Killing Babies

[Prince_Imrahil]

So in class today our teacher compared killing babies to destorying works of art or useful resources, something that should not be done, but not wrong. The reason, because infant babies, like fetuses, are not fully developed consciously to reason, think, etc. etc.

So, your thoughts?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

It's only okay to kill babies if you plan to actually eat them, not just to hang their head on the wall.

Moderator Action: That is not on-topic, and it is a particularly distasteful 'joke'. Please don't ruin threads in this manner.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I don't subscribe to his point of view.

 

[Leifmk]

Which type of class, at which level? It's not at all unheard-of for teachers to make provocative statements in order to spark debate.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Actually this is not a spark debate issue, we are discussing abortion and the morality of it, and the teacher's point of view is that the fetus, even if we consider it fully human from conception, has no rights that override the woman who bears it... I can agree with this to a point, but once the infant is born the child does not conflict with the mother because she can give it up for adoption, etc.

However since a newborn infant does not possess a level of reasoning, awareness, etc. etc., like a fetus, in the teachers opinion, it is not 'wrong' to kill such a human who does not have the full qualities of personhood, like animals, etc.

Now instead of just agreeing to disagree, or even disagreeing, why don't we spark debate and see if we can deduce whether or not its 'wrong' to kill a newborn baby (for no other reason than just to get rid of it)

P.S The class is second-year university philosophy.

 

[soul_warrior]

personally, i believe there is nothing wrong with infant deaths.
ofcourse id rather they all live to a ripe old age, but - like the rest of nature - we compete for resources, food, warmth, etc.
some deaths will occur, and indeed do with the young ones.

if the mature parents cannot support the infant for its first few years (id say 6 is the minimal age from which a human can survive alone) and they have a less than reasonable chance of surviving to help it grow, it, from a survivalist point of view, it makes sense to keep the "investment" made in the parents.
if they live on, they can sire other children.

that is cold and calculating, but what i believe to be correct.

however, ALL parents would (usually) DIE to save thier children.
that is what I would do if i had to choose.
so, again, personally i would never kill one of MY infants.

during the pregnancy the feotus is not human - in a reasoning, conscious manner.

i dont see a problem with ending it, in order to save the mother.

overall it depends on the reason for killing the infant.
if the reason is to save an older, more fertile person, that can sire more children later on, it is sad, but needed to ensure that the family-clan- survives.
if that infant is to be killed because there is no possible way it will survive to maturity, it is better to save the invested time and effort and put those into other children.
if it is just about killing infants so that you can have better lives, that is wrong.
if its killing so that YOUR children survive - you ha better guard your young ones. im coming after them!

 

[Pikachu]

Infanticide is clearly not universally wrong. Many cultures have accepted it. It was generally accepted (and in some cases expected) in most European cultures before Christianity forced their strict moral code onto everybody.

Personally I think killing babies are wrong, but that is just because I have been brainwashed into thinking that way while I grew up. I don’t have any objective rational reasons to oppose it. It is only about personal moral views, and who am I to impose my moral views onto others? That wouldn’t be right. I think one should not condemn other people for killing their babies, as long as nobody is hurt. If everybody who is closely connected to the baby agrees to its destruction, I can’t see any victims here.

The baby itself could possibly be considered a victim, but a baby is incapable of understanding what kind of moral rules that are dominating its society. Whatever morality the society subscribes to on this matter makes no difference to the baby, unless someone kills it of course, but if the execution is done quickly and humanely the baby will be dead before it could possibly experience any harm.

As the baby cannot possibly understand the society’s moral codes, it cannot be bound by it. And a moral code does not need to protect those who are not bound by it. Older children are of course expected (to some degree) to understand and comply to their society’s moral standards, and must therefore also be protected by it like everybody else.

 

[El_Machinae]

Consider that the reasoning works. If you follow the reasoning, then you are disinclined from killing babies. It doesn't matter if someone believes in absolute morality or not, in the end. What matters is whether they're willing to drown a baby.

 

[Syterion]

Personally I think killing babies are wrong, but that is just because I have been brainwashed into thinking that way while I grew up. I don’t have any objective rational reasons to oppose it. It is only about personal moral views, and who am I to impose my moral views onto others? That wouldn’t be right. I think one should not condemn other people for killing their babies, as long as nobody is hurt. If everybody who is closely connected to the baby agrees to its destruction, I can’t see any victims here.

No objective rational reason? What about the babies right to live?

What the hell is wrong with the people so far in this thread?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The class is second-year university philosophy.

Oh man, how many tens of thousands of dollars are your parents paying so this guy can explain to you why killing babies is wrong?

 

[Masquerouge]

I will agree with Pikachu and Soul_Warrior here.
Back in the Middle-Ages, because infants died a lot, parents were not attached to them. They were usually raised by a nurse and did not live with their parents.
A lot of babies were just left on the street to die when the mother couldn't take care of it.

 

[Phlegmak]

So in class today our teacher compared killing babies to destorying works of art or useful resources, something that should not be done, but not wrong. The reason, because infant babies, like fetuses, are not fully developed consciously to reason, think, etc. etc.

So, your thoughts?

That's repulsive.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Most adults don't have a full capacity to reason, can we kill them too?

 

[Masquerouge]

No objective rational reason? What about the babies right to live?

That's a very recent trend in Western societies.

What the hell is wrong with the people so far in this thread?

We're not actually advocating the murder of babies. But I guess the subject is now so sensitive that any rational reflexion that is not completely, 100% ubercute about them tiny little babies will make you look like an infanticide.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

"Theres nothing wrong with killing babies, just dont do it." He should be politely but firmly escorted off the campus, like any other confused mental patient

 

[emzie]

I would say works of art are more enduring, unless that baby would have been an artist, a teacher who taught an artist, a parent who raised an artist, a doctor who saved an artist, a patron who would support an artist... oh God, I just made an argument against abortion.

 

[ShannonCT]

So in class today our teacher compared killing babies to destorying works of art or useful resources, something that should not be done, but not wrong. The reason, because infant babies, like fetuses, are not fully developed consciously to reason, think, etc. etc.

So, your thoughts?

Why does your professor assume that babies do not think or reason? Or if he's saying that they do not reason as fully as an adult, when does a person begin to reason fully? Let's say an infant has 10% of the reasoning capacity of an average adult and a 12-year-old has 70% (or any other percentages you wish). Why is it ok to kill the infant and not the 12-year-old if it suits the parents? How about a mentally handicapped, adult child? Any cut off point you try to make is arbitrary. The only reasonable rule we can make is to say that willfully killing any child after he or she has been born is murder. There might be certain circumstances where murdering a child is not completely heinous, but that's up to a jury to decide.

 

[Azash]

The mother carries the child; as long as it's within her, it's her right to take back the child's life.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why does your professor assume that babies do not think or reason? Or if he's saying that they do not reason as fully as an adult, when does a person begin to reason fully? Let's say an infant has 10% of the reasoning capacity of an average adult and a 12-year-old has 70%

This measurement style does not not work, which is something to professor probably knows. You can't really quantify reasoning differences in terms of percentage ... well, you could, but it wouldn't be useful.

 

[Rik Meleet]

The mother carries the child; as long as it's within her, it's her right to take back the child's life.

Now you're getting me confused ...
I thought Prince_Imrahil's teacher said this about already-born babies, not about fetuses. Am I wrong here ?