Infanticide

[Kill all the fetuses!]

So abortion ought to be allowed on demand regardless of the age of fetus, regardless of whether it's life or not, regardless of the reasons for such decision etc. In other words, women's right is absolute in this respect.

But I was thinking the other day how I ought to look at infanticide. Because surely a baby is still dependant on mother and in order to be consistent we should allow and not frown upon infanticide, right? You could argue about foster care, but should women be forced to bother with that if she's simply not up to that in the same way as she might not be up to that last day of pregnancy?

But then again if dependency of a fetus/child on mother is the problem here, where should we draw the line? Because surely a child up to a certain period is absolutely dependent on parents and can't act independently of them in any meaningful way.

So parents, who have no relatives, want to kill their 2 year-old baby, because of whatever reason. Do you look at it in the same way as you look at abortion, i.e. casual medical procedure, or not? In other words, where do you draw the line and why?

[Quail]

A baby can survive without their mother using formula and whatever, and therefore is no longer dependent on the mother's body... So no, infanticide is not cool and is definitely not the same thing as abortion.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

A baby can survive without their mother using formula and whatever, and therefore is no longer dependent on the mother's body... So no, infanticide is not cool and is definitely not the same thing as abortion.

Well, it's not dependent on mothers' body in the same way as a fetus is dependent on it, obviously. But it's still dependent on mother as a person. In fact, baby can be more demanding in terms of her body than a pregnancy and more burdensome as well.

So..?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Adoption is a thing.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Adoption is a thing.

Ah, I specifically mentioned that in the initial message... nevermind.

Now, you can easily assume that option away for the sake of an argument. Or if you buy the entire argument and then reply by saying "yes, true, but parents can always get the kid adopted or whatever", then I would say why parents should be forced to go through that if they aren't up to it? If a women doesn't want to go through the last day of pregnancy or whatever, you won't force her to do so, will you?

[Quail]

Well, it's not dependent on mothers' body in the same way as a fetus is dependent on it, obviously. But it's still dependent on mother as a person. In fact, baby can be more demanding in terms of her body than a pregnancy and more burdensome as well.

So..?

Not exactly, no. A baby is dependent on someone, not necessarily the mother or father, to look after them. There is such a thing as getting help with childcare you know.

Besides, I find it very unlikely that someone who has carried a baby (presumably one which they didn't want to abort) and looked after the baby for a few months or so would suddenly decide, "Fuck it, I don't want a kid anymore," and just kill them. Unless the mother was suffering from post-natal depression.

This seems a bit like a troll thread to be honest.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Not exactly, no. A baby is dependent on someone, not necessarily the mother or father, to look after them. There is such a thing as getting help with childcare you know.

Besides, I find it very unlikely that someone who has carried a baby (presumably one which they didn't want to abort) and looked after the baby for a few months or so would suddenly decide, "Fuck it, I don't want a kid anymore," and just kill them. Unless the mother was suffering from post-natal depression.

This seems a bit like a troll thread to be honest.

Oh, sorry if my question doesn't meet your standards. I guess you would call Peter Singer a troll, because he writes on moral legitimacy of infanticide, right? Nevermind...

Yes, but what if a baby is dependent only on mother? What if nobody is is willing to look after it? More importantly, why mother should be forced to seek childcare if she's not up to that?

Yes, such scenario might be unlikely. And so might be abortion on the last days of pregnancy. The question I am pondering is not necessarily one of likelihood, but one of theoretical consistency. Although, infanticide, even in countries where abortion is allowed, is a reality.

You can call me a troll and keep running away from an argument, if you wish.. It's not that I necessarily endorse the argument itself, but I find it interesting to look for consistency on the abortion/infanticide issue.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You've not got an argument. You're fabricating a frankly ridiculous scenario where there's no societal support for children. The same support that would be provided for orphaned children would be provided for children who's parents can no longer look after them for whatever reason. Whereas a fetus is still a part of the mother's body, a child is an individual person and would receive the same level of care and support as anyone else.

[Sasha]

on the danger of feeding the troll, there are cultures with an established practice of infanticide and who dont consider a baby a human being till their 5th year or something.
but these are underdeveloped tribes with a lacking medical development and recurring famine's.
in a developed society and as long as you have free and universal access to abortion there is little need for infanticide.
that said i have no moral problems with allowing parents and doctors to euthanise seriously sick and severely handicapped baby's if this will protect them from serious suffering or not being able to live a real human life.

[sosolo]

that said i have no moral problems with allowing parents and doctors to euthanise seriously sick and severely handicapped baby's if this will protect them from serious suffering or not being able to live a real human life.


I agree with this, if the child will have no quality of life and/or will die very soon anyways.

And how is it a bother to put a child up for adoption or foster care? Here in the US, at least, one can leave a baby at a hospital or fire department, no questions asked. Seems pretty simple to me.

[hatzel]

Ah, I specifically mentioned that in the initial message... nevermind.

Now, you can easily assume that option away for the sake of an argument. Or if you buy the entire argument and then reply by saying "yes, true, but parents can always get the kid adopted or whatever", then I would say why parents should be forced to go through that if they aren't up to it? If a women doesn't want to go through the last day of pregnancy or whatever, you won't force her to do so, will you?

I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing any more, not least because your OP said 'a baby is still dependant on mother,' though you're now talking about a situation where a child clearly isn't dependent on either of its parents, due to the possibility of adoption, yet the parents want to force a dependence, so to speak, by blocking the very real possibility of independence (from them, at least)...

