• 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

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.

Preposterous. I would like the source of this please.


What source? This is my argument.
 

WobblyStilettos

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
331
MBTI Type
INFP
:shock:

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."
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
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.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
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.
 

RiderOnTheStorm

E. N.. T... :P
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
792
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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?
 

SillyGoose

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
243
MBTI Type
EXXP
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.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
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?

Right. There is a huge difference between saying "Sometimes it's okay to implement the death penalty" or "is it okay to kill in self-defense?" .. These are adult things. The person made some sort of action or did something to create that question. Infants have simply existed.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
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.

I dont get it? Just because the law does not allow it has nothing to say with regard to whether or not it ought to be this way.

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?


Feeling is not the same thing as having a coherent sense of psychological self. Animals feel too. Why dont we give them human rights as well? Yeah. RAWL!!!!!!!!!! GRRRRR......WILL BITE YOUR PANTS OFF...How much more human can you get!

Gahhh!!!!!!!!!!! FEELLL!!!!!!!!!!!:heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::rolli::rolli::hug::hug::cry::hi::huh::huh::huh::smile::smile::smile::):)

I tell you the truth, you have no right to kill them! Feeellll!!!!!! Trust the Feel..as human as it gets I tell you..believe me! Noone who does not believe will not reach the kindgdom of GOD, NOONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH THE FEEL!!!:happy2::shock::shock:

:cry::cry::wubbie::hug::heart::heart::D:D:)

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.


????????

I thought I already covered this. It is not okay to kill the healthy adult person because he has the psychological sense of self, this is what grants one the human rights.

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.


Sorry 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.
 

SillyGoose

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
243
MBTI Type
EXXP
I dont get it? Just because the law does not allow it has nothing to say with regard to whether or not it ought to be this way.




Feeling is not the same thing as having a coherent sense of psychological self. Animals feel too. Why dont we give them human rights as well? Yeah. RAWL!!!!!!!!!! GRRRRR......WILL BITE YOUR PANTS OFF...How much more human can you get!

Gahhh!!!!!!!!!!! FEELLL!!!!!!!!!!!:heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::rolli::rolli::hug::hug::cry::hi::huh::huh::huh::smile::smile::smile::):)

I tell you the truth, you have no right to kill them! Feeellll!!!!!! Trust the Feel..as human as it gets I tell you..believe me! Noone who does not believe will not reach the kindgdom of GOD, NOONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH THE FEEL!!!:happy2::shock::shock:

:cry::cry::wubbie::hug::heart::heart::D:D:)


Why would the law not have a say in what should protect all members of our society? It's the law, you can't -- so why you are even thinking about the right of people to kill kids?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Why would the law not have a say in what should protect all members of our society? It's the law, you can't -- so why you are even thinking about the right of people to kill kids?


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.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
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'.

Well, I'd not appeal to how I feel in order to establish my definition over against yours; I'd appeal to the existence of God and his nature as a creator that creates to reveal his glory. But something tells me you won't accept that...

Until I convince you that God exists, remind me not to fall asleep when you're around. I don't want you stealing all my stuff.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, I'd not appeal to how I feel in order to establish my definition over against yours; I'd appeal to the existence of God and his nature as a creator that creates to reveal his glory. But something tells me you won't accept that...

Until I convince you that God exists, remind me not to fall asleep when you're around. I don't want you stealing all my stuff.

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.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
BW, your intent here is to enlighten pro-choice folks about the insignificant difference between a birthed and a yet-unbirthed baby, no?

And thus everyone getting all upset at you should instead turn their emotions upon themselves and examine their personal abortion stance?
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
BlueWing: Some questions are simply better left unasked, [insert expletive derogatory term].
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
BW, your intent here is to enlighten pro-choice folks about the insignificant difference between a birthed and a yet-unbirthed baby, no?

And thus everyone getting all upset at you should instead turn their emotions upon themselves and examine their personal abortion stance?

Yes. They should not merely state their prejudices, but examine the logical foundations of their views. Almost certainly, after they have done this they will realize that laws concerning prohibition of infanticide and laws concerning prohibition of abortion by the same token (in some nations) are untenable.


BlueWing: Some questions are simply better left unasked, [insert expletive derogatory term].

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.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
Sorry 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.

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.
 
Top