What is wrong with infanticide?

[Captain Chaos]

I am not advocating infanticide. Just to make that clear before someone gets annoyed at me.

I am simply asking, from the perspective of a prochoice individual - what is wrong with killing babies?

I mean, say you are a mother and you don't wish to go to the trouble of putting your baby up for adoption. What is wrong with simply killing your baby and disposing of the remains by feeding them to your dog?


Now, I am sure those of you who profess prolife religious beliefs will be able to come up with a huge number of faith-based objections.

But, for those of you who are prochoice, what is your objection to baby killing?

[Scribbler1]

This is a stupid premise. Even pro-choice advocates will agree killing a baby after it is actually born is murder. I can only assume this is a weak attempt to trap the pro choicers into slipping up so you can prevail in a rigged debate.

I suggest this thread be shipped of to miscellaneous.

[Captain Chaos]

You did not attempt to answer the question...

Of course they will consider infanticide murder. That is not the question.

The question is - why is it wrong?


Belittling a question is just another means of sidestepping it.

[Scribbler1]

So pretty much everyone will consider infanticide murder, right? In that case the question is why is murder wrong? And you seriously expect honest and thoughtful answers to such a dumb question?

Good luck with that.

[Mia]

I don't think he's looking for a meaningful debate - see 'Christians should agree with abortion'....

[Chris]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You did not attempt to answer the question... Of course they will consider infanticide murder. That is not the question. The question is - why is it wrong?

Um.... because its murder :rolleyes:

[PatrickHenry]

A perfect example of why some boards don't allow newbies to start topics. This is trash.

Chaos, do you really want to stay and talk or are you just trying to impress us with your instigational skills?

Infanticide will get you the needle, because babies aren't able to threaten you with harm. No self-defense there...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Its only legal to kill foreigners children. And then, only if it profits a few fat white guys who dont know what its like to work for an hourly wage.

[Jack]

It's paradoxical, really. When there were far fewer humans, when each person was of greater value by virtue of their scarcity, infanticide was practiced in many cultures. Until recently many cultures still allowed killing a female child if male children were valued more highly. And now that we're becoming a more common commodity, we've decided children are to be spared infanticide for merely cultural reasons.
Personally, I don't really have an opinion. I have no children of my own to tempt me to murder, and I certainly wouldn't kill anyone else's child. I haven't the right.

[Mia]

Because it is murder. What is the difference between murdering babies outside the womb as opposed to inside? (you'll say). It's just another abortion thread. Or instigating in general.

[Captain Chaos]

No...

Look, although I am new to this site, I am quite an old hand at on line debating.

I am not trying to instigate anger. I believe this line of reasoning does not actually lead to a prochoice or a prolife outcome.

I am asking a serious question, looking for a serious answer.


Clearly, we all are opposed to murder. But that does not tell us much. Murder is illegal killing. In a society where infanticide is legal, it would no longer be murder. However, we would still find it morally repugnant.

So, a simple question - why? Why do we find it morally repugnant?

I am sorry that this question bothers you guys - my wife had the same reaction. However, sometimes asking seemingly ridiculous questions can lead to interesting lines of thought.

If you cannot handle this question, just don't respond. However, if you are willing to engage in a little self-analysis, then I think you will find this discussion intellectually fruitful.

[Captain Chaos]

Isherwood said:

When there were far fewer humans, when each person was of greater value by virtue of their scarcity, infanticide was practiced in many cultures.

Thank you, Isherwood, for actually engaging the discussion.

I think that in those cultures, humans had a higher cost - it was harders to raise a child. Also, when people were surrounded by death, and by a very high rate of infant mortality, they become inured to death - so infanticide seems easier.

[Jack]

sometimes asking seemingly ridiculous questions can lead to interesting lines of thought.

Very true. They at least should make a person question their core beliefs in order to extend those beliefs into any hypothetical situation that is proposed.

Why do we find it morally repugnant?

Good choice of terminology. When I consider if I were able to kill a child for any reason, I sense the same reaction in myself that I have to the killing of any innocent thing. Since I'd have no sympathy for the social practices that encouraged infanticide, I'd feel that those who engaged in such a practice were no better than those who kill animals or innocent bystanders for no reason at all. You have to be a basically cruel person to kill innocents for no reason, and cruel people make me uncomfortable. Therefore I could never become one or condone their behaviors.

It's good to ask questions that make you squirm. Challenging my beliefs won't earn you my scorn, they'll just make me rethink my opinions and either defend them or admit my reasoning is weak.

[Chris]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am asking a serious question, looking for a serious answer. Clearly, we all are opposed to murder. But that does not tell us much. Murder is illegal killing. In a society where infanticide is legal, it would no longer be murder. However, we would still find it morally repugnant. So, a simple question - why? Why do we find it morally repugnant?

