Should we allow Infanticide?

[GhostWriter16]

Then what were your comment about "capital punishment" in aid of? You clearly regard the violent death of women seeking abortion as desirable. Taking your comments at face value, you're are on the cusp of suggesting that you would be entitled to take their deaths into your own hands, should you feel the need.

No, anymore than I see a murder getting capital punishment as "Desirable." It has to be done. The ideal is he won't kill.

And no, I can't. I am still obligated to obey the governmental authorities. I also acknowledge that in this society a lot of people are ignorant about abortion. If there was a death penalty for it, there couldn't be an ignorance plea. I don't want it applied ex post facto.

Given the by now rather blatant between the pro-life and anti-contraception movement? I don't know if that's actually realistic. It's a bit like talking about "if unicorns farted chocolate"; you might not be wrong, but, really, what does it matter?

I am, for the record, fine with any non-abortive contraception.

Do you have any basis at all for believing that this is the case? Because it quite frankly sounds like something that you just made up.

If you say "Human life begins at conception" some people will agree, and a lot of people will respectively disagree. Few will be truly shocked. If you say "Abortion should be punished with a life or death sentence (Same as murder)" a lot of people will be shocked. Because of numbness to what the debate actually is.

 

[Traitorfish]

GhostWriter, do you support a full police investigation in the case of miscarriage, to establish whether or not it was accidental or deliberately induced?

It only seems consistent.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Imagine this situation.

A woman has a religious belief that the soul enters the body upon birth. Before that the baby can have sentience, but she reasons the animals who's meat we eat are also sentient and we are allowed to end their lives as well without murder charges, in fact a lot of money is made that way. She isn't convinced a nearly born has the kind of sentience that would label the baby an individual human being.

Now, she is entitled to her opinion and through freedom of religion she is entitled to her religious believes. She doesn't expect others to share those believes but she does expect to be allowed to terminate her pregnancy at any time she wants, even 1 or 2 weeks because of her believes.

Should she be allowed to terminate that pregnancy? Why not?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Infanticide is by no means acceptable.

It is also morally no different than the abortion of a fetus that is clearly viable and does not pose a serious risk to the mother's life.

 

[Murky]

There may be rare circumstances were it is the lesser of two terrible choices.

 

[Traitorfish]

Infanticide is by no means acceptable.

It is also morally no different than the abortion of a fetus that is clearly viable and does not pose a serious risk to the mother's life.

Would you support the premature extraction of viable foetuses? It would be self-contradictory, after all, to claim that the two categories- viable foetus and newborn- as morally equivalent, and then introduce as clear a moral distinction as demanding that the the former be bound by law to its biological mother, while the latter can be easily and legally given into care.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

While I do not think that premature extraction is a good choice, I would not support laws prohibiting it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Infanticide is by no means acceptable.

It is also morally no different than the abortion of a fetus that is clearly viable and does not pose a serious risk to the mother's life.

I agree. But then again, I try to define the point at which abortion becomes unacceptable through scientific means.

I asked the question to see whether those who define the point at which abortion becomes unacceptable (at conception) through religious means are willing to consider the issue through the religious views of others.

I had thought about a religion stating the soul is given to a baby when it develops sentience, but it would mean a soul being gradually introduced, which seemed odd to me.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Personally I think that abortion is never acceptable (except to save the life of the mother), but that even more unacceptable measures would have to be taken to prove a crime in the earliest stages of pregnancy. I'm all for contraception, and think that the morning after pill and/or an estrogen injection should be available (with a pharmacist consult) without a prescription so that it can be administered quickly enough to prevent conception instead of terminating a life.


I prefer to stick with biblical notions of the soul, which refers to a living being's whole self rather than some immortal immaterial portion. It makes much more sense for this sort of soul to develop gradually rather than be given at any particular point.

There are some rather unfortunate implications to the traditional notion that the soul is naturally immortal, departs to heaven or hell immediately after death, and that young children (including the unborn) have not reached the age of accountability and so would definitely go to heaven when they die. A strong case can be made that abortion and infanticide would be virtuous acts under those assumptions. Under the doctrine of conditional immortality, such acts are clearly evil.

 

[Traitorfish]

I prefer to stick with biblical notions of the soul, which refers to a living being's whole self rather than some immortal immaterial portion. It makes much more sense for this sort of soul to develop gradually rather than be given at any particular point.

So you're a heretic?

 

[El_Machinae]

While I do not think that premature extraction is the best choice, I would not support laws prohibiting it.

Man, the idea of premature extraction squicks the hell out of me. I understand the body autonomy argument, but I wonder at the idea of placing an infant in a state of permanent (relative) disadvantage due to premature ending of proper nurturing. The only time it doesn't squick me out is if I think the mother is going to go on some type of poison bender.

