Do you support infantcide?

[spartan]

Do you support infantcide against newborn babies when resources are low and the mother of the baby refuses to care for the baby to ensure its survival until it is old enough to look after itself?

I personally dont support it as there are much better, not to say more humane, alternatives such as giving the baby up for adoption where social services, and perhaps later adopted parent/s, can look after the child until it is old enough to look after itself.

Note: I got the idea for this after viewing Gunther Click's thread regarding his supporting of infantcide when resources are low, which can be found here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/view-abortion-t75255/index.html

[Organic Revolution]

God no. Once the baby has been born, it should be cared for, until it can grow up and care for itself.

[Jazzratt]

Not at all, I'll be interested to see some pro-infanticide arguments though

[AGITprop]

Ugh. This thread is totally out of context.

I'm not going to respond as my arguments are in the other thread.

This example of infanticide was meant to be applied to an extreme situation. Please read my arguments before labelling me a Baby Killer :)

[spartan]

Ugh. This thread is totally out of context.

I'm not going to respond as my arguments are in the other thread.

This example of infanticide was meant to be applied to an extreme situation. Please read my arguments before labelling me a Baby Killer :)

Im not labelling you a baby killer but you did say that in extreme circumstances where resources are low you dont see why humans who cant contribute to society and who have to rely on others to survive (Babies) should be allowed to live as we would be wasting much needed resources on them which humans who can look after themselves and contribute to society could use.

[Unicorn]

Princeton professor Peter Singer supports infanticide. He says that parents have a right to kill disabled infants.



Quote:In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.

The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it. Some parents want even the most gravely disabled infant to live as long as possible, and this desire would then be a reason against killing the infant. But what if this is not the case? in the discussion that follows I shall assume that the parents do not want the disabled child to live. I shall also assume that the disability is so serious that - again in contrast to the situation of an unwanted but normal child today - there are no other couples keen to adopt the infant. This is a realistic assumption even in a society in which there is a long waiting- list of couples wishing to adopt normal babies. It is true that from time to time cases of infants who are severely disabled and are being allowed to die have reached the courts in a glare of publicity, and this has led to couples offering to adopt the child. Unfortunately such offers are the product of the highly publicised dramatic life-and-death situation, and do not extend to the less publicised but far more cormnon situations in which parents feel themselves unable to look after a severely disabled child, and the child then languishes in an institution.

Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy. The remaining principles identified in Chapter 4 are utilitarian. Hence the quality of life that the infant can be expected to have is important.

One relatively common birth disability is a faulty development of the spine known as spina bifida. Its prevalence, varies in different countries, but it can affect as many as one in five hundred live births. In the more severe cases, the child will be permanently paralysed from the waistdown and lack control of bowels or bladder. Often excess fluid accumulates in the brain, a condition known as hydrocephalus, which can result in intellectual disabilities. Though some forms of treatment exist, if the child is badly affected at birth, the paralysis, incontinence, and intellectual disability cannot be overcome.

Some doctors closely connected with children suffering from severe spina bifida believe that the lives of the worst affected children are so miserable that it is wrong to resort to surgery to keep them alive. Published descriptions of the lives of these children support the judgment that these worst affected children will have lives filled with pain and discomfort. They need repeated major surgery to prevent curvature of the spine, due to the paralysis, and to correct other abnormalities. Some children with spina bifida have had forty major operations before they reach their teenage years.

When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive - like the feelings of the parents - it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering. A more difficult problem arises - and the convergence between the two views ends - when we consider disabilities that make the child's life prospects significantly less promising than those of a normal child, but not so bleak as to make the child's life not worth living. Haemophilia is probably in this category. The haemophiliac lacks the element in normal blood that makes it clot and thus risks prolonged bleeding, especially internal bleeding, from the slightest injury. if allowed to continue, this bleeding leads to permanent crippling and eventually death. The bleeding is very painful and although improved treatments have eliminated the need for constant blood transfusions, haemophiliacs still have to spend a lot of time in hospital. They are unable to play most sports and live constantly on the edge of crisis. Nevertheless, haemophiliacs do not appear to spend their time wondering whether to end it all; most find life definitely worth living, despite the difficulties they face.

