Killing Babies

[El_Machinae]

This is fully in support of abortion at any and all stages, and so the argument goes, if you support such abortion, there is no reason that you should think infanticide is wrong

Unless you believe that an infant has sufficient neural networking to be deserving of protection rights; which I do.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

About abortion: What if the woman who possesses the child does not have the ability to A) Take care of it, B) Live a healthy life with it, or what if she was raped and does not want the child. People should, in that manner, be able to determine what they feel is most beneficial for their own body. Anyway, when abortions occur, the fetus is nothing more that a mass of cells that only slighty resemble a human, and at that point they do not have memories, feelings or greater awareness, nor do they have developed eyes, legs, ears, arms, or organs.

And what if the fetus has developed all that but still is in the mother (say a few weeks or months before birth) yet the mother still wants to abort? Is there a difference?

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Unless you believe that an infant has sufficient neural networking to be deserving of protection rights; which I do

What about late abortion when the baby is hardly any different at all inside the mother than when it comes out? You cant support abortion at ALL stages if you dont support infanticide due to neural networking; consciosness.

 

[Leonel]

About abortion: What if the woman who possesses the child does not have the ability to A) Take care of it, B) Live a healthy life with it, or what if she was raped and does not want the child. People should, in that manner, be able to determine what they feel is most beneficial for their own body. Anyway, when abortions occur, the fetus is nothing more that a mass of cells that only slighty resemble a human, and at that point they do not have memories, feelings or greater awareness, nor do they have developed eyes, legs, ears, arms, or organs.

But when does a fetus turn into a baby?

 

[El_Machinae]

What about late abortion when the baby is hardly any different at all inside the mother than when it comes out? You cant support abortion at ALL stages if you dont support infanticide due to neural networking; consciosness.

The brain starts to undergo many changes, at a rapid pace, once the baby is birthed. The brain of a fetus is quite a bit different than that of a baby. There's a reason a fetus does not become self-aware in the womb, it's in the process but needs much more stimulus and time.

That said, I don't support late-term abortions, I think there are superior alternatives; though none of them come the least bit close to being 'good' alternatives.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm contending this statement

So you're contending whether he should run away, not my actual argument? Help me out here El, where is my logic flawed? (See post 35)

Actually it makes for some interesting debate in the class, and maybe thats what he is after, but I'm sure his position is that, yes, it is not 'wrong' to kill babies like it is to kill say you or me, but since people like you or we value babies, we shouldn't kill them, not for the babies sake, but for our sake.

This is fully in support of abortion at any and all stages, and so the argument goes, if you support such abortion, there is no reason that you should think infanticide is wrong, and again hes not trying to make us not support abortion, teach agrees with bill3000 here, and for the sake of debate, for those who dont, what are your reasons against?

(no hypothetical 'killing babies will undermine the species, or to some its right to some its wrong, what do you think and why?)

...to get my moneys worth i come here to get extra knowledge from you scholars you all....

He says its not morally wrong, but not permissible because rational people who do have moral rights value babies and so killing a baby would affect these people who care about that baby that is killable.

Like art, its not 'wrong' to shred the mona lisa, but people value it or care about it so we should not shred it, but shredding it does make ruining a painting a 'moral' matter of wrongness.

What does he mean by "permissible"? If something is morally permissible then it must be morally right - such as telling the truth, or saving a life, or helping others, or morally neutral - like cooking cherry pie instead of apple, or playing Civ instead of coming on CFC.

If the Mona Lisa doesn't belong to you, then it is indeed "wrong" to shred it, as you are destroying the property of another. If you own the Mona Lisa, then just as you please, it's not a moral issue at all. If that's really what your teacher is saying, that this isn't a moral issue at all, then he should support the decriminalization of infanticide. Because no one is punished for destroying their own property, even if others regret it. If babies aren't people, but are only commodities like paintings, then to be consistent we should either deprive individuals of the right to destroy what is theirs, but others value - like famous works of art - or allow newborns and small children to be murdered at their parents whim.

If you can't be right, at least be consistent.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The professor's argument seems to look at a person as a 3-dimensional being at one single instant. Whereas, I view a person as a 4-dimensional being which extends in time beyond its central, self-aware sapient phase. It includes any "merely sentient" phases as well - all those feelings and perceptions belong to the same lived experience.

As an argument in favor of my view, I suggest that it gives the best explanation/justification for the criteria of "brain death" that the medical community has adopted.

 

[bigdog5994]

So... it's okay to kill babies?

yes according to pikachu its ok to kill babies its the whole reason he subscribed to this forum

 

[El_Machinae]

So you're contending whether he should run away, not my actual argument? Help me out here El, where is my logic flawed? (See post 35)

I don't know how to make it simpler. I'm not engaging in an argument about the permissibility of killing babies - at least not today! You said that the prof advocated killing babies. He does not.

I'm not sure where our breakdown in communication is coming from. Maybe you're using the word 'advocate' differently than I am. I am using it as a word similar to the word 'recommends'; which the prof does not.

 

[ori]

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.