 

[kochman]

Well, they've shown that even premies catch up relatively quickly, and are at no permanent disadvantage, if I remember correctly.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is very hard to determine, because many preterm births are due to complications in the pregnancy. That introduces an incredible selective effect. If I told you premies were 80x more likely to get cerebral palsy, that would be horrifying wrt what we are discussing. However, since a CP complication is likely to induce a premature delivery, it makes more sense.

Here's an extensive review on the topic
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/2/342.long

Studies of "unnaturally" premature births don't seem to be very common. It's not a common procedure, thankfully.

 

[Traitorfish]

Man, the idea of premature extraction squicks the hell out of me. I understand the body autonomy argument, but I wonder at the idea of placing an infant in a state of permanent (relative) disadvantage due to premature ending of proper nurturing. The only time it doesn't squick me out is if I think the mother is going to go on some type of poison bender.

What do you regard as squickier, premature extraction, or using state violence to force women to carry a debilitating parasite until it can force its way out through her genitals, potentially killing her in the process? For me, it's very much the latter.

 

[El_Machinae]

Clearly the solution is to use state violence to prematurely kill the fetus in a much safer fashion and at a much safer ethical timepoint. This minimizes the suffering of women by the State Apparatus, and negates any long-term moral concerns regarding the fetus.

The state-imposed abortion is clearly less onerous than either a natural delivery OR a late-term extraction (both, you'll note, are procedures funded by the state), so her net suffering is less. And the risk of having a disadvantaged infant is zeroed.

In other words, it's a question of gradients, not extremes. What's the qualitative difference in 'forcing' a woman to finish the last stages of a pregnancy and my being 'forced' to keep a screaming infant in my car halfway through a long-distance trip? In both cases, we're being forced to carry a parasite, the parasite is causing us discomfort (it's a matter of intensity, it's not a quantum difference), and the 'suffering' induced by the parasite can be ameliorated by dumping the parasite out of the car (and driving off) or by getting it extracted.

You have to work with me on the analogy, to get the gist of my objection. To my mind, placing the mewling infant into the car, and undertaking the journey, gives you some responsibility to safely deliver the baby into another guardian. I can't just dump the baby and call 911 (and let it suffer the associated exposure risk, which might disadvantage it, but clearly might not). Creating the dependency also creates some obligation.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

So you're a heretic?

Sure. Everyone who stands for anything is considered a heretic by someone. The authors of the New Testament actually used the term heresy (αἵρεσι&#962 to refer not only to the schools of thought of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but also so the early Church itself. It took another generation before the word took on a negative connotation.

Etymologically, heretic means "able to choose." I choose to believe doctrines that are supported by a plain reading of a literal translation of the bible rather than human traditions which are clearly based on alien assumptions.


Several of the earliest church fathers wrote that the doctrine that the soul is naturally immortal was a heretical borrowing from Pagan Greek Philosophers. The Catholic church is very Aristotelian, although Aristotle was almost universally despised by Christians of the Patristic era. The notion of the soul escaping the bounds of the body upon death is very gnostic rather than orthodox. Scripture is clear that we look forward to a bodily resurrection, to be clothed in glorified bodies rather than stripped down to naked spirits, and are the most pitiable of all men if it is not true. Having an immaterial soul go to heaven seems to undermined this. The epistles of Timothy explicitly state that only God is immortal/has immortality. Ecclesiastes says that the fate of man and beast is the same, and that their is no knowledge (or anything related to consciousness) in the grave. The gospels present immortality as a gift for those in Christ, who "guard their living souls unto the next age." While Creationism of the soul is a more popular position today, many of the most revered theologians were advocates of Traducianism. The position that the soul of the child develops from the soul of the parents just as the body of the child develops from the parents' bodies has never been authoritatively denounced. A lot of their doctrines make more sense under this view.

 

[Traitorfish]

Clearly the solution is to use state violence to prematurely kill the fetus in a much safer fashion and at a much safer ethical timepoint. This minimizes the suffering of women by the State Apparatus, and negates any long-term moral concerns regarding the fetus.

The state-imposed abortion is clearly less onerous than either a natural delivery OR a late-term extraction (both, you'll note, are procedures funded by the state), so her net suffering is less. And the risk of having a disadvantaged infant is zeroed.

I don't think I follow. In what sense is aying that the state shouldn't do something imply that the state should do the opposite? If that were true, then the Third Amendment should dictate that all civilians are to be herded into the White House at gunpoint, which I can't imagine be hugely popular.

