On legality of Infanticide

[SolitaryWalker]

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.

Because retarded people will be able to function soundly enough to make decisions in our society. They will simply take longer. Even if that was not the case, your point is not relevant to the thread.

 

[kyuuei]

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.

You know. You refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the laws are there to protect those incapable of thinking for themselves yet. I've stated that twice with no response, not to mention several other points I've made.

You want to convince the world that you are so right. Yet, even if anyone acknowledges your points as being right in this sense or that, you refuse to settle for anything less than your righteous divine theory. No one here will convince you otherwise because you childish write anything off as simply the cause of feelings, and this irrationality, and thus irrelevent.

I wasn't here to convince you of anything, and I made my arguement and now I am tired of said arguing. It sucks to argue without being heard at all. I might as well talk to a brick wall, or a recorder re-writing everything it's already said.

It's no fun to just pick and choose your battles. It's a childish way of thinking, and a selfish way of arguing. So I'm kindly bowing out.

 

[Lateralus]

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.

Oh, I know exactly what he's trying to do. It's the same old Seawolf game. I'm just playing along.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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.

The argument with respect to knowledge of God is not relevant as it merely symbolizes what man could achieve with regard to his potential. Your argument could be made without an appeal to divinity.

Law is to regulate currently existing entities and not those that may exist in the future. Therefore we cannot take this in consideration.

 

[Jack Flak]

Does BW actually believe this stuff?

It doesn't matter. It's just sad either way.

 

[RiderOnTheStorm]

BlueWing. Let's just agree to disagree. Everyone has the right to their opinion. Unfortunately this is yours. Good day.

 

[Totenkindly]

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?

I just have to say, regardless of my opinion of euthanasia and abortion, I think it best to avoid making spurious arguments of the "what if?" variety.

The problem? The same basis could be used to say, "Well, what if you don't have sex with your partner tonight? The baby you might have conceived could have done something remarkable! How can you not have sex?" (and, of course, remember that the same baby could have grown up to be Jeffrey Dahmer).

Besides, of course, it signifies the value of the child not as an inherent quality but merely as a measure of its usefulness to society. THat's probably the opposite of the argument you'd like to make here.

Until it can survive on its own outside the womb, it's in mom as a parasite.

Um, no.

The fetus actually is comprised of half of the material from its mother, spawning from a biological process that is part and parcel to her own body. It's not an outside organism using her body, it actually begins as part of her body operating according to healthy biology.

The only problem might be, at times, if the mom conceived from an act of sex she did not desire nor wanted to take responsibility for.

I think modern society has to get over this idea that we are totally in control of our bodies and we only get pregnant if we want to. We're not, even if we can control pregnancy a great deal. We're still biologically animals and subject to the process of nature, so all that has to be taken into account when we choose our behavior.

Because it's talking about killing babies!!!! It's just a gut reaction to a yucky subject.

Pretty much.

I'm a parent. I have known my kids from the moment of their birth. Yes, I feel repulsion at the idea. A lot of repulsion, actually. I'm squishing it down right now.

But I still think it can be discussed from a rational angle, to see if there is any delineations that can be drawn. And no, the OP wasn't really discussing "relationships" or "right/wrong" from someone's moral pov, it was describing utility and trying to determine if there was any point at which a developing human being passes from "not self" to "self."

Maybe the topic is too repulsive to be approached from BW's angle here.

And I suspect that this is just a social experiment of BlueWings to further advance his theory of crazy NF's and their crazy feelings that shouldn't have any place in society.

Or it might not be about you at all.

In any case, if you believe he is doing this, should you play along? Or is it inevitable because he's violating your values?

This is such an odd weird meta-thread. I'm learning more from watching people's responses than from the actual content of the responses themselves.

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

It's okay. We all have a few bite marks on our ass, it's part of being alive. (And tasting good.)

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.

Yeah. Especially nowadays, when babies that have only gestated for 5-6 months can actually survived being born (even if they might suffer health problems, perhaps for the rest of their lives, from the premature birth).

In some ways, "birth" is a logically arbitrary measure of personhood. But it sure is an intuitive one, isn't it? "Common sense" says as soon as that baby is outside the mom, it looks like a separate tangible entity and we respond to it as such = hence, they are now a person.

But again, that's not a logical thing, it's common sense and partly emotional.

 

[Owl]

The argument with respect to knowledge of God is not relevant as it merely symbolizes what man could achieve with regard to his potential. Your argument could be made without an appeal to divinity.

Law is to regulate currently existing entities and not those that may exist in the future. Therefore we cannot take this in consideration.

The existence of divinity is important because that is what prescribes as normative the development of all things so that they realize their full potential.

You needn't take my argument into consideration, (you already think the premises are false), I was just informing you of the position because it's superior to DCT, and it provides the rational for not killing infants provided one believes in God.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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?