Let's imagine for a minute that somebody has a 2-year-old child, as you said, and they no longer want anything to do with that child, yet for some reason aren't 'up to' giving it up for abortion, though are 'up to' killing it. I don't know what the reason for that might be, maybe they feel they would be unwilling to know that their child is being raised by somebody else, or don't want to know that a child exists in the world that they have left and who may know it was left, there are all sorts of possible explanations. Whatever the reason, however, they have to do with the question of parental rights over their child, and as such should be discussed alongside things like a parent's right to decide whether or not their child is vaccinated or undergoes some other medical procedure, a parent's right to sell their child as a slave, a parent's right to pick their child's school, a parent's right to murder their child for marrying the wrong person, a parent's right to dress their child in political slogan t-shirts, a parent's right to show their child torture porn etc. etc. (to make this abundantly clear, I'm not saying a parent has a right to do all those things). In all these cases, a parent may justify their decision based on what they feel 'up to' doing, whilst others may discuss whether or not a parent can be forced to do something.

None of this has anything to do with abortion, though, because abortion isn't about a woman's parental right as a mother to decide on her child's existence before its birth or anything like that. To me, you seem to be assuming that it is, and that the reason it's okay for a woman to abort a fetus is because she has some right to make a decision on existence on its behalf due to its dependency, hence you can then draw a line to that same woman making the same decision of existence on behalf of a 2-year-old child, asking when a woman's right to decide on her child's existence expires.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, it's not dependent on mothers' body in the same way as a fetus is dependent on it, obviously. But it's still dependent on mother as a person. In fact, baby can be more demanding in terms of her body than a pregnancy and more burdensome as well.

So..?
Why don't we then include here all children who depend on their parents, regardless of them being infants or teenagers for instance?

[Quail]

Oh, sorry if my question doesn't meet your standards. I guess you would call Peter Singer a troll, because he writes on moral legitimacy of infanticide, right? Nevermind...

Yes, but what if a baby is dependent only on mother? What if nobody is is willing to look after it? More importantly, why mother should be forced to seek childcare if she's not up to that?

Yes, such scenario might be unlikely. And so might be abortion on the last days of pregnancy. The question I am pondering is not necessarily one of likelihood, but one of theoretical consistency. Although, infanticide, even in countries where abortion is allowed, is a reality.

You can call me a troll and keep running away from an argument, if you wish.. It's not that I necessarily endorse the argument itself, but I find it interesting to look for consistency on the abortion/infanticide issue.

I'm not running away from anything. You're not asking about the social causes of infanticide or anything like that, you're (kind of bizarrely) comparing it to abortion which is one of the arguments often used by anti-choicers. There is such a huge and obvious difference between a fetus which has to live inside one person's body to survive and an infant which can be looked after by basically anyone if necessary. So it's no longer a question of bodily autonomy, you're asking at what age does it stop being acceptable to kill children and I would say it's never acceptable to kill children because they are independent beings (in the sense that they are not inextricably attached to another person) and nobody should be able to make the choice to kill another independent human being.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing any more, not least because your OP said 'a baby is still dependant on mother,' though you're now talking about a situation where a child clearly isn't dependent on either of its parents, due to the possibility of adoption, yet the parents want to force a dependence, so to speak, by blocking the very real possibility of independence (from them, at least)...

Let's imagine for a minute that somebody has a 2-year-old child, as you said, and they no longer want anything to do with that child, yet for some reason aren't 'up to' giving it up for abortion, though are 'up to' killing it. I don't know what the reason for that might be, maybe they feel they would be unwilling to know that their child is being raised by somebody else, or don't want to know that a child exists in the world that they have left and who may know it was left, there are all sorts of possible explanations. Whatever the reason, however, they have to do with the question of parental rights over their child, and as such should be discussed alongside things like a parent's right to decide whether or not their child is vaccinated or undergoes some other medical procedure, a parent's right to sell their child as a slave, a parent's right to pick their child's school, a parent's right to murder their child for marrying the wrong person, a parent's right to dress their child in political slogan t-shirts, a parent's right to show their child torture porn etc. etc. (to make this abundantly clear, I'm not saying a parent has a right to do all those things). In all these cases, a parent may justify their decision based on what they feel 'up to' doing, whilst others may discuss whether or not a parent can be forced to do something.

None of this has anything to do with abortion, though, because abortion isn't about a woman's parental right as a mother to decide on her child's existence before its birth or anything like that. To me, you seem to be assuming that it is, and that the reason it's okay for a woman to abort a fetus is because she has some right to make a decision on existence on its behalf due to its dependency, hence you can then draw a line to that same woman making the same decision of existence on behalf of a 2-year-old child, asking when a woman's right to decide on her child's existence expires.

Brilliant answer, thank you very much. I guess my problem was that I initially didn't think about it in terms of parental rights vs. bodily autonomy and as you said, looked at the one being merely a logical extension of the other. I think now it's much clearer, I will give it some time to sink completely during the night though.


Why don't we then include here all children who depend on their parents, regardless of them being infants or teenagers for instance?

Well, but that was precisely my question. My initial thought was that teenagers can act on their own independently, while infants can't do so, hence, their dependency on parents.

Anyway, I am going through a radical re-evaluation of my knowledge and values due to my engagement with Marxism so sometimes I become utterly confused even on such basic issues...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Ah, I specifically mentioned that in the initial message... nevermind.

Now, you can easily assume that option away for the sake of an argument. Or if you buy the entire argument and then reply by saying "yes, true, but parents can always get the kid adopted or whatever", then I would say why parents should be forced to go through that if they aren't up to it? If a women doesn't want to go through the last day of pregnancy or whatever, you won't force her to do so, will you?

You mentioned the foster system, which is distinct from adoption.

I can't think of any situation in a modern society where the choice of infanticide is less of a burden than the choice of adoption. There are even places where discarded, unwanted children are taken by the state and given up for adoption. If some paperwork is really so oppressive, you can always leave the baby outside a fire station.