Given these facts, suppose that a newborn baby is diagnosed as a haemophiliac. The parents, daunted by the prospect of bringing up a child with this condition, are not anxious for him to live. Could euthanasia be defended here? Our first reaction may well be a firm 'no', for the infant can be expected to have a life that is worth living, even if not quite as good as that of a normal baby. The 'prior existence' version of utilitarianism sup- ports this judgment. The infant exists. His life can be expected to contain a positive balance of happiness over misery. To kill him would deprive him of this positive balance of happiness. Therefore it would be wrong.

On the 'total' version of utilitarianism, however, we cannot reach a decision on the basis of this information alone. The total view makes it necessary to ask whether the death of the haemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being who would not otherwise have existed. In other words, if the haemophiliac child is killed, will his parents have another child whom they would not have if the haemophiliac child lives? If they would, is the second child likely to have a better life than the one killed?

Often it will be possible to answer both these questions affinnatively. A woman may plan to have two children. If one dies while she is of child-bearing age, she may conceive another in its place. Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child, and then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. It is also plausible to suppose that the prospects of a happy life are better for a normal child than for a haemophiliac.

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

[AGITprop]

Im not labelling you a baby killer but you did say that in extreme circumstances where resources are low you dont see why humans who cant think or look after themselves (Babies) should be allowed to live as we would be wasting much needed resources on them which humans who can look after themselves and contribute to society could use.

What I am arguing is this;

If there are unwanted children after birth, which shouldn't be a problem anyway because of the miracle of abortion, and because of a crisis, such as war, where human resources are being used to the maximum to defend the revolution and the population, killing the babies should be a viable alternative. Also, I'm not saying al babies should be subject to this, only newborns, as they are not conscious and not qualitatively as high as a human, but still an animal.

But again, this is an extreme case, and is not the important pat at all of my analysis. This situation is extremely idealistic and purely the product of my navel-gazing.

Please refer to the other tread for more answers.

[Black Cross]

This situation is extremely idealistic

i think that's a poor choice of words.

[AGITprop]

Princeton professor Peter Singer supports infanticide. He says that parents have a right to kill disabled infants.



http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

Why did you post this again?

I'm not a utilitarian. I'm a Marxist.
Don't compare me to this psychopath and read my arguments, this article is completely out of context.

[KC]

Gunther, hypothetical situations are only relevant when they have a chance of existing.

[AGITprop]

i think that's a poor choice of words.

I think you don't understand the word idealistic in this context. I don't mean this ideal as in great.

[AGITprop]

Gunther, hypothetical situations are only relevant when they have a chance of existing.

Who is to say this situation could never exist.

Regardless, this is NOT important. My point was to examine what constitutes human life and justifying abortion.

[Unicorn]

Why did you post this again?
Jazzratt said that he is interested of pro-infanticide arguments. Singer has formulated the most famous defense of infanticide.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This is crazy, we were just talking about the crime of infanticide in Criminal Law today. I thought this thread might be about whether or not infanticide should exist as a crime separate to murder, which would be a much more interesting discussion. Of course I don't support the actual act of infanticide, I doubt anyone would.

[AGITprop]

This is crazy, we were just talking about the crime of infanticide in Criminal Law today. I thought this thread might be about whether or not infanticide should exist as a crime separate to murder, which would be a much more interesting discussion. Of course I don't support the actual act of infanticide, I doubt anyone would.

I don't, I think we should be able to preserve newborn baby's life so they can develop consciousness and grow up.

This thread was taken out of context unfortunately from the other thread.

[Faceless]

Singer has formulated the most famous defense of infanticide.


hehe, I've heard about this guy. Apparently he also believes that sex with animals is OK too. Completely off his rocker but strangely respected by the academic community. My girlfriend's friend from Poland who is a Christian and a theology PhD student was asked out by this guy I believe. I don't think a baby killing Zooaphile and a Baptist would ever really get on except perhaps in some kind of comedy

[Keyser]

Absolutely not.

It's a practice that must never be tolerated, even in the most extreme cases of resource shortage.

Those who kill infants should suffer the harshest punishment possible, the death penalty.

I hate infant murderers as much as I hate child abusers and rapists.

[AGITprop]

Absolutely not.

It's a practice that must never be tolerated, even in the most extreme cases of resource shortage.

