What's wrong with infanticide?

[Ponder This]

The next one in what might become a series..

As with the previous one ('What's wrong with incest?'), the question is pretty self-explanatory. And you might think the answer is too obvious to even bother engaging with this. But I believe there is some mileage to be had here.

PS

"What's wrong with infanticide?"

For what reason is the infanticide done?

Moral questions involve motivation and consequence. Asking if something is wrong and not giving both motivation and consequence is not asking a complete question. I might ask: What's wrong with drinking water? To which no one has an answer, because you cannot ask if an action is immoral without giving the reasons (motivations and consequences).

 

[Twilight Hue]

What makes it horrific, though?

Well.

Killing or leaving a newborn to die sounds pretty horrific to me.

 

[Skwim]

The Christian Bible literalists' Old Testament god sounds no fun. It's a good thing Christians are not limited to that kind of an idea of God.

They have no choice other than to completely deny what the scripture says, the core of Christian cherry picking.

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

At what point in one's development does one gain autonomy, and why, in your opinion?

I don't believe there is a hard and fast time when it is gained because it's not an intrinsic quality. Kind of like when someone reaches 'adulthood,' a subjective threshold defined individually and as a society. Legal autonomy has hard dates but they are not, to my understanding, meant to be taken as a indisputable threshold, more like a line they are drawing somewhere in approximation to society's goals.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

They have no choice other than to completely deny what the scripture says, the core of Christian cherry picking.

.

You are not the arbiter of what 'the scripture really says.' To say that literalism is the only interpretation that can be made else you are 'ignoring' scripture is quintessential strawmanning. Literalism is easier to topple than a book of poetry, cautionary tales, songs, symbolism, allegory as well as some history. Literalism is both newer and smaller than other Christian thoughs and is not what Christianity means to the majority of people. You focus on it to the detriment of better arguments, just like one would if they said the Buddha literally was protected by a giant cobra, and if you don't believe it you don't believe Hindu and Buddhist writings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are not the arbiter of what 'the scripture really says.' To say that literalism is the only interpretation that can be made else you are 'ignoring' scripture is quintessential strawmanning. Literalism is easier to topple than a book of poetry, cautionary tales, songs, symbolism, allegory as well as some history. Literalism is both newer and smaller than other Christian thoughs and is not what Christianity means to the majority of people. You focus on it to the detriment of better arguments, just like one would if they said the Buddha literally was protected by a giant cobra, and if you don't believe it you don't believe Hindu and Buddhist writings.

That's right I am the ultimate arbiter here

But seriously here in the U.S. the literalists tend to make the most noise and are major drivers of Republican politics. The Bible does have positive aspects to it, but a literal interpretation turns the book into a worthless piece of irrational nonsense.



And the one huge problem with toppling literalism is that it just pops back up again.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, yes, wrt both 1 and 2, this relates to the bigger question of whether it is better to exist or not. One could argue that if one doesn't exist, there is no suffering, and since existence involves (sometimes great) suffering, it is better not to exist. This is the question you pose, right? What is your response to that question? That might be worth opening another thread for.

Wrt 3, what's your answer to the question you pose at the end?

Life and death force you to ask not just what is right but whether to trust other people. Are you going to have neighbors or live out of hearing? Will you have a babysitter? Will you give your kids shots? Are you going to make abortion illegal? The hot topic is "Do you believe mothers can make a moral choice about abortion or do you believe that there is only one moral choice?" An ancient question is "Should you have as many offspring as possible?" All of this is forced on you because of life and death.

 

[Jumi]

And why is that morally significant?

Why wouldn't it be? Practical things leading to greater amounts of good for large amounts of individuals are more significant than merely thinking about things as if they were disconnected from reality.

I wonder why you considered it "funny", to rate my serious post with that? Is it that you feel my English is not up to your native level and you don't understand or is it a form of condenscencion from you?

 

[Skwim]

You are not the arbiter of what 'the scripture really says.'

No less so than any other literate person. Do you think that just because a person is a Christian they have some innate ability to best judge scripture? If so, the 33,000 Christian denominations in the United States* (many of which exist because of their differing interpretations of the Bible) certainly gives lie to the notion.

All this aside, in as much as the issue here is infanticide and god's participation in it, just how do you read

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
​

?

To me it says, among other things, that god demanded that children and infants be killed. In effect, god killed them, committing infanticide. OR, how about

Exodus 12:29-30
At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, . . . ."
​

?

​

Think there weren't infants among the first born? If so, then you're dreaming.



*source

.

​

 

[Jumi]

But seriously here in the U.S. the literalists tend to make the most noise and are major drivers of Republican politics. The Bible does have positive aspects to it, but a literal interpretation turns the book into a worthless piece of irrational nonsense.

In Europe, literalists are loud but small groups. Though they tend to have more children, they keep leaving those faiths on contact with the real world.

And the one huge problem with toppling literalism is that it just pops back up again.

Education, especially on the history of the scriptures is one way it won't get back up again. It's a rare person who is able to keep literal views and be educated on their basis at the same time.

 

[Curious George]

At what point does an entity become a citizen/person within a jurisdiction? As an embryo? A foetus? At the point it becomes viable outside the womb? Upon birth?

Citizen-at birth. Person-at birth. Could we define it differently? Yes. Should we? It is a little arbitrary but probably not. Of course this is the consequence of such notions: Keeler v. Superior Court
(California added fetus to the definition of murder after this case).