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?

You have no right to damage my child just like you have no right to damage my automobile.

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?

Yes he does.

You know. You refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that the laws are there to protect those incapable of thinking for themselves yet. I've stated that twice with no response, not to mention several other points I've made.

You want to convince the world that you are so right. Yet, even if anyone acknowledges your points as being right in this sense or that, you refuse to settle for anything less than your righteous divine theory. No one here will convince you otherwise because you childish write anything off as simply the cause of feelings, and this irrationality, and thus irrelevent.

I wasn't here to convince you of anything, and I made my arguement and now I am tired of said arguing. It sucks to argue without being heard at all. I might as well talk to a brick wall, or a recorder re-writing everything it's already said.

It's no fun to just pick and choose your battles. It's a childish way of thinking, and a selfish way of arguing. So I'm kindly bowing out.

It isnt a matter of Feel!!

 

[Jack Flak]

I think it best to avoid making spurious arguments of the "what if?" variety.

"What if?" questions are the INTPs forte. Though the kind of question you ask can indeed demonstrate your character to your audience, as has been illustrated.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Because retarded people will be able to function soundly enough to make decisions in our society. They will simply take longer. Even if that was not the case, your point is not relevant to the thread.

Why is not relevant?

If person has some stronger mental problems it will never be fully functional. Since you are taking about killing babies because they can be propety for first few years of life.
Why not expand entire thing to highly retarded people, they are children for life.
I don't see your logic.

 

[phoenix13]

Because retarded people will be able to function soundly enough to make decisions in our society.

Ahhh, that is comforting. You were sounding elitist for a while there...

 

[Lateralus]

You have no right to damage my child just like you have no right to damage my automobile.

If I 'damaged' your child, would that be considered murder, assuming that we've already established that your child is one of your sub-humans? Or could I get off with paying a fine? Could I get sub-human damage insurance, to cover the costs of the sub-humans I plan on damaging in your fantasy world?

 

[kyuuei]

It isnt a matter of Feel!!

Stop throwing a tantrum.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Why is not relevant?

If person has some stronger mental problems it will never be fully functional. Since you are taking about killing babies because they can be propety for first few years of life.
Why not expand entire thing to highly retarded people, they are children for life.
I don't see your logic.

Your point was not relevant because it did not directly address the issues raised in the OP. Namely, under what other circumstances besides the ones previously described could people be killed.

Yes, if the degree of retardation is severe to the point where one will not be fully functional, such a person will forever remain the property of the parent. There it is up to them to kill the person or not to kill.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

If I 'damaged' your child, would that be considered murder, assuming that we've already established that your child is one of your sub-humans? Or could I get off with paying a fine? Could I get sub-human damage insurance, to cover the costs of the sub-humans I plan on damaging in your fantasy world?

Most likely some jail time. Its highly valued property, much like a house, or a business. Much akin to the penalty you'd incur for the crime of arson.

 

[Jack Flak]

Most likely some jail time. Its highly valued property, much like a house, or a business. Much akin to the penalty you'd incur for the crime of arson.

You've just argued yourself into a circle, because the penalties for arson in the USA are usually similar to those for say, second degree murder.

 

[Ferrus]

'One may speculate that the universal maxim espoused by the species Cricetus cricetus affirms that infanticide is a categorical imperative of the necessitous familial unit.' - I. Kant

 

[Didums]

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.

The problem is that if there is a change in economic stability, or the father leaves the mother to care for the baby on her own, there should still be the option available, and understand that most people would probably keep the baby.

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.

Yes but there is variation on types or retardation correct? Are we going to have to make different ages for each case of retardation? Depending on the severity of the retardation which may not even be discernable at the time?

My problem here is why wait so long to kill it? I mean during the span of 5 years, the parents could have given the idea some thought. I'll bargain the age of 3 for you given that they do take longer to develop but 5 seems overboard.

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

My lines of demarcation are similar but take the same side of you by slightly different reasoning.

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?

No I think that they should have both options up to a certain age, but if the child gets beyond said age without the parents making a decision than that is the fault of the parents, they had plenty of time to contemplate the fate of the child. Plus, if the child gets beyond said age without a decision being made, it shows the incompetance of the parents, so adoption makes sense, gets the child away from the parents (they don't deserve to make the choice of killing it).

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.

I'm not challenging it. I think that killing the baby should be an option up to a certain point as well, its that most people will not take that option over adoption, however it should be a choice. I am Pro-Choice

 

[Virtual ghost]

Your point was not relevant because it did not directly address the issues raised in the OP. Namely, under what other circumstances besides the ones previously described could people be killed.

Yes, if the degree of retardation is severe to the point where one will not be fully functional, such a person will forever remain the property of the parent. There it is up to them to kill the person or not to kill.

Sorry I did not know the rules.