In other words, it's a question of gradients, not extremes. What's the qualitative difference in 'forcing' a woman to finish the last stages of a pregnancy and my being 'forced' to keep a screaming infant in my car halfway through a long-distance trip? In both cases, we're being forced to carry a parasite, the parasite is causing us discomfort (it's a matter of intensity, it's not a quantum difference), and the 'suffering' induced by the parasite can be ameliorated by dumping the parasite out of the car (and driving off) or by getting it extracted.

You have to work with me on the analogy, to get the gist of my objection. To my mind, placing the mewling infant into the car, and undertaking the journey, gives you some responsibility to safely deliver the baby into another guardian. I can't just dump the baby and call 911 (and let it suffer the associated exposure risk, which might disadvantage it, but clearly might not). Creating the dependency also creates some obligation.

I don't think the analogy holds. You necessarily volunteer to get into the car, and you necessarily volunteer to put the baby in the car. These are both choices that you have freely made. Women are certainly not in a position to chose whether or not they inhabit their bodies, and only in some instances chose whether they take a living organism into that body. You say that obligation follows from responsibility, but what if there is nothing for the woman to be responsible for in the first place?

The only way of reconciling that, as far as I can see, is to take the conservative Christian route of declaring that women who have sex for any other reason than procreation are sinful and need to be punished, which I think we can both agree is the squickiest proposal of all.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, no. There're earlier options available. There're at least three months (months 3-6) in which an unsure mother can opt for an abortion, and there's no victim. Women don't choose whether to inhabit their bodies, but they do choose whether to nurture a parasite into a sentient organism that will require long-term care. As you say, I can choose to not put the infant in the car. I can choose to rid myself of the infant at an en route hospital. I cannot choose to rid myself of the infant, and its hassle (and discomfort) halfway between cities on a long-distance trip.

Now, if some complication arises or the woman was prevented from procuring an abortion earlier, that makes the case even more special. The analogy breaks down, because unless the child starts waving around a Mac 10 or coughing Ebola, it's hard to imagine a sudden, expected
risk to my life. And if the child was placed in my car at gunpoint, and I was followed by a gunman helicopter for half the journey, then the scenario becomes too preposterous.

By creating a scenario where the innocent being depends upon you to complete the journey, the obligations towards that innocent changes.

 

[Traitorfish]

Er, no. There're earlier options available. There're at least three months (months 3-6) in which an unsure mother can opt for an abortion, and there's no victim. Women don't choose whether to inhabit their bodies, but they do choose whether to nurture a parasite into a sentient organism that will require long-term care. As you say, I can choose to not put the infant in the car. I can choose to rid myself of the infant at an en route hospital. I cannot choose to rid myself of the infant, and its hassle (and discomfort) halfway between cities on a long-distance trip.

Now, if some complication arises or the woman was prevented from procuring an abortion earlier, that makes the case even more special. The analogy breaks down, because unless the child starts waving around a Mac 10 or coughing Ebola, it's hard to imagine a sudden, expected
risk to my life. And if the child was placed in my car at gunpoint, and I was followed by a gunman helicopter for half the journey, then the scenario becomes too preposterous.

As far as I can tell, these "special cases" are in fact the only cases that ever likely to emerge other than medical necessity. As you say, most unwilling mothers can obtain an abortion well before the six month, and there's really no reason why they would not, so the "special cases" would in fact be the norm, rather than the exception.

So to put it in the terms of your metaphor, that's a stretch of road much-terrorised by sky-pirates.

By creating a scenario where the innocent being depends upon you to complete the journey, the obligations towards that innocent changes.

That's another question, really, whether or not prematurely extracted infants can be said to have failed to complete their journey. As Kochman said, that doesn't seem to be a foregone conclusion.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am not willing to trust Kochman's "IIRC" regarding the safety of pre-term deliveries. But, to my mind, that is the question you originally asked me, which is why I clarified with my analogy. The 'special cases' are (to my mind) clearly exemptions. But that's not even the counter-argument you presented. You presented an average late-term pregnancy

"a debilitating parasite until it can force its way out through her genitals, potentially killing her in the process? "

That's a normal pregnancy. The last-minute complication is not normal, but you don't know that until it happens. My analogy is not about late-term complications which threaten the mother. My analogy is not about raped women, or women prevented from getting earlier abortions. My analogy was regarding the idea of expecting a normally pregnant woman to finish her pregnancy, using 'state force' if necessary. Your question wasn't about late-term, life-threatening complications. It was about a normal pregnancy. "Life-threatening complications" clearly changes the metric under which I'd be 'squicked out' my having a mother complete the pregnancy. You didn't present it as a choice between mother and fetus, because the context is that we were discussing premature deliveries as a matter of (dare I say it) 'convenience'.