Infanticide

[iambiguous]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

Morality is instead rooted in ever evolving and changing historical and cultural narratives. And in personal perceptions of reality.

It's just that the more extreme the behavior is the more it seems ---intuitively, viscerally -- immoral to an increasingly larger and larger number of people.

History however is teeming with instances where people were killed because of the color of their skin or their religious faith or their sexual orientation or for simply not being "one of us".

The Holocaust being the most glaring example of this.

And then the sociopaths able to rationalize all manner of behaviors that most of us find grotesque and appalling. They merely start with the assumption that if there is no God -- and no Hell -- it seems reasonable that right and wrong should revolve entirely around what sustains fulfilling their own wants and needs and desires.

What then is the philosophical argument that unequivocally rebuts that?

[RCSaunders]

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong.

I have no use for society, in any case, but if the only way society can find to declare something wrong (as if it were society's business to do that) is to hurt people I guess its just another demonstration of what's wrong with it.

But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right? The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby? Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?

Since when does the number of people who believe something determine whether a thing is right or not? What a mother does with her own child is no one else's business, and certainly not society's business, not yours or mine. It might be the business of those close to her if directly related to the case, otherwise, like all other personal choices, each individual must judge their own actions, and if they judge wrong, only they will suffer the consequences.

Is abortion wrong? If you believe so, don't have one or encourage anyone else to have one. Is infanticide wrong? If you believe so, don't take any action to intentionally cause the death of an infant or encourage anyone else to. That's as much of such issues that individuals like you and I have the authority to make any choice or judgement about. What other people choose in those situations is just none of our business.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You are referring to primitive thinking. Now we've learned through education that we should be celebrating this need for freedom and justice we used to desire to punish. A baby of several days old is as defenseless as a fetus and cannot contribute anything for society. We know the fetus can only be given worth by the mother. It is the same with the newborn. Infanticide is just the normal progression of the conception of value.

It's not as defenceless as a FOETUS, you illiterate fuck. A woman can end the life of HER foetus at any time, whether or not it means ending her own life (which frequently happens, much to your joy), and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Once birth occurs then anyone could look after it using modern formulas. Even after birth, without those formulas, a mother can easily end the life of her baby simply by with-holding feeding. Often women had no other option. Does that 'power' bother your tiny little male religioturd 'brain'?

Observing one thing you said that I always consider. In those cases where a women has no other choice (because there just isn't anything to feed the baby, for example) where the hell is the father (who's probably a good Christian anti-abotionist).

Probably commenting on anti-choice sites. Notice how 'kristian nick' only responds to males on this topic, being the charming, misogynistic krisian kunt that he is. He's obsessed with women's reproductive choices. A truly loathesome individual who should have been aborted himself. The world would have been a lot better off for it.

[Nick_A]

It's not as defenceless as a FOETUS, you illiterate fuck. A woman can end the life of HER foetus at any time, whether or not it means ending her own life (which frequently happens, much to your joy), and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Once birth occurs then anyone could look after it using modern formulas. Even after birth, without those formulas, a mother can easily end the life of her baby simply by with-holding feeding. Often women had no other option. Does that 'power' bother your tiny little male religioturd 'brain'?

Observing one thing you said that I always consider. In those cases where a women has no other choice (because there just isn't anything to feed the baby, for example) where the hell is the father (who's probably a good Christian anti-abotionist).

Probably commenting on anti-choice sites. Notice how 'kristian nick' only responds to males on this topic, being the charming, misogynistic krisian kunt that he is. He's obsessed with women's reproductive choices. A truly loathesome individual who should have been aborted himself. The world would have been a lot better off for it.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

[Nick_A]

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong.

I have no use for society, in any case, but if the only way society can find to declare something wrong (as if it were society's business to do that) is to hurt people I guess its just another demonstration of what's wrong with it.

But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right? The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby? Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?

Since when does the number of people who believe something determine whether a thing is right or not? What a mother does with her own child is no one else's business, and certainly not society's business, not yours or mine. It might be the business of those close to her if directly related to the case, otherwise, like all other personal choices, each individual must judge their own actions, and if they judge wrong, only they will suffer the consequences.

