What's wrong with infanticide?

[Poseidon Soter]

"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).

So one reason to ponder infanticide is in its relation to abortion and late termination of pregnancy. Ultimately, the key question is: at what point does an entity (with the potential to become a person) become a person, and why? And following on from that, what are the implications for our treatment of entities such as embryos, foetuses, and infants?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Well.

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

Okay, let me try to put it differently. What's your opinion on abortion and late termination of pregnancy?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

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.

How important a consideration do you think autonomy is or ought to be in decisions about how we should treat an entity with the potential to become a human being/a human being?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

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.

More questions!

 

[Poseidon Soter]

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?

Okay, my question wasn't very clear - what is the moral significance of an entity being a separate embodied individual compared with its being non-separate (from its mother, I presume)?

These questions are of practical significance because they relate to 'life or death' decisions about embryos, foetuses, and infants.

Regarding your last questions, I'm not sure what post you're referring to that I rated funny.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

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.

Why is it that birth is the critical juncture in terms of when an entity becomes a person?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

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?

Do you hold the same views with regards to embryos or foetuses?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

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.

Is killing an embryo or foetus murder, in your opinion?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How important a consideration do you think autonomy is or ought to be in decisions about how we should treat an entity with the potential to become a human being/a human being?

Calling a spade a spade, if you're asking my opinion on abortion: I do believe abortion is a body autonomy issue but one where the mother's control of her body supersedes control of her body by the fetus or the state. If the fetus can be considered viable outside the womb, I still believe a mother should be able to terminate the pregnancy but live extraction should be attempted.

 

[dianaiad]

Do you hold the same views with regards to embryos or foetuses?

Yes, actually, I do....and for pretty much the same reasons. I'm stuck with living in a culture that allows abortion, but I don't like it.

In fact, it is BECAUSE abortion is so generally accepted that this issue of infanticide is even considered to be an 'acceptable' topic of discussion rather than something unthinkable.

 

[Curious George]

Why is it that birth is the critical juncture in terms of when an entity becomes a person?

Largely historical reasons. Did you read the case?

But beyond that it is practical. Would you have detectives investigate every spontaneous abortion for a potential homocide?

We have long regarded birth as the beginning of life. Certainly science and technology have given us a better understanding so we can point to different juncture such as conception or viability, but are these as practical? Though it may seem arbitrary, (and to some extent it is), ultimately it is an easier standard to manage. This juncture is still meaningful, lest we start investigating many mothers for manslaughter.

 

[Jumi]

Okay, my question wasn't very clear - what is the moral significance of an entity being a separate embodied individual compared with its being non-separate (from its mother, I presume)?

If they're separate, being born already or close to being born, they should be allowed both self-determination and protection. Much is in our genes, the feeling to protect and nurture others, though culture, religion or environmental zero-sum-games might distance us. The other thing, such as respecting separate individuals and giving them dignity is a moral code, non-provable and non-negotiable but true to the core.

These questions are of practical significance because they relate to 'life or death' decisions about embryos, foetuses, and infants.

Embryos and fetuses are not yet separate, though they have the potential to become such. They might not even be viable for life or be a danger to the health and wellbeing of the mother, an already separate self-determined individual. Infants or late-stage pregnancies, we've already moved past the point of them being parts of another. We can't help any mother(separate embodied individual) by killing an infant, thus infants are a completely different category.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Calling a spade a spade, if you're asking my opinion on abortion: I do believe abortion is a body autonomy issue but one where the mother's control of her body supersedes control of her body by the fetus or the state. If the fetus can be considered viable outside the womb, I still believe a mother should be able to terminate the pregnancy but live extraction should be attempted.

Why does the mother's control of her body supersede the rights of the foetus over their body?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Yes, actually, I do....and for pretty much the same reasons.

Glad to hear it!

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Largely historical reasons. Did you read the case?

But beyond that it is practical. Would you have detectives investigate every spontaneous abortion for a potential homocide?

We have long regarded birth as the beginning of life. Certainly science and technology have given us a better understanding so we can point to different juncture such as conception or viability, but are these as practical? Though it may seem arbitrary, (and to some extent it is), ultimately it is an easier standard to manage. This juncture is still meaningful, lest we start investigating many mothers for manslaughter.

Ah, that practicality rule again!

 

[Poseidon Soter]

If they're separate, being born already or close to being born, they should be allowed both self-determination and protection. Much is in our genes, the feeling to protect and nurture others, though culture, religion or environmental zero-sum-games might distance us. The other thing, such as respecting separate individuals and giving them dignity is a moral code, non-provable and non-negotiable but true to the core.

I guess I can't really argue with that then (though I disagree).

 

[Jumi]

I guess I can't really argue with that then (though I disagree).

How do you disagree and on what grounds? I know you have questions, but I'm still unaware what you think.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

How do you disagree and on what grounds? I know you have questions, but I'm still unaware what you think.

I don't believe it is the separateness or otherwise of an entity (embryo, foetus, infant) that should determine how we should treat that entity, but rather when personhood begins, which I believe to be at conception. For me, that means that killing an embryo, foetus, or infant is equivalent, and constitutes murder.

 

[Jumi]

I don't believe it is the separateness or otherwise of an entity (embryo, foetus, infant) that should determine how we should treat that entity, but rather when personhood begins, which I believe to be at conception. For me, that means that killing an embryo, foetus, or infant is equivalent, and constitutes murder.

Based on what is it murder? Do you extend this definition of "murder" to animals who are higher up on "personhood" than embryos and what about people who are brain dead...

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Based on what is it murder? Do you extend this definition of "murder" to animals who are higher up on "personhood" than embryos and what about people who are brain dead...

For me, all persons have the right to non-interference with their liberty, life, and property. Deliberately killing a person without due cause constitutes murder. I believe that personhood extends from conception to death (not brain death, which I don't recognise as death) of a human being, and I also extend personhood to certain 'higher' animals (e.g. non-human primates).