Should we allow Infanticide?

[Domen]

Who thinks that? Most pro-choice people view it as an unfortunate, yet necessary weighing of several factors.

Author of that post to which I was referring, maybe.

You make it sounds as if people are running around bragging about their abortions.

Not about their own abortions, surely.

BTW - recently some doctor agreed to carry out abortion when a woman told him that she didn't want to have a daughter (this was the reason why she wanted to abort her pregnancy - she wanted a boy, not a girl). Did you hear about it? It was a journalistic provocation of course, but still...

But those journalists were not ingenious enough - they should have organized a provocation involving abortion because of race / expected skin colour of child (for example a woman had some double-timing with a black man), instead of its sex. That would be a scandal!

Oh, and thanks for showing us once again that you're a walking Godwin's Law proof machine.

 

[Core Imposter]

I guess you'd agree that a person with mental disabilites would be an acceptable candidate for euthanasia? We could save a lot of money eh?

I hope you all have the common sense to see I am just being snarky here. When people talk so shallowly about killing babies for various reasons I am reminded of my father's struggle with Alzhemiers. There are in fact people around that have no problem with the taking of life for just about any old reason.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

It disgusts me that people even consider this debatable.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks for your input anyway mate!

 

[Leoreth]

Author of that post to which I was referring, maybe.

I don't see anything that even remotely implies it's morally perfect or beautiful.

 

[KMRblue1027]

It disgusts me that people even consider this debatable.

It disgusts me that you are willing to put women's lives at stake for your own religious views.

Edit: I fail at typing good catch Ziggy

 

[useless]

It is indeed disgusting that women's bodily rights and reproductive rights are being sacrificed for votes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Great. Now I'm hungry and horny with all that talk about steak and bodily rights.

 

[Patroklos]

Where did I advocate unrestricted late term abortion?

In your Santorium thread. you clearly state you thing it's nobodies business to interfere until birth.

That's all unnessecary now though because you provided fresh material to work with.

We've spoken about this before Pat, perhaps you should look back at our conversations, in which we established that I drew a moral line at a week-immediate birth.

Not what you said before, and I am not sure what you thing you gain with such an irrelevant difference. To 99.99% of people the difference between a a child just before birth and a week before is irrelevant both biologically and morally. To nearly everyone, they would consider such an abortion murder, including pro choice types.

Now, please explain your justification for drastic differences in your moral consent to kill between an unborn child at eight days to birth and seven days to birth. Then explain the justification between your treatment of unborn children at seven days to birth and one day after birth. What are the metrics you are using?

lso, I have no idea why you don't just come out and say it's me Pat, it's kind of creepy and somewhat disconcerting.

Why don't you play your hand bro?

I want to let you speak for yourself.

 

[kramerfan86]

I guess you'd agree that a person with mental disabilites would be an acceptable candidate for euthanasia? We could save a lot of money eh?

You realize that comparing a mentally disabled person to a literally brainless, mindless embryo is highly offensive to the mentally ill correct? What a terrible argument, Im sure you'll win over hordes of people doing that.

 

[El_Machinae]

BTW, this thread quality is awful. So far only nobody except ElMac has given the question any real consideration. We have enough abortion debates on here.

Oooch, that's pretty scary! Those are c&p of previous posts by Classical Hero justifying the slaughter of newborns, kids, and pregnant women. There're a few people on this board who've justified infanticide, but most of them don't fall into the 'pro-choice' category

I believe that the killing of infants to be obviously wrong, and someone arguing otherwise has a fairly large uphill battle. The difference between infant sentience and toddler sapience is one of degrees, of gradients. It's nothing like the difference between an early fetus and a late fetus, which is an absolute cognitive difference.

But yeah, in my post I linked to older C_H posts where he gave his reasons why it was a good idea to stab babies.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

Oh yay, another abortion debate. Because we certainly haven't gone over that enough.

No, killing infants is not the same as killing a month-old embryo. These people, who are obviously just trying to prove a point, are failing miserably.

Unless...

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

It disgusts me that you are willing to put women's lives at stake for your own religious views.

Edit: I fail at typing good catch Ziggy

how is infanticide saving anyone's life?

 

[Arwon]

I think it's probably humane to euthanise newborns that have no hope for decent life - anencephaly, rapidly terminal conditions, and the like.

I think euthanasia of viable newborns for simple quality of life or socioeconomic reasons is too far down the utilitarian-ad-absurdium path.

In literal "they will starve" situations, like pre-modern societies using infanticide for population control, it's hard to be too critical.

 

[Snorrius]

"Reasonable", in this sense, is just the Anglo-Saxon form of "rational", so that still doesn't work.

I do not really want to involve myself in philoarguments here so let's consider you won. At the same time it may be interesting for anyone who is reading this thread to look at this.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

how is infanticide saving anyone's life?

Ever been on a plane with kids?

 

[Arwon]

Or in a car

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oooch, that's pretty scary!

Not wanting to get bogged in discussion I glossed over the posts and missed this the first time around.

 

[Murky]

The thread OP isn't about infanticide, it's a cleaver way of disguising another abortion thread to avoid the mods locking it on sight.

 

[El_Machinae]

The paper's point seems to be that infants are not persons, because infants do not have identifiable aims. They do not have goals that would be deprived if the infants were killed. I have issue with that, and with the authors. They readily acknowledge that an infant can experience pleasure, but they don't really discuss the idea that infants seek pleasure. I'd have a hard time saying that infants do not.

Where they might have a point is on suffering. There're some infants that only seem to experience two states: suffering and relief from suffering. We're currently fostering a baby that is diseased in such a way. We're not even sure if he's experiencing any actual discomfort, because his brain was so ravaged by his birth. We've never seen him express any emotions that remind us of pleasure, only various stages of discomfort.

They do not really address my counter-point (that infants are pleasure-seekers, too), and so I don't know how they would deal with my 'suffering-only' scenario. I suspect they'd be willing to debate whether or not our foster baby should be euthanized. No one in my family has such an idea, the 'obvious' moral onus is to nurture that baby as much as we can.