etc.). People do not think rationally as a whole.. to simply say "Here you go! Mom, do you want the baby dead or alive?" is silly to me, because I believe that someone ought to protect the baby.. in this case, the law. And I like it that way. and so does most of society.

*remembers why he hates most other INTPs*

Hmmm.

Apologies for getting outrageously misdirected and you two (and others?) taking the brunt of it.

 

[kyuuei]

if they want to go as far as 'putting it to sleep' in a humane fashion than that is their decision as the owners of the child.

The parents are already given ample time to make that decision through abortion. It's apparent that you aren't going to go through 9 months of pregnancy just to put it down afterwards. That would be silly.

 

[kyuuei]

Hmmm.

Apologies for getting outrageously misdirected and you two (and others?) taking the brunt of it.

You had me at Hmmm.

 

[Lateralus]

It is important because only people who are able to think on the intellectual level are able to come up with ideas for society, and to organize the current modus operandi within society. For this reason the human groups of people are far more advanced than the non-human animals.

For the sake of efficiency of functioning in our society, it is desirable that only those who are able to think on an intellectual level should be allowed to make decisions. As those who are not able to do so are less likely to make sound decisions.

What does this have to do with the legality of infanticide? You can set up an autocracy for your social experiment without changing any laws related to infanticide or abortion.

 

[phoenix13]

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.

Perhaps I missed it, but what is your definition of "psychological sense of self?" The usefulness of your argument is very much dependent on that. You cannot interpret empirical studies without it.

The problem with any argument on the "legality of infanitcide" is that it's an extention of abortion and contains all the conundrums thereof. Here, though, the question involves when a human's psychic life starts instead of when their physical life starts, which is far harder to test.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

If a child reaches the age of two it should be given up to an orphanage. Before then if the parents wish to get rid of it, an adoption agency is prefered, but if they want to go as far as 'putting it to sleep' in a humane fashion than that is their decision as the owners of the child.

Retarded babies.. difficult. This is where there is a huge F-T divide so I don't want to say anything that gets me castrated.. What I'll say is that I disagree with age 5 for the time-span where it can be legally murdered, it should be up to age 2, same as a normal child, but it should be able to be dispensed of to an orphanage up to age 8.

My argument was that one should receive human rights when one acquires the high enough level of cognitive functioning. A retarded baby takes longer to achieve this for this reason, it could be killed at an older age than a normal baby.

Is your premise with regard to demarcation between human agents and non-human agents different from mine? If so, what is it?

I do not get why the humane-ness factor should be considered with regard to non-human children? Namely why the parent should be obligated to give them up for adoption rather than kill them if he so wills?

The humane-ness factor applies only to those who are intellectually fit enough to claim human rights. To change this, you ought to challenge my initial premise, with respect to which I have asked you a question.

 

[kyuuei]

What does this have to do with the legality of infanticide? You can set up an autocracy for your social experiment without changing any laws related to infanticide or abortion.

It's his attempt at saying because not everyone is an intellectual, and because not everyone simply thinks with no feelings attached, they are unfit and unqualified to make the hard decisions of life like whether we should think of babies as property or not.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What does this have to do with the legality of infanticide? You can set up an autocracy for your social experiment without changing any laws related to infanticide or abortion.

It is relevant to infanticide in this regard: a small child should not be allowed to make decisions for himself, therefore he does not have human rights. For this reason his interests ought not to be taken in consideration. He can be dispensed with at the will of those who do.

 

[Lateralus]

It is relevant to infanticide in this regard: a small child should not be allowed to make decisions for himself, therefore he does not have human rights. He can be dispensed with at the will of those who do.

Hahaha. Would you decide for everyone when it's best to take a piss?

What if, under your scenario, I killed your child. Would that be legal? Or are there only specific entities that are allowed to 'dispense' of these sub-humans?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think that thread has one hole.

Why not kill retarded children as soon it becomes obvious that they are retarded?

This children will probably never be on the level that takes to be fully functional person.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Perhaps I missed it, but what is your definition of "psychological sense of self?" The usefulness of your argument is very much dependent on that. You cannot interpret empirical studies without it.

The problem with any argument on the "legality of infanitcide" is that it's an extention of abortion and contains all the conundrums thereof. Here, though, the question involves when a human's psychic life starts instead of when their physical life starts, which is far harder to test.

Read my earlier response to lateralus. Psychologists ought to utilize their technology to examine the physical occurences in the brain and what cognitive activities in the mind they correlate with. When a child demonstrates the basic intellectual competence that I have described to Lateralus earlier, he ought to be accorded human rights.

 

[Usehername]

It is relevant to infanticide in this regard: a small child should not be allowed to make decisions for himself, therefore he does not have human rights. For this reason his interests ought not to be taken in consideration. He can be dispensed with at the will of those who do.

For my edification:

Does BW actually believe this stuff? Or does he simply take comfort in completely setting aside any feelings he has to make every single decision? Or is his level of what's "not cool" to talk about as theory just far, far less of an issue than it is for the standard person?

Like, what would happen if BW had progeny that he held in his hands that was all cuddly and stuff with his eyes and nose but was not yet two?

BW?

 

[Owl]

Divine Command basically?

It is wrong to kill infants because God said so?

This is moral nihilism, as here we have an unsupported assertion that X is either good or bad. Or in other words, an arbitrary dictate.

Essentially the purpose of morality is to make our lives better, what conduces to human happiness is morally sound, what does not, is morally unsound.

Otherwise morality is simply without an apology, there would be no use for it outside of this context.

The only way your argument could be justified is if blindly obeying the commands of God leads to some kind of a greater good in the long run that we are currently unaware of. In that case, however, it is strange that God cannot inform us of such a good. The only explanation for this that makes sense is that he does not want us to know of his plans. Likely because he has something to hide.

DCT does collapse into moral nihilism. I actually wrote a paper on that during my senior year.

Man is a being with the capacity and need to understand. The knowledge of God is the highest good for man, and the knowledge of God is through dominion; i.e., man comes to know God through understanding the nature of creation and working to develop the potential excellence within the creation. Therefore, we don't kill infants because that harms the infant; it keeps the infant from realizing its potential, and thus the glory the life of the infant would have otherwise revealed is kept unrealized, and we are deprived of knowledge of God that life would have revealed.