Ethical killing of infants.

[apathy maybe]

(This is a follow on from the Abortion thread in Science and Environment <http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...opic=29436&st=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29436&st=0)> where it seems a few people think it is alright to kill children who are about to be born).


What do people think about infanticide? More specifically the type that Peter Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer) thinks is acceptable, that of children who are severally disabled.
But I&#39;ld also be interested in arguments on why any infant has a right to life (or not as the case may be).

Now I understand Singer&#39;s point of view, though I do disagree with it. Basically it is, if a child (or other person for that matter) cannot plan or anticipate a future then it is (in special circumstances) morally acceptable to kill that child (or other person).

And I would recommend that people at least read the Wikipedia article on him (linked from his name) but also articles from http://www.petersingerlinks.com/ as well.

[Invader Zim]

Its disgusting, I cant see how people can possibly support eugenics.

Stevie Wonder is the perfect example of why this stuff should not happen. He was suffering from Retinopathy of Prematurity and his eyes did not completely develop. Mr Singer would probably have killed him, now look at the guy, he&#39;s a genius.

[Fidelbrand]

A bit out of the topic, but infanticide always reminds me of how Some Japanese did it their imperialist way during WWII:

[Picture removed]

[dso79]

With a bit of effort from the parents and other people in its direct environment, even severely disabled children can live relatively normal lives, especially in countries with a good healthcare system. Only in extreme cases, for example when children suffer constant, severe pain, euthanasia might be the most humane option.


Stevie Wonder is the perfect example of why this stuff should not happen.

Stevie Wonder might be blind, but apart from that he&#39;s not severely disabled, and he is perfectly capable of planning his future. &#39;Severely disabled&#39; people are people who cannot speak, are unable to look after themselves, etc.

[Xvall]

Killing on the basis of their behavior as a child is insane. It is quite possible that the child will develop said skills as she or he grows and matures. If these actions were taken, people like Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein would have been killed long ago due to their "Inability to make something out of themselves".

[apathy maybe]

I would please like it if people actually read what Singer is proposing. He uses the same argument for abortion as infanticide. You have to remember, he is not proposing the killing of all disabled children. Nor is he promoting the idea of a superior race.
What he says, it is morally acceptable, not compulsory to kill (painlessly) children who are unable to plan or comprehend a future.


Now personally I see this as more acceptable then killing children before they are about to be born. (Though I don&#39;t like either option.)

[Invader Zim]

Stevie Wonder might be blind, but apart from that he&#39;s not severely disabled, and he is perfectly capable of planning his future. &#39;Severely disabled&#39; people are people who cannot speak, are unable to look after themselves, etc.

Like Stephen Hawking?

[BOZG]

I&#39;m probably wrong but aren&#39;t they able to diagnose the majority of severe disabilities during the pregnancy period? If so, wouldn&#39;t it more logical to have an abortion instead of infanticide.

If I&#39;m wrong, just ignore this post.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 11:05 AM
A bit out of the topic, but infanticide always reminds me of how Some Japanese did it their imperialist way during WWII:

[Picture removed]
Mutilated babies is a disgusting image, regardless of the context, so i&#39;ve removed it.

--------------

The idea of killing a child, for reasons such as these is dangerous. Who is to define what is anticipated. A child has the right to the freedom to at least try and make a future for themselves. As has already been shown, there are examples of people managing to forge a very good life, profound life in some cases. If someone decides that they cannot go on when they are adults, then they have the choice to do what they want. A child does not have that choice.

This kind of stuff reminds me of the BNP stance on poverty. Neil Lacombe, BNP national organiser asserts that poverty is genetic, and therefore working class people should be sterilised.

[che's long lost daughter]

Genetic anomalies such as Down&#39;s Syndrome could be diagnosed during pregnancy through a procedure called Amniotic Fluid analysis. If the results show that the child is positive of the disorder, the mother can eithr choose to go on with the pregnancy or abort the baby. But at that stage, no one can predict the optimal functioning of the baby as he grows up so why not give him a chance?

[dso79]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:48 AM
Stevie Wonder might be blind, but apart from that he&#39;s not severely disabled, and he is perfectly capable of planning his future. &#39;Severely disabled&#39; people are people who cannot speak, are unable to look after themselves, etc.