I think you got your answer from PH who said :

Quote by: PatrickHenry Infanticide will get you the needle, because babies aren't able to threaten you with harm. No self-defense there...

ANd I think we all agree with that. I doubt you will find a different answer from us here.

[Captain Chaos]

I see...

Well, I am sorry I upset everyone. I was hoping to produce some riling, but not so much that it would inhibit reasoned discussion. I will be more gentle in the future.


I believe that all morals can be traced back to instinct in one fashion or another. We have a very powerful instinct to protect the young of our species, and this drives us to oppose things like infanticide.

The same is true of abortion. Prolifers are driven by a powerful instinct to protect the young of our species, and so they oppose abortion.

Prochoicers also care about babies, but in addition they are driven by a strong belief in the importance of self determination. Any of you that have raised children will realize how self-determination is key and instinctual component of most people. By nature, we do not want to be told what to do.

A fetus has a dual nature. It is a seperate human life, and a young one at that, and thus we feel an instinctive desire to protect it. At the same time, a fetus is part of the mother, and will be until it is born. Thus, by the principle of self-determination, many feel that the mother should have the right to make the choice about whatever happens to her own body - including the fetus.

Of course, abortion debates always circle around these points. It seems apparent to me that the two sides are starting with different premises.

And the crux of the matter is that the differing premises that each side use are rooted in differering and conflicting instincts.

So, you see, there is no way for logic to arrive at a particularly good answer on the abortion question. A logical argument is only as good as its premises, but I see no way to establish which instintively driven set of premises is superior.


Again, I am sorry I generated so much anger. Having used this line of reasoning in face-to-face discussions, I have found it to be useful - but in those situations I was able to control the mood of the conversation. Clearly that is more difficult online, and I should have known better.


I do hope, though, that my argument illustrates how neither side of the debate can be proven to be right or wrong.

[Scribbler1]

And even if you DON'T find murder morally repugnant, unless you get a BIG payoff from a killing it isn't worth your time and effort as there will almost always be people who will want to make you pay dearly for murdering someone.

I agree with Chris. You probably won't find a lot of dissenting opinions.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I believe that all morals can be traced back to instinct in one fashion or another. We have a very powerful instinct to protect the young of our species, and this drives us to oppose things like infanticide.

Don't discount religion either. As a passive form of government, religion in most forms has maintained it is wrong to kill. The main reason I suspect is to prevent the chaos which would ensue if there was no such prohibition. Religion/government requires order, and lawlessness, in this case murder, interferes with order.

I still think it is a dumb basis for a discussion, as there can't be much opposition to the fact that murder is wrong on MANY levels and most answers (including mine) will simply be rehashes of the same point. As I mentioned earlier, infanticide is just a different KIND of murder so it is bound by the same oppositions to the act. Infanticide=murder. Murder=wrong. Conclusion: ANY murder is wrong. Singling baby killing as somehow different is a construction of the thread starter and irrelevant to the root argument. This is why it looks like bait for an abortion thread, which would end up the same as the rest.

[Osborn F Enready]

Captain said: I am simply asking, from the perspective of a prochoice individual - what is wrong with killing babies?

I say:

Once a child is born, they are rights having individuals, protected in law.

The difference is BIRTH.

[Captain Chaos]

Scribbler1 said:

Murder=wrong

But, the claim that murder=wrong is unprovable. We say it is wrong because of our instincts.

Instincts drive male lions to murder the cubs of other males. Is it morally wrong when they do this? Personally, I find it disturbing - however, I am not sure how to prove it is morally wrong.

I believe you start with murder=wrong as one of your premises. But if you stop to look inside yourself, and ask why it is wrong, you will find yourself saying things like "it just is" - "I just feel it is bad" - things like that. That is what happens when we come up against instinct - we feel a certain way without really directly understanding why we feel that way. Try asking yourself why you don't like pain, it has the same result.

Any ethical belief, if you ask enough questions, you can trace it back to instinct. For example, you mentioned religion. Religions teach a variety of ethics - but why do people who believe in that religion choose to follow those ethics? Christianity teaches people to obey for a reward, and that if they disobey they will face torture. So, they obey to feel good and to avoid feeling bad. But - why do they want to feel good, and avoid feeling bad? This is a legitimate question, but not an easy one to answer, except to say that it is a part of our nature. Why is it a part of our nature - an instinct? Evolution, God, both?

When I ask, why is infanticide wrong, it is a legitimate question. Clearly, infanticide is a subset of murder, but we find it wrong because that is the way we are. Can anyone prove that the way we are is right? Are lions who murder cubs right?


No one can prove the rightness or wrongness of abortion, because they cannot prove the truth of their starting premises.

[IdahoSamurai]

For that matter, I suppose noone can prove that anything is right or wrong. The two concepts of right and wrong are binary opposites. One cannot exist without the other. Unless you can prove to me the morality of anything, I deem this whole thread pointless.