Those who kill infants should suffer the harshest punishment possible, the death penalty.

I hate infant murderers as much as I hate child abusers and rapists.


This is definitely an emotional response. Can you justify this? Newborns are no where near as important as fully developed human life. I'd rather devote resources to save a human than baby.

Child abuse and rape have nothing to do with this conversation.

[nvm]

i don't care what is idealistic or emotional or wtv
I do not support killing babies even in the most extreme situation.
Babies are cute and full of love.:drool:
Killing them is just cruel.
And who knows , by killing a baby you might kill the next Einstein or the next Lenin;)

[AGITprop]

i don't care what is idealistic or emotional or wtv
I do not support killing babies even in the most extreme situation.
Babies are cute and full of love.:drool:
Killing them is just cruel.
And who knows , by killing a baby you might kill the next Einstein or the next Lenin;)

Dimitri,
enough of your bollocks! :)

Babies are not predetermined to be anyone. A baby can just as easily grow up to be a fascist leader. This argument is useless.

[jake williams]

And who knows , by killing a baby you might kill the next Einstein or the next Lenin;)
It's entirely possible that you have sex cells in your body right now who could grow up to become the person who cures people from the curse of horrible arguments, saving the world forever from illogic. The fact that you're not currently having sex and bringing them into the world "just in case" means you're responsible for all the death and suffering that may have occurred thereby.

Murderer.

[guevara2093]

Why would people be interested in having a baby during the revolution? Shouldn't they be busy working to havest resources so that they may survive? Abortion is okay as long as you do it before the baby is born. Why would you wait until the baby is alive to kill it?

[bolshevik butcher]

This thread is stupid and ridiculous. This website was designed for left wing discussion not for disucssion of stupid hypotheticals that don't currently exist. Any other situations? How would the revolution deel with attack by aliens? Or godzilla?

[Unicorn]

Why would people be interested in having a baby during the revolution? Shouldn't they be busy working to havest resources so that they may survive? Abortion is okay as long as you do it before the baby is born. Why would you wait until the baby is alive to kill it?
If the baby is disabled some women want to have an abortion. The problem is that all disabilities are not detected in screenings. Disability will then be a surprise revealed when the baby is born and the woman wants to get rid of the baby.

That is why some Fascists - and Singer - support infanticide.

[Ultra-Violence]

MURDERER! MURDER BLOODY MURDER!

j/k

um NO!

becuase one if resources were low i wouldnt be procreating and that why we have birth control and abortions if the kids is born he is born WITH INANLIENABLE RIGHTS!
wich Are Life,Liberty and a nice place to live and grow up

[Dean]

Why did you post this again?

I'm not a utilitarian. I'm a Marxist.
Don't compare me to this psychopath and read my arguments, this article is completely out of context.
I don't think he's a utilitarian, and I think this was meant to be like "a modest proposal." I would agree with the proposal if infants didn't have sentient character (not unlike Singer's argument both here and in defense of animal rights), but my impression is that they do.

[PRC-UTE]

This is definitely an emotional response. Can you justify this? Newborns are no where near as important as fully developed human life. I'd rather devote resources to save a human than baby.

Child abuse and rape have nothing to do with this conversation.

If humans didn't have an 'emotional response' to killing babies, human society could not exist.

[Keyser]

This is definitely an emotional response.


I am not going to deny that. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem and not mine.

If you want me to contribute to this question on pure logic alone, then I'll actually counter-pose another more relevant question to the one you asked.

If in extreme circumstances of resource scarcity, a given population of humans needs to cull it's numbers, why not cull the elderly instead of infants?

I am not advocating the culling of the elderly either, just making a point which I'll elaborate below using Gunther Glick's logic.

Unlike infants, children and adults, the elderly cannot contribute to any future reproduction in a given society, they cannot do work like infants yet unlike infants they will not be able to contribute in their labour to a given society in the future.

A society that kills it's infants and children is killing of it's own future.

If a society were to kill infants on the basis of trying to preserve scarce resources, then with no children it will die out anyway and a society that dies out and avoids bloodshed is a better way of a society withering away than a society that killed off it's future members and simply died out anyway given the lack of children to see that society through.