Like Stephen Hawking?
No, Stephen Hawking has also been quite capable of planning his own future. He&#39;s only physically disabled. What I meant was people who cannot communicate, look after themselves or plan their future as a result of mental disabilities.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by che&#39;s long lost [email protected] 25 2004, 11:05 AM
Genetic anomalies such as Down&#39;s Syndrome could be diagnosed during pregnancy through a procedure called Amniotic Fluid analysis. If the results show that the child is positive of the disorder, the mother can eithr choose to go on with the pregnancy or abort the baby. But at that stage, no one can predict the optimal functioning of the baby as he grows up so why not give him a chance?
Because the child could turn out be severly handicapped, something which the parents mightn&#39;t be able to cope with.

[sickdiscobiscuit]

if everyone is equal shouldn&#39;t everyone live?
but then if someone wants to get an abortion they should be able to?

[redstar2000]

What should we do about people who not only can&#39;t take care of themselves but will never under any foreseeable circumstances be able to do so?

The present "solutions" are pretty grim.

In the case of severely disabled children, society dumps them on their parents...and, if the parents are too poor to hire someone to take care of them, they dump those kids right back -- where they end up in some state "children&#39;s home". I would surmise that life for them is "nasty, brutish, and short".

The same is true of the senile...they are warehoused (until they die) in conditions pretty similar to the way chickens and cattle are warehoused by modern corporations.

How should/would we do things differently? What&#39;s the humane thing to do?

Some suggest that communist society would be "more caring". People freed from the burden of compulsory labor would be more inclined to take on the burden (or at least be willing to share it) of care for those who cannot care for themselves.

Others think (though rarely in public) that because communist society would be "hyper-rational" by today&#39;s standards, people would not want to waste their time and energy caring for those who will never become fully functional humans.

That is, it&#39;s one thing to care for someone who is temporarily disabled and watch them improve until they are fully functional; it&#39;s a very different (and demoralizing) thing to care for an entity that "looks human" but will never actually be able to function in a human way.

And, to make things even more complicated, there&#39;s always the possibility that some "incurable condition" may suddenly become "curable". Scientific breakthroughs are unpredictable by their very nature.

Unless one is wealthy (upper middle class or better), to abort because of fetal abnormalities seems to me to be plain common sense.

But after birth?

I just don&#39;t know.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:21 PM
No, Stephen Hawking has also been quite capable of planning his own future. He&#39;s only physically disabled. What I meant was people who cannot communicate, look after themselves or plan their future as a result of mental disabilities.
But thats not what you said, you said: -

"&#39;Severely disabled&#39; people are people who cannot speak, are unable to look after themselves, etc."

Stephen Hawking perfectly fits that catagory, and now your contradicting your self.

Try again.

And the only reason Stephen Hawking can communicate is because he has millions of pounds worth of equipment and software to help him. Other people are not so lucky.

So your in effect saying we should murder people unless they are hugley rich, and can afford to buy and use hugley expensive pieces of hardware which make it possible fir them to communicate. The Poor bastards can die.

[dso79]

You&#39;re right, Enigma. My description of severely disabled people wasn&#39;t accurate. Look it up in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) for the correct definition.

I still don&#39;t believe, however, that Stephen Hawking and Stevie Wonder fit the category that Singer considers &#39;morally acceptable to kill&#39;, since they can plan and comprehend a future.


And the only reason Stephen Hawking can communicate is because he has millions of pounds worth of equipment and software to help him. Other people are not so lucky.

The expensive equipment sure makes communication a lot easier, though he&#39;d probably be able to communicate using more primitive means.


So your in effect saying we should murder people unless they are hugley rich, and can afford to buy and use hugley expensive pieces of hardware which make it possible fir them to communicate. The Poor bastards can die.

I never said that people who can&#39;t communicate should be killed. In my first post I wrote that only when children suffer constant, severe pain (that can&#39;t be alleviated), euthanasia might be an option.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:48 AM
Stevie Wonder might be blind, but apart from that he&#39;s not severely disabled, and he is perfectly capable of planning his future. &#39;Severely disabled&#39; people are people who cannot speak, are unable to look after themselves, etc.

Like Stephen Hawking?
Stephen Hawking is irrelevant to this discussion as he did not show symptoms of ALS until 1962 (at the age of twenty) and was not clinically diagnosed with ALS until 1963.