While a state may have some interest in future residents or persons within their jurisdiction, the state interest undeniably shrinks with the more distant that relationship. Thus, when competing rights are at play, (i.e. the mothers right to privacy and bodily autonomy) the more likely it is the competing rights will outweigh any distant state interest.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you think that just because a person is a Christian they have some innate ability to best judge scripture?

Never said I did. I don't see how anyone could argue a single superior interpretation, and neither do most Christians I've met. The problem is that:

No less so than any other literate person

Sounds like the implication that anyone else whose interpretation differs from your literal one is 'illiterate.' And that is, again, no more true than the vast majority of religions who have poetic, symboloc, dark moral tales, etc.

just how do you read

I don't. I'm not a Christian, or Jew, and my interpretation is not representative of them. But it's not fricken hard to do some research and look at others interpretation and why. Especially simce, and I can't stress this enough, the vast majority of Christians (And even less Jews in the case of OT considerations) aren't literalist so presuming a literalist interpretation is automatically misrepresenting their views.

Read some apologetics on Hagiographic hyperbole, the narrative of Judea, etc. God (s) speaking through stories, poems, allegory etc is by no means a new phenomenon in theistic circles. All of the above are ways different Christians read your verses in a non-literal capacity.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But seriously here in the U.S. the literalists tend to make the most noise and are major drivers of Republican politics. The Bible does have positive aspects to it, but a literal interpretation turns the book into a worthless piece of irrational nonsense.

Everyone is noisy in the US. xD
I agree that literal biblical interpretation is just the worst. I just feel bad when people forget that there's way more Christians that don't think like that than do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone is noisy in the US. xD
I agree that literal biblical interpretation is just the worst. I just feel bad when people forget that there's way more Christians that don't think like that than do.

One "sin" of the literalists is to claim that others are not "True Christians" since they do not follow some part of the Bible that they demand is true. What they don't realize is by those standards most other Christians could probably claim that they are not "True Christians" for their shortcomings in other areas of the Bible.

If someone tells me that they are a Christian I do not say that they are not, unless they themselves begin so claim that other Christians are "NTC"s. Then I might point out their hypocrisy.

 

[Skwim]

Never said I did.

And I never said you did. It was a QUESTION.

Sounds like the implication that anyone else whose interpretation differs from your literal one is 'illiterate.' And that is, again, no more true than the vast majority of religions who have poetic, symboloc, dark moral tales, etc.

Then I suggest you get your hearing checked. Try reading it again.

I don't. I'm not a Christian, or Jew, and my interpretation is not representative of them.

So what? Does this mean you can't read a sentence and figure out what the words strung together mean? Here, take this sentence and tell me what it means.

"Do not eat the chowder, but eat the carrots and celery, rice and chicken, bread and butter, potatoes and cheese."
​

Not too difficult was it (I'm hoping not). Now do the same with this one. The structure is identical.

"Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
​

Think it means that Saul, whom god was talking about, was suppose to kill the infants? BINGO! he was.

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And I never said you did. It was a QUESTION.

Then I suggest you get your hearing checked. Try reading it again.


So what? Does this mean you can't read a sentence and figure out what the words strung together mean? Here, take this sentence and tell me what it means.

"Do not eat the chowder, but eat the carrots and celery, rice and chicken, bread and butter, potatoes and cheese."
​

Not too difficult was it (I'm hoping not). Now do the same with this one. The structure is identical.

"Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
​

Think it means that Saul, whom god was talking about, was suppose to kill the infants? BINGO! he was.

.

Not going to continue saying the same thing over and over again. This is just 'why won't Buddhists explain a giant sentient cobra!?' The question becomes meaningless when you don't view it as a literal event.

Then I suggest you get your hearing checked. Try reading it again.

I don't need to. You just did it again.
"Does this mean you can't read a sentence and figure out what the words strung together mean? "
Implying that anyone who doesn't agree with your take is illiterate. Even with 'hope this isn't too hard to understand' later.
It's ****ty bad faith argument behavior.

So what?

So I'm not going to project my interpretation on other people then try and hold them responsible for something they don't believe in. It's a strawman.

 

[dianaiad]

The problem.... you will be next.

When I read some of the posts here, and I attempted to respond, that's pretty much what all those responses boiled down to: 'you will be next."

A person or society that is willing to kill infants...for whatever excuse used...can justify killing anybody for any reason. After all, if one is willing to kill an infant, where does one draw the line...when the child is this age we can kill it, but tomorrow we can't? Lines like that are drawn by society and are very movable.

I do not want to live in a society where such a 'rule' is adjustable by the 'powers that be.' If infanticide is allowed, then where will the line be moved tomorrow?

.....and how many of us could trust, or be friends with, someone who has proven that s/he will kill an infant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's try to get this thread back on track. I have been doing some web searching and found that there my be positive aspects of this act:

Swift, "A Modest Proposal"

 

[dianaiad]

Let's try to get this thread back on track. I have been doing some web searching and found that there my be positive aspects of this act:

Swift, "A Modest Proposal"

You ARE aware that "A Modest Proposal" was a satire, right? It was aimed, not at the Irish, but at those who were coming up with unreasonable and cruel solutions to the Irish Problem (the one BEFORE the "Irish Question?"

 

[Shaul]

Wow, really?

Logic and debate are useful things, this is true. Academic and philosophical discussions are fine too. So discuss away. But some truths don’t get answered by these because they lie beyond their scope. This is one of those. Humans have innate worth. All murder, including infanticide, is wrong. No proof is required for this. Anyone that sincerely and really thinks murder is ok turn themselves inhuman. Such a person doesn’t need to be convinced, they need to be cast out as unfit to live among humane people until they change.