On another note, such this infantcide scenario is a stupid one, given that most people in society have children and such a plan could never be put to work without massive social unrest and conflict.

[crimsonzephyr]

What I am arguing is this;

If there are unwanted children after birth, which shouldn't be a problem anyway because of the miracle of abortion, and because of a crisis, such as war, where human resources are being used to the maximum to defend the revolution and the population, killing the babies should be a viable alternative. Also, I'm not saying al babies should be subject to this, only newborns, as they are not conscious and not qualitatively as high as a human, but still an animal.

But again, this is an extreme case, and is not the important pat at all of my analysis. This situation is extremely idealistic and purely the product of my navel-gazing.

Please refer to the other tread for more answers.

I agree, although i said no, it's the greater good to kill the babies if they cant be supported. Once they are gone all focus is on winning whatever is at hand(revolution). after all is well, babies galore! That can be supported, of course.

[AGITprop]

If humans didn't have an 'emotional response' to killing babies, human society could not exist.

Justification?

[AGITprop]

I am not going to deny that. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem and not mine.

If you want me to contribute to this question on pure logic alone, then I'll actually counter-pose another more relevant question to the one you asked.

If in extreme circumstances of resource scarcity, a given population of humans needs to cull it's numbers, why not cull the elderly instead of infants?

I am not advocating the culling of the elderly either, just making a point which I'll elaborate below using Gunther Glick's logic.

Unlike infants, children and adults, the elderly cannot contribute to any future reproduction in a given society, they cannot do work like infants yet unlike infants they will not be able to contribute in their labour to a given society in the future.

A society that kills it's infants and children is killing of it's own future.

If a society were to kill infants on the basis of trying to preserve scarce resources, then with no children it will die out anyway and a society that dies out and avoids bloodshed is a better way of a society withering away than a society that killed off it's future members and simply died out anyway given the lack of children to see that society through.
We wouldn't kill the elderly because they are conscious sentient beings, equal to us qualitatively and have every right to freedom, whereas a baby is not qualitatively equal to us and does not have those rights.


On another note, such this infantcide scenario is a stupid one, given that most people in society have children and such a plan could never be put to work without massive social unrest and conflict. Maybe in this society, not in one that is educated and understands value of human life and the need to preserve it. Killing an infant is no different than aborting the pregnancy.

[PRC-UTE]

Justification?

If it wasn't an instinct to protect the young and helpless, how would society successfully reproduce?

[Fedorov]

We wouldn't kill the elderly because they are conscious sentient beings, equal to us qualitatively and have every right to freedom, whereas a baby is not qualitatively equal to us and does not have those rights.


At when exactly does a baby become a conscious sentient being? I'm not going to accuse you of being utilitarian but the there is more than a hint of that in your argument with regard to the meager resources situation. Just because a baby, now its not a bunch of cells anymore, hasn't yet developed to same level as say a toddler it makes it no less different in my opinion. Furthermore, again restating: if the woman hadn't aborted the child within 9 months I think its a little too late and seeing as its not tied to her body it shouldn't be her choice on whether or not to kill it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It probably shouldn't be treated too harshly considering that parents shouldn't be obligated to care for their children or have the trouble of taking them to an adoption agency of some kind. However, babies are fully independent beings and therefore have rights, comparable to those of sick people who need medical attention. That isn't to say, though, that the parents of rejected babies should be forced to seek the necessary care for their babies, just like those who have a sick relative at home shouldn't be legally forced to seek medical attention. Although it probably should be encouraged.

[AGITprop]

If it wasn't an instinct to protect the young and helpless, how would society successfully reproduce?

Point taken.I agree. But this instinctive response, should be replaced with a more rational one. The fact that we need to protect our babies to ensure the survival of our race. I tend to agree more with rationality than emotion, as these are just remnants of animal instincts, which can be reactionary, dangerous and counter-productive.

[AGITprop]

At when exactly does a baby become a conscious sentient being? I'm not going to accuse you of being utilitarian but the there is more than a hint of that in your argument with regard to the meager resources situation. Just because a baby, now its not a bunch of cells anymore, hasn't yet developed to same level as say a toddler it makes it no less different in my opinion. Furthermore, again restating: if the woman hadn't aborted the child within 9 months I think its a little too late and seeing as its not tied to her body it shouldn't be her choice on whether or not to kill it.
We are not exactly certain when babies do become conscious, this is something that needs to be researched more indepth. But what we do know is that consciousness is the product of interaction with nature through the senses, so it does take time to develop.