[Xvall]

I think you ought to keep the picture.

[commiecrusader]

This is completely different to the matter of abortion as these childeren are separate from the mother.

Two cases are going through the UK courts at the moment about a similar thing. They decided it was acceptable to withold respiration/reactivation of the heart from a baby believed to be in constant pain, and that it was acceptable to withold mechanical respiration from another baby where it was thought it would be too intrusive and aggressive considering what treatment occurred before.

I don&#39;t know about this argument, for me it seems completely different to abortion. I don&#39;t know what I feel about this...

[apathy maybe]

Why do you think that is arguement is compleatly different from abortion? Is it because the child is not inside the mother anymore? Is that the only difference (besides the ones which mean that the child might be killed)?

If the child is of no use (for example, can&#39;t think or move) to society, isn&#39;t it better to kill it rather then waste resources looking after it? I think that is more acceptable then to kill a child who is compleatly normal, but is only 8 months old (i.e. still in the womb).

(Not that I find either scenario acceptable really.)

[commiecrusader]

Why do you think that is arguement is compleatly different from abortion? Is it because the child is not inside the mother anymore? Is that the only difference (besides the ones which mean that the child might be killed)?
It is completely different because once the &#39;child&#39; has been born, it is no longer part of the mother. For me, whilst it is inside the mother it is part of her, not a child, a growth, and she should be able to do what she likes with it. Once born though, it is undoubtably a child, and therefore I don&#39;t know what to think...


If the child is of no use (for example, can&#39;t think or move) to society, isn&#39;t it better to kill it rather then waste resources looking after it? I think that is more acceptable then to kill a child who is compleatly normal, but is only 8 months old (i.e. still in the womb).
I get your point, but I just don&#39;t know. From my point of view, if the mother wants it aborted then that&#39;s fair enough since it&#39;s part of her. Once born however it is an independent and I don&#39;t know if its justifiable to kill someone just because they are different. I would prefer for it to be treated as if it was &#39;normal&#39;, and if it survives then fine, if it doesn&#39;t then it&#39;s probably for the best.... although looking back at that it seems stupid.... I don&#39;t know what should be done once it&#39;s born.

[RandomRival]

I am Pro-Choice but I personally would never allow my spouse to abort our child in any form.

Be the child may be disabled and have issues, It shall be loved equal if not with more extra care and love.

[apathy maybe]

So you are pro-choice though would not let you spouse abort? So you are pro-choice when you are not part of the picture? Interesting.


It is also interesting that people can&#39;t decide what to do with a (severely) disabled child after it is born. Yet feel quite happy allowing a mother to kill a child who is 8 1/2 months (in the womb) and perfectly healthy. Apart from one is in the womb and one isn&#39;t, what is the difference? (Well one is and likely for the duration of their life a burden on society, the other could potentially be quite productive.)

[Seeker]

a being&#39;s interests should always be weighed according to that being&#39;s concrete properties, and not according to its belonging to some abstract group . . .
. . . abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in . . . infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

Taken from the Wiki link.

I agree 100%.
I don&#39;t think all disabled children should be killed, but I think there are some situations where it would be O.K. Not everyone with cancer should recieve a lethal dose of morphine, but in some cases that might be the right thing to do.

The morality of either of these actions is determined, not by the act itself, but by the context.

[RandomRival]

I am saying, I dont mind what people do behind closed doors...that is their business.


But I wont ever inpregnate a woman who desires to abort a child.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:37 PM
I am saying, I dont mind what people do behind closed doors...that is their business.


But I wont ever inpregnate a woman who desires to abort a child.
Flip Flop.


I agree with what was posted at the top of this page. It is no more than a growth that is sustained and kept alive by the woman while it is inside of her, therefore, since she is the one who sustains it and has total say over it, she should have the right to do whatever she wants to it. BUT...

Once it is outside of her, it is an individual, not dependent on the mothers womb for life, therefore it shall be treated as an individual, and given the same rights as any other individual, reguardless of it&#39;s circumstances.

Look, if you&#39;re a kid imagine this. You depend on your parents for clothing, food, money (if you get any), etc.

