What's wrong with infanticide?

[Poseidon Soter]

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

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

First its sometimes wasteful. Second it is hard on the person who does it. When a parent does it they must deal with their feelings. Thirdly the human race is in a battle to survive, and each person born is a gift. Fourth if its a viable infant, then it is unkind. Fifth it causes suffering to a creature. Lastly there is no telling what the value of a child is, and so there is no way to know what has been lost.

 

[1137]

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

I have a good friend who is a philosophy professor, and he always tells his students that we don't have answers to these questions, but that you don't want to point it out or people will think you're crazy. He's probably right.

My own take is that we are discrete, unique, self-owned individuals. Murder at any age violates this self ownership, violates free will, and so violates our very nature. That qualifies as a moral to me.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

First its sometimes wasteful.

Please explain.

Second it is hard on the person who does it. When a parent does it they must deal with their feelings.

I'm not sure all people would find it necessarily hard to do (depending to an extent on how it is carried out). A parent needn't necessarily do it.

Thirdly the human race is in a battle to survive, and each person born is a gift.

Every person? What of the Hitlers of this world?

Fourth if its a viable infant, then it is unkind.

Why so?

ifth it causes suffering to a creature.

Not if carried out in a humane manner.

Lastly there is no telling what the value of a child is, and so there is no way to know what has been lost.

Do you have the same opinion of embryos and foetuses?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I have a good friend who is a philosophy professor, and he always tells his students that we don't have answers to these questions, but that you don't want to point it out or people will think you're crazy. He's probably right.

No question should be beyond the pale in our search for knowledge.

My own take is that we are discrete, unique, self-owned individuals.

At what point do we become so, in your opinion?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

did You mean: what's wrong with euthanizing those who commit infanticide?
Nothing

Nope.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Please explain.

No.

I'm not sure all people would find it necessarily hard to do (depending to an extent on how it is carried out). A parent needn't necessarily do it.

Well then those rare people would not.

Every person? What of the Hitlers of this world?

What are you talking about? A baby is not a killer. Its potential.

Why so?

What are you asking specifically?

Not if carried out in a humane manner.

Sorry not sure what you are replying to.

Do you have the same opinion of embryos and foetuses?

What are you talking about? You cut my post to pieces, and so the conversation is hard to follow.

 

[Jumi]

To needlessly harm something that is alive and unit unto itself is wrong morally.

 

[Aldrnari]

If the mother doesn't want the child, and the child is already born, why not just give the child up for adoption rather than killing them?

 

[Curious George]

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

A government has an interest in protecting its citizens and people within its jurisdiction. This is a rational reason to interfere with a parents right to raise their child (or in this case kill their child).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To needlessly harm something that is alive and unit unto itself is wrong morally.

But why is that so?

 

[David T]

I have a good friend who is a philosophy professor, and he always tells his students that we don't have answers to these questions, but that you don't want to point it out or people will think you're crazy. He's probably right.

My own take is that we are discrete, unique, self-owned individuals. Murder at any age violates this self ownership, violates free will, and so violates our very nature. That qualifies as a moral to me.

I think your professor friend is an usual professor. Good for him, kinda weird and cool, he gets paid to tell kids we don't know.

It's like anything, I can point to church, think how dumb, but inside church there are always gems. Which makes me understand that's normal! Which some people then ask "what's normal?" My reply" I am left handed" go back to playing my guitar and let the trees speak and leave it at that! Which sounds weird but....


In this case a taylor 214 solid Sitka spruce top with solid sapele back and sides, mahogany neck, ebony finger board!!! All That has zero meaning outside guitar geekout land,!!

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

My mind goes to the Spartans and how they treated their newborns. The weak dies, the strongest lives. Survival of the fittest at it's raw.

Infantcide is a horrific practice that shouldn't be in a modern society, yet historical record begs to differ even to this day.

I'd rather see early term abortion than infantcide occur because long story short, if the parents or mother doesn't want their child they will find ways to do it.

Infantcide is likely at the zenith of the ultimate failure with human empathy and compassion for their own flesh and blood because one will never know just who the child will become.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Exactly. Infants are untrained, can't feed themselves, can't produce anything of value, heck, they drool and can't even wipe their own arse. Plus they are fun to replace.

 

[Jumi]

But why is that so?

If it were a philosophical debate, we might question if harming others for no reason was valid ethics. As I see it, not killing someone for no reason is fine moral code.

 

[danieldemol]

The broader question of whether the death penalty itself is moral likely applies to this question as well.

After all if it’s wrong to kill even a murderer who can be safely imprisoned it is likewise wrong to kill a child who is innocent of potential crimes till proven guilty

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think the question ultimately is a question of the value of autonomy, esp body autonomy, and why a society might fare better accepting autonomy into law. An overview in philosophy here: Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If it were a philosophical debate, we might question if harming others for no reason was valid ethics. As I see it, not killing someone for no reason is fine moral code.

Religion and philosophy do heavily overlap, and this is a debate thread. So, again, I propose, why is it morally wrong to cause harm to something alive? And if you could, without the usual run of the mill positions of bodily autonomy. Just because everybody says it doesn't make it correct.

 

[Skwim]

Just so everyone's on the same page, legal wise.

Infanticide Law and Legal Definition
Infanticide refers to the act of killing of a newborn child. Infanticide is usually committed by the parents or with their consent. It is also known as child destruction or neonaticide. In criminal law, infanticide is not considered a separate and distinct offense, except where made so by statute, but is merely descriptive of a homicide, the subject of which is a newborn child. Regardless of the cause, throughout history infanticide has been common. Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations. Hence, infanticide is not a unique crime requiring a different application of the corpus delicti rule.[Wallace v. State, 10 Tex. Ct. App. 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 1881)].
source​

But how bad can it be; god did it many times and in great numbers.

 

[Kenny]

The problem.... you will be next.