Is abortion wrong? If you believe so, don't have one or encourage anyone else to have one. Is infanticide wrong? If you believe so, don't take any action to intentionally cause the death of an infant or encourage anyone else to. That's as much of such issues that individuals like you and I have the authority to make any choice or judgement about. What other people choose in those situations is just none of our business.

Conceptions of right and wrong are battled over by subjective beliefs. Killing a fetus or a baby is believed to be the primary obligation of the mother. Either that or society makes laws as to which of these young either live or die.

There is an alternative but the acquired selfishness of humanity denies access to the higher function of conscience. Has anyone here ever experienced objective conscience. A person having experienced objective conscience knows it isn't an interpretation of Man but rather perennial knowledge; the awareness of value that always was.

Can a person experience freedom from indoctrinated beliefs long enough to experience objective conscience? Yes, but who is capable of it? Simone Weil wrote:

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes

a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

Who can stay still long enough to ponder what the objective respect for the cycle of life, from birth to death, as opposed to defending subjective interpretations, really means?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong.

I have no use for society, in any case, but if the only way society can find to declare something wrong (as if it were society's business to do that) is to hurt people I guess its just another demonstration of what's wrong with it.

But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right? The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby? Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?

Since when does the number of people who believe something determine whether a thing is right or not? What a mother does with her own child is no one else's business, and certainly not society's business, not yours or mine. It might be the business of those close to her if directly related to the case, otherwise, like all other personal choices, each individual must judge their own actions, and if they judge wrong, only they will suffer the consequences.

Is abortion wrong? If you believe so, don't have one or encourage anyone else to have one. Is infanticide wrong? If you believe so, don't take any action to intentionally cause the death of an infant or encourage anyone else to. That's as much of such issues that individuals like you and I have the authority to make any choice or judgement about. What other people choose in those situations is just none of our business.

Conceptions of right and wrong are battled over by subjective beliefs. Killing a fetus or a baby is believed to be the primary obligation of the mother. Either that or society makes laws as to which of these young either live or die.

There is an alternative but the acquired selfishness of humanity denies access to the higher function of conscience. Has anyone here ever experienced objective conscience. A person having experienced objective conscience knows it isn't an interpretation of Man but rather perennial knowledge; the awareness of value that always was.

Can a person experience freedom from indoctrinated beliefs long enough to experience objective conscience? Yes, but who is capable of it? Simone Weil wrote:

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes

a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

Who can stay still long enough to ponder what the objective respect for the cycle of life, from birth to death, as opposed to defending subjective interpretations, really means?

Learn to spell then, American religiofuck hypocrite.

[henry quirk]

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

If morality is about what is permissible/impermissible between and among men, I can't point to a font, but, more modestly, I can point to a universal (or universal commonality, if you prefer).

As I say here...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

This intuition of self-possession, of ownness, is a good place to start if you're lookin' for a moral baseline.

[Age]

Age asks

What does a 'mother' 'need'? And,

The self esteem and the opportunity to become all she can be

WHERE does 'one' GET 'self-esteem' from, EXACTLY?

WHO judges if 'one' has ENOUGH 'self-esteem' or not?

WHY do 'you' feel the NEED to TELL woman/mothers what they 'need'?

Does this apply to EVERY 'mother'?

No, some are prevented from doing so by psychological repression

So, WHY do ONLY 'some' women 'need' 'self-esteem' and 'others' do NOT 'need' 'self-esteem'?

Just because some 'people' are PREVENTED from some 'thing', like let us say, 'love', for example, then how does this TRANSLATE that the NEED for 'love' does NOT apply to these 'ones'?

Some could and would argue that the 'ones' who are PREVENTED from receiving 'love' ACTUALLY NEED MORE 'love'.

Also, where do you, so-call, 'draw the line'? And,

Why do you believe some man like me must draw the line referring to a woman's ability to be?

1. I do neither 'believe' NOR 'disbelieve' ANY 'thing'.

2. I NEVER even 'thought', let alone mentioned, absolutely ANY thing about 'you', man or woman' MUST 'draw the line' regarding absolutely ANY 'thing'.

I just asked you a CLARIFYING question in regards to WHEN it is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable', to you, to STOP human bodies from continuing to live?

Should EVERY one 'draw the SAME line' as you do?

No,

GOOD.