If they threw their 12 year old kid on the streets, he could possibly (much greater chance than at home) die without anyone taking care of him, and not being able to get a job, thus not being able to pay for what sustains him (ah, the problems of capitalism.. again) That is why they can dictate SOME of the things that he/she does. I don&#39;t mean personal things, but anything involving what they buy for them (food, clothing, water, etc)

Does anyone see where I am coming from?

[RandomRival]

Flip Flop?

I have said the same thing twice, just cleared up for the uneducated people who could not comprehend the first meaning.


Being ProChoice does not mean I need to go abort some kids.
I personally will love any child I bring into this world but I shall never look down on a person who does it...I dont know why they had to abort or anything and I know I will only have sex without protection if I can bring a child into this world.


Do not treat me like some simple minded person, I will break you down mentally and BTW You come off like a conseravtive...always trying to reword peoples meanings into things to validate your own personal arguments.

[Black Dagger]

Stop being insulting.

Your first statement was quite clear, and people responded to it fairly.

You said:

"I am Pro-Choice but I personally would never allow my spouse to abort our child in any form"

You stated, "I am Pro-Choice&#39;, Pro-choice means you support the right of women to choose to have an abortion if they wish. But the very next words were, "but I personally would never allow my spouse to abort our child in any form"- which means you do not support the right of all women to choose to have an abortion, only those whom you are not involved in a relationship with. Therefore, logically, you cannot say you are &#39;Pro-Choice", because that declaration applies that you are pro-choice all the time (and thus in every case with every women). Otherwise you would have had to say, "I&#39;m pro-choice sometimes and pro-life other times, depending on the context"- but you didn&#39;t, and thus contradicted yourself.

*takes a breath*

The thing that most struck me about your post was, "but I personally would never allow my spouse"... Which is an overt denial of your spouses &#39;freedom of choice&#39;. So your spouse has no say in the matter? What if they wanted fell pregnant but did not want the child, ie. they wanted an abortion? You&#39;ll force them to carry your child against their will? That is the diametric opposite of "I am pro-choice", it&#39;s an authoritarian &#39;pro-life&#39; position.


But I wont ever inpregnate a woman who desires to abort a child.

Accidents do happen, quite a lot in fact.

[chebol]

I have a better thread title.

How about "Ethical killing of capitalists"?

Once completed, this policy will create a society that is humane and caring, with the resources to enable ALL people to achieve the most and best they can in any way, shape or form, rendering eugenics and debates like these into but a modicum of dirt in the dustbin of history.

[Rasta Sapian]

Sometimes it takes years to fully diagnose developmental or physical disabilities of newborns; some become very capable and intellegent human beings, others are left to be cared for, for the rest of there adult lives with severe delay, autism, down syndrom, cerybal palsy, etc.

To decide at birth the question of euthenasia is morally wrong and inhumain to the utmost of disgust to the human race&#33;

This doctor should be charged for crimes agianst humanity and this should be ammended to the International Charter of Human Rights.

Society (especially) civilized society should be embrasing these infants, besides there is an entire industry of health care workers who have the job and responsibility of taking care of these special people, some of which are very capable and contribute many hours of labour and love to these very societies than are considering to destroy them&#33;

[bombeverything]

It is also interesting that people can&#39;t decide what to do with a (severely) disabled child after it is born. Yet feel quite happy allowing a mother to kill a child who is 8 1/2 months (in the womb) and perfectly healthy.

It is about choice. The difference is that in the abortion instance the decision is usually made by the mother with the view that she will not be able to, or does not wish to, look after a child. That is, the choice is (ultimately) made by herself for herself. However killing a child simply because they are living with a disability means that the parents are making the decision for the child.

What I am trying to say is that the difference is that the child has already entered the world.


Well one is and likely for the duration of their life a burden on society, the other could potentially be quite productive.

What exactly are you implying here?

[Clutch]

Just out of curiosity, what would this guy do to a child with
Attention Deficit Hyper-activity Disorder (ADHD)?

[red_orchestra]

...geezz, humm....maybe he&#39;d give the kid an overdose of Ritilin and call it a day. You know ethically killing a person would involve the infant having a personality, an awareness of space and time. If the kid is a fetus, then technically it isn&#39;t as of yet, a person because it is not fully aware of its surroundings until the last few months of gestation. So abortion therefor is legally justified that time.