What's wrong with infanticide?

[Ponder This]

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?

I think that it is possible that the act of terminating the fetus can be immoral. The point at which the fetus becomes a person doesn't answer the question of why the termination takes place - it only adds another potential reason not to do it.

Generally speaking, killing infants is a crime. Once the baby leaves the womb, killing it is considered murder.

Laws on abortion vary, which shows that as a society we are conflicted as to when the right of the baby to life surpasses the right of the mother to her body.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

She doesn't. The mother's control of her body supersedes the fetus's control of the mother's body. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear in the last post.)
As in, due to body autonomy the fetus is not entitled to use of the mother's body.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I think that it is possible that the act of terminating the fetus can be immoral. The point at which the fetus becomes a person doesn't answer the question of why the termination takes place - it only adds another potential reason not to do it.

Generally speaking, killing infants is a crime. Once the baby leaves the womb, killing it is considered murder.

Laws on abortion vary, which shows that as a society we are conflicted as to when the right of the baby to life surpasses the right of the mother to her body.

Why do you think it might be immoral to terminate a foetus?

 

[Poseidon Soter]

She doesn't. The mother's control of her body supersedes the fetus's control of the mother's body. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear in the last post.)
As in, due to body autonomy the fetus is not entitled to use of the mother's body.

So to your mind that trumps the foetus' potential right to their life? The body autonomy of the mother vs. the life of the foetus?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So to your mind that trumps the foetus' potential right to their life? The body autonomy of the mother vs. the life of the foetus?

Yes, as is the case of any donor donee situation. There's no situation where a right to life means the right to use another's body without their continued expressed consent.

 

[Jumi]

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).

You might have to extend it to cows and pigs, cats and dogs, based on their personhood too, being above the non-born humans. I guess it depends on our emotions in the end and where we draw invisible lines. I could eat a cow and not consider the fact that their emotional capabilities are more than a baby.

 

[Curious George]

Ah, that practicality rule again!

What better way is there to organize a society?

 

[Ponder This]

Why do you think it might be immoral to terminate a foetus?

I think that if a reason for terminating a person or potential person doesn't exist, then it would be a senseless act.
If you terminate people or potential people just for profit, then it is immoral.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

Yes, as is the case of any donor donee situation. There's no situation where a right to life means the right to use another's body without their continued expressed consent.

Hmm, an interesting analogy. Not sure I agree with the comparison, but will have to give that some thought.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

You might have to extend it to cows and pigs, cats and dogs, based on their personhood too, being above the non-born humans. I guess it depends on our emotions in the end and where we draw invisible lines. I could eat a cow and not consider the fact that their emotional capabilities are more than a baby.

So yes, I extend personhood to a bunch of other animals too, though not cows - they taste too good! But seriously, it boils down to the question of souls/spirits - I believe there is a categorical difference between the soul/spirit of a human/non-human primate (and one or two other animals) on the one hand and the soul/spirit of other creatures on the other. And I believe the soul/spirit joins with the physical body of an animal at conception (in the case of animals that reproduce sexually).

 

[Poseidon Soter]

What better way is there to organize a society?

Well, it's important to be sure. But something can be practical but still not morally/spiritually sound. Some things we've just got to do what we can to make them work, even if it's not straightforward in practice.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

I think that if a reason for terminating a person or potential person doesn't exist, then it would be a senseless act.
If you terminate people or potential people just for profit, then it is immoral.

Can't argue with that!