This is a paraphrasing of the utalitarian philosophy most prominently published by [google]Peter Singer[/google] - I do not have time to go back to his books so a [wiki=Peter_Singer]wikipedia[/wiki] quote has to suffice:

Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in, among other things, the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified

Spoiler off-topic :

he does go much further in his philosophy and has become one of the most vocal protagonists in a movement that wants to provide for the great apes to be given the status of humans in terms of human rights - some of his writing is really interesting

I do have a lot of issues with this view, among others I do not accept the notion that human rights (including the right to live) can only apply to those that are mentally able to comprehend their existence and make plans for their future. In this way I am guilty of speciesism as he puts it: I do strongly believe and advocate that any human being has inherent rights (the right to live as one of them) simply because of being a fellow human being.
The question of abortion is another one, since this involves the sometimes conflicting interests of two human beings with one of those dependent on the other - but that will go waaaaaay off-topic soon so I won't discuss abortion here

Edit: I just love those new [wiki] and [google] tags

 

[Azash]

@Ori: If someone is not able to function as a member of society, why the need for human rights?

 

[El_Machinae]

@Ori: If someone is not able to function as a member of society, why the need for human rights?

Self-defense.
Some day you might not be able to function as a member of society, and yet you will want rights.

 

[Swedishguy]

@Ori: If someone is not able to function as a member of society, why the need for human rights?

And who decides who are not fully functionable in society? You?

 

[Syterion]

Okay, okay I admit it. I'm against killing babies. I'm sorry. Feel free to tear me apart on this controversial issue.

 

[Elrohir]

I don't know how to make it simpler. I'm not engaging in an argument about the permissibility of killing babies - at least not today! You said that the prof advocated killing babies. He does not.

I'm not sure where our breakdown in communication is coming from. Maybe you're using the word 'advocate' differently than I am. I am using it as a word similar to the word 'recommends'; which the prof does not.

I think the disconnect is not so much the definition of these terms, but what one should do with moral judgments. In my view, if something is morally good, then it should be advocated, supported, and encouraged. If it is morally neutral, then it should be left alone, and be entirely unregulated. If it is morally bad and wrong, then it should be discouraged and those who do it punished.

So I think the professor is being hypocritical here: He is saying that it is not morally wrong to kill babies, in which case it is morally good, or morally neutral. But he is also saying that it shouldn't be done. (In that sense you're right, advocating it isn't the proper phrase) He can't have it both ways - either there is nothing morally wrong in killing babies, in which case we should not punish those guilty of infanticide, or there is and we should. You can't say that it's not wrong, but then punish people for doing it, that is absurd.

 

[Gogf]

Saying "babies don't perceive anything" is on par with "black people don't perceive anything" or "Jews don't perceive anything." There's no actual evidence to back up this claim. In fact, I remember being pretty darn conscious when I was a baby.

Unless you believe that an infant has sufficient neural networking to be deserving of protection rights; which I do.

And a late-term fetus doesn't? Infants only become conscious when they're born?

 

[Elrohir]

Saying "babies don't perceive anything" is on par with "black people don't perceive anything" or "Jews don't perceive anything." There's no actual evidence to back up this claim. In fact, I remember being pretty darn conscious when I was a baby.

When are your earliest memories? I have some rather distinct memories when I was between 12 and 18 months, but I figure that's rather normal. I dunno....

Which brings us to the issue of when, if not at birth, babies become human beings worthy of protection. Or do they have to earn the right to life?

 

[El_Machinae]

You can't say that it's not wrong, but then punish people for doing it, that is absurd.

We don't punish people for doing things that are wrong, we punish people for doing things that are bad for society.

Unless you think it's fundamentally wrong to drive on the left side of the road; which might explain your beef with Britain.

Finally, you agree that destroying the Mona Lisa is wrong if you're not the owner. While there's a great deal of conflict around the idea, we live in a society where we deem the children to be society's and merely the ward of the parents. This is why we feel justified in taking children away from abusive parents; it's our (collect) responsibilty to be their caretakers.

 

[El_Machinae]

And a late-term fetus doesn't? Infants only become conscious when they're born?

Our Theory of Mind is not developed enough to make this statement. I'm sure that someday I'll be able to give a better answer. Unlike the Climate Change deniers, I choose to err on the side of caution and I act as if a late-term fetus might be conscious (though I'd place money against it).

But don't assume that the brain of a fetus and a newborn are the same. The brain undergoes rather significant and massive changes when the baby is exposed to the world; the changes are certainly of a scale significant enough to shift from 'conscious' to 'unconscious' (though I'm not saying that it does at that point)

 

[Elrohir]

We don't punish people for doing things that are wrong, we punish people for doing things that are bad for society.

Unless you think it's fundamentally wrong to drive on the left side of the road; which might explain your beef with Britain.

Of course it's fundamentally wrong to drive on the left side of the road, darn brits.

I don't see a difference between punishing someone for doing something wrong, and punishing someone for doing something that is bad for society, because when you do something morally wrong, you hurt yourself and you hurt society. Now I know, what about traffic laws and the like? Well, believe it or not, breaking those can indeed be a moral issue - not because God said "Thou shalt drive in the right lane only, or feel my righteous wrath", but because society needs rules to govern behavior and how people get around. It doesn't matter which side of the road you drive on, it just matters that you follow the common-sense protections that society has put in place to protect itself.

And what beef do I have with Britain? Britain is probably in my top 5 favorite countries outside of the US.