BUT, by the way, there is A 'LINE', which NEEDS to be DRAWN, and which if NO one stepped over, then the 'way of life' for EVERY one would be a LOT BETTER than it is now, in the days when this is being written.

all women are different

True, but you do NOT seem to be taking this INTO ACCOUNT here.

but all have the same potential to become themselves

OF COURSE, but, unfortunately, OFF-TOPIC.

As long as you ADMITTED that NOT EVERY one should ' draw the SAME 'line' ' as you do, then ALL is well and good here.

[Age]

Why all the fuss. Abortion is commonplace and considered acceptable. But a seven day old baby is still as helpless as a fetus. Why can't they be killed or abandoned to starve. Isn't it more convenient for the mother and society as a whole?

Society makes subjective laws regarding the security of a baby as opposed to a fetus. But objectively they are the same. So isn't it time our species became more mature and realize the convenience of the mother is the primary consideration so if she wants to kill a baby and the man responsible for creating it all agree that it is better just to kill a seven day old baby; why not as sophisticated human beings just give the mother what she needs?

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

To me, there is.

Morality is instead rooted in ever evolving and changing historical and cultural narratives. And in personal perceptions of reality.

It's just that the more extreme the behavior is the more it seems ---intuitively, viscerally -- immoral to an increasingly larger and larger number of people.

History however is teeming with instances where people were killed because of the color of their skin or their religious faith or their sexual orientation or for simply not being "one of us".

It is not just history that is teeming with these instances, these instances are occurring right now in the current age, in the days when this is being written.

The Holocaust being the most glaring example of this.

And then the sociopaths able to rationalize all manner of behaviors that most of us find grotesque and appalling. They merely start with the assumption that if there is no God -- and no Hell -- it seems reasonable that right and wrong should revolve entirely around what sustains fulfilling their own wants and needs and desires.

What then is the philosophical argument that unequivocally rebuts that?

Just find out what 'it' IS, which EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS, and/or DISAGREES WITH and ACCEPTS, on moral grounds, and then you HAVE 'what is Right, and, what is Wrong, in Life'.

By the way, this AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE came about a LOT EASIER and SIMPLER then most people 'thought', back in the days when this was being written.

Furthermore, if you REALLY want to find or see a so-called 'philosophical argument' that 'unequivocally rebuts' 'that', then you have to INFORM us of what 'that' IS, EXACTLY.

[Age]

You are referring to primitive thinking.

It's not my thinking. It's the OP that complained that, "nothing could be done to punish those who participated," which I think is absurd. How could punishment of any kind change anything for the better?

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong.

Has society NOT heard of the ABILITY to just SAY and PRONOUNCE, ' 'This' is Wrong '?

Surely this is a MUCH EASIER, SIMPLER, and MORE HUMANE way to declare some 'thing' is wrong, then HURTING, HARMING, and DAMAGING human beings to 'declare' that 'this thing' is wrong, correct?

And, after countless of centuries, is PUNISHING human beings, REALLY, the ONLY way and method that 'societies' have FOUND to 'declare' some 'thing' is wrong?

But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right?

But it IS what 'causes' abortion to be WANTED that is Wrong.

Does ANY one REALLY 'believe' that ending a 'life' is REALLY what is 'right' in Life?

And, the SIMPLEST answer to WHY KILLING a human being AFTER 'it' is OUTSIDE of ANOTHER human being is MORE WRONG is because 'it' IS, literally, 'its OWN', as "henry quirk" might like to put it.

The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby?

So what?

There are probably, literally, countless of 'laws' that have been made up and created, throughout human history, which are TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS. Why LOOK AT this 'one' ONLY?

Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?

What are you asking here, EXACTLY?

You just SAID that the law written in YOUR opening post states that it is so-called "right" to kill a baby. So, what, EXACTLY, are you now asking?

If it is "right" to KILL a human being WITHIN a womb, AND, it is "right" to KILL a human being OUTSIDE of the womb, as well, (as you just said 'it' IS), then what seems to be the ISSUE here, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong.

I have no use for society, in any case, but if the only way society can find to declare something wrong (as if it were society's business to do that) is to hurt people I guess its just another demonstration of what's wrong with it.

But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right? The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby? Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?

Since when does the number of people who believe something determine whether a thing is right or not?

NEVER.