I have to disagree with your point on the difference between cells and newborn, BUT i do agree that it would be quite unfortunate to have to terminate the baby's life after it was born. The woman suffered or nothing. I think it is reasonable to decide whether or not you wish to keep your child during the first nine months. :)

[Lector Malibu]

The only way I could envision this and it's a stretch is not just killing babies but reducing the amount of babies that are born with apparent medical problems . This would lessen the strain on the resourses and prevent a child from having to suffer needlessly.

Since we are on the subject though, why babies?? Would it not make more sense to ease the suffering of the terminally ill or severe elderly? also a strain on resources

[Pawn Power]

Indeed, this thread has not context whatsoever.

Infantcide is serves little purpose in this time of abundence (though, clearly unequal). However, practices of infantcide has been used by various cultures in the past to sustain the lives of the group as a whole when forms of birth control did not always work.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And now for something completely different...

What do you all think of the existence of the crime of infanticide as separate from murder? This is a statutory crime brought into several common law jurisdictions (and maybe some civil law ones, I'm not sure) during the 20th century. Basically, if a mother kills her child within 12 months of its birth where the balance of her mind is disturbed as a result of the birth process, she will be found guilty of infanticide which is a kind of manslaughter, not murder. This imbalance of mind generally results from post-natal depression.

The problem though is that nowhere else in law is depression a defence. Depression obviously falls far short of insanity, and generally falls well short of diminished responsibility as well. If my girlfriend dumps me and I become depressed because of it so I kill her, I will most likely be convicted of murder, not manlaughter. So why should a depressed mother be afforded a reductive defence (technically, infanticide is a separate offence and not a reductive defence but in reality it works the exact same way as a defence)?

[Unicorn]

And now for something completely different...

What do you all think of the existence of the crime of infanticide as separate from murder?
It is also an issue of gender equality because only women can be found guilty of the lesser crime of infanticide. Also, in many cases women who kill their children are suffering from delirium tremens, not post-natal depression.

I don't think infanticide should be specifically mentioned in the law. It should be evaluated according to the normal procedure whether post-natal depression has led to diminished responsibility when the crime was committed.

[AGITprop]

Since we are on the subject though, why babies?? Would it not make more sense to ease the suffering of the terminally ill or severe elderly? also a strain on resources

I am in complete favour of euthanasia. As long as the subject is consenting. :)

[Luís Henrique]

Princeton professor Peter Singer supports infanticide. He says that parents have a right to kill disabled infants.

Yes, Adolph Hitler also supported similar positions.

Luís Henrique

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It is also an issue of gender equality because only women can be found guilty of the lesser crime of infanticide. Also, in many cases women who kill their children are suffering from delirium tremens, not post-natal depression.

I don't think infanticide should be specifically mentioned in the law. It should be evaluated according to the normal procedure whether post-natal depression has led to diminished responsibility when the crime was committed.
I agree.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And now for something completely different...

What do you all think of the existence of the crime of infanticide as separate from murder? This is a statutory crime brought into several common law jurisdictions (and maybe some civil law ones, I'm not sure) during the 20th century. Basically, if a mother kills her child within 12 months of its birth where the balance of her mind is disturbed as a result of the birth process, she will be found guilty of infanticide which is a kind of manslaughter, not murder. This imbalance of mind generally results from post-natal depression.

The problem though is that nowhere else in law is depression a defence. Depression obviously falls far short of insanity, and generally falls well short of diminished responsibility as well. If my girlfriend dumps me and I become depressed because of it so I kill her, I will most likely be convicted of murder, not manlaughter. So why should a depressed mother be afforded a reductive defence (technically, infanticide is a separate offence and not a reductive defence but in reality it works the exact same way as a defence)?
Sorry, I should point out that the 12-month limit is exclusive to Irish law. If I recall correctly a court in England found that 32 days was too long a time period, and infanticide was therefore not available as an alternative to murder.