But, EVERY time, EVERY one KNOWS some 'thing' is 'right' or 'wrong', then that is WHEN some 'thing' is ACTUALLY 'Right' or 'Wrong', in Life.

What a mother does with her own child is no one else's business, and certainly not society's business, not yours or mine.

REALLY?

So, to you, it is NOT 'your', NOR 'society's', "business" to PROVIDE HELP, SUPPORT, and ASSISTANCE to EVERY 'mother' so that they CAN and WILL raise OUR 'children' the BEST WAY POSSIBLE, correct?

You are NOT REALLY SAYING NOR SUGGESTING that if you walked past a "mother" sticking scissors into a 'child's' eyes, then this is REALLY NO one's business, are you?

It might be the business of those close to her if directly related to the case, otherwise, like all other personal choices, each individual must judge their own actions, and if they judge wrong, only they will suffer the consequences.

And, what is 'it' you suggest that EVERY one "judges" "their own actions" ON, EXACTLY?

Is abortion wrong? If you believe so,

But above you just asked the question: "Since when does the number of people who believe something determine whether a thing is right or not?"

And now you are SAYING that WHEN 'abortion is wrong' is WHEN just 'one' 'believes' so.

So, you KNEW the answer to YOUR OWN question above all along, correct?

don't have one or encourage anyone else to have one.

It is FAR EASIER to TELL "another one", "Do NOT have a baby", then it is for this to just NOT occur.

Is infanticide wrong? If you believe so,

AGAIN, SINCE WHEN has just when 'one' SOLE individual's BELIEF made some 'thing' right or not?

don't take any action to intentionally cause the death of an infant or encourage anyone else to.

WHY NOT?

Do 'you' BELIEVE that 'infanticide' and/or 'abortion' IS WRONG? And, therefore because you seem to also BELIEVE that when 'one' BELIEVES some 'thing' is right, then this makes that 'thing' right, in Life, then because what you BELIEVE here you also seem to 'think' or BELIEVE EVERY one else SHOULD FOLLOW 'you' ALSO.

If you have NOT YET NOTICED you speak VERY CONTRADICTORY.

That's as much of such issues that individuals like you and I have the authority to make any choice or judgement about. What other people choose in those situations is just none of our business.

In other words, the 'world' you CREATE here and now, which is the 'world' future children HAVE TO BE born into and raised within is just absolutely NONE of YOUR business, correct?

Sounds like 'you' are 'trying to' and have ACTUALLY given "your" 'self' PERMISSION" to do absolutely ANY 'thing' of YOUR CHOOSING, without absolutely ANY 'responsibility' NOR 'consequence' for YOUR way of 'misbehaving' NOR for the REST of human society.

[Age]

Punishment is society's method of declaring something wrong.

I have no use for society, in any case, but if the only way society can find to declare something wrong (as if it were society's business to do that) is to hurt people I guess its just another demonstration of what's wrong with it.

But why is infanticide wrong when so many believe abortion is right? The law written of in the OP states that it is right to kill a baby? Why not if it is right to kill a fetus for the convenience of the mother?

Since when does the number of people who believe something determine whether a thing is right or not? What a mother does with her own child is no one else's business, and certainly not society's business, not yours or mine. It might be the business of those close to her if directly related to the case, otherwise, like all other personal choices, each individual must judge their own actions, and if they judge wrong, only they will suffer the consequences.

Is abortion wrong? If you believe so, don't have one or encourage anyone else to have one. Is infanticide wrong? If you believe so, don't take any action to intentionally cause the death of an infant or encourage anyone else to. That's as much of such issues that individuals like you and I have the authority to make any choice or judgement about. What other people choose in those situations is just none of our business.

Conceptions of right and wrong are battled over by subjective beliefs. Killing a fetus or a baby is believed to be the primary obligation of the mother.

WHERE has this MOST ABSURD NOTION come from EXACTLY?

Either that or society makes laws as to which of these young either live or die.

OF COURSE so-called 'society' makes laws. WHERE ELSE did you think or imagined 'laws' came from?

There is an alternative but the acquired selfishness of humanity denies access to the higher function of conscience.

So, WHY are 'you' a SELFISH human being "nick_a"?

Has anyone here ever experienced objective conscience.

When you EXPLAIN what you are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then I WILL answer this question, (without a question mark. Which is usually a