[Fedorov]

I have to disagree with your point on the difference between cells and newborn, BUT i do agree that it would be quite unfortunate to have to terminate the baby's life after it was born. The woman suffered or nothing. I think it is reasonable to decide whether or not you wish to keep your child during the first nine months. :)

Alrighty, you seem much more reasonable than I thought.:D


I am in complete favour of euthanasia. As long as the subject is consenting. :)

If a person is consenting then he must have some problems that should be checked out. Would someone willing commit suicide to lessen the burden on society? Something is plain wrong with that.


Point taken.I agree. But this instinctive response, should be replaced with a more rational one. The fact that we need to protect our babies to ensure the survival of our race. I tend to agree more with rationality than emotion, as these are just remnants of animal instincts, which can be reactionary, dangerous and counter-productive.

Now here's something frustrating. You want to apply everything through marxist "goggles" and its in effect replacing the famous phrase "what would Jesus do" with "what would Marx do". Now once again I'm not putting out accusations but deciding everything from a standpoint of what is most efficient and the end result is utilitarian and like stated before, not dissimilar from Hitler's views and that can indeed be seen as reactionary. Anyway, my point is that Marx, although of course a brilliant thinker, should not be the end all be all or the measure for everything. We are still people and should not replace such simple instincts with cold analysis, I think thats rather comparable to an executive writing off layoffs, impersonal, only objective.

[Faux Real]

I do not support infanticide.

[PRC-UTE]

Point taken.I agree. But this instinctive response, should be replaced with a more rational one. The fact that we need to protect our babies to ensure the survival of our race. I tend to agree more with rationality than emotion, as these are just remnants of animal instincts, which can be reactionary, dangerous and counter-productive.

Yeah, that's going to happen.

Look, sometimes there's seemingly irrational instincts that serve a rational purpose.

You're in the IMT?

[Comrade-Z]

Alright, let's get one thing out of the way:

"Inalienable rights" do not "exist," per se. Some bourgeois intellectuals a long time ago invented the concept because it seemed useful to them at the time. Most people in society have maintained modified versions of this concept since then for the same reason--because it seems useful to live in a society that acts as if these "rights" exist and should be respected.

So a baby, or any human being for that matter, doesn't have a "right" to not get killed in any "objective" sense. Rights are social constructs that we invent when we find it useful to do so.

So is it useful to give all babies in all circumstances a right to not be killed? Those are rather strict conditions, are they not? I mean, we don't even give those sorts of conditions to adults. If a human adult is invading my land, intent on depriving me of my means of survival (such as food, water, or oxygen to the brain), I'm not going to respect that human's "right" to live, I'm going to resist that human and kill that human if need be.

Likewise, if push came to shove, and a baby was going to deprive me of the means for my survival, I might let the baby die (or kill it in as orderly and non-painful a way as possible). However, the chances of such a situation coming to pass are very very low in modern society, so it's not a question that I would agonize over. In other instances, should we make infanticide illegal? I would say definitely yes.

[AGITprop]

You're in the IMT?

Yes I am.

Is it an issue?:confused:

[Comrade-Z]

Also, I should like to add that the usefulness of killing an infant (or any human) should be weighed against the usefulness (or non-usefulness) of the social norm that it creates or reinforces. This applies to killing in war, killing in circumstances of scarce resources, etc. That's why, if at all possible, it is usually a good idea to avoid killing other social humans (does not include fetuses, which are not a part of society and are subject to the health of the mother rather than the health of society). If you kill an old person or a kid or any social human, you open up the possibility of other humans in society seeing justification in killing you.

So I would avoid infanticide very strongly.

Consider this, though:

Let's say you are on a planet in huge population overshoot, with 100 billion human beings or something. The resources used to sustain this population have simply run out, and there's no conceivable way you see that the 100 billion population can be maintained. There are only enough resources for 10 billion people living meager existences, that's just the brutal truth. So 90 billion people are going to die one way or the other. And let's say that the fertility rate is still high, because people are being dumbasses.

Would it make sense to allow all these newborn kids to die slow, painful deaths to disease or starvation when they get older (as most of them surely will), or would it make sense to kill them right after they are born? There is clearly a difference between a third-trimester abortion and killing a fetus right after it comes out of the womb...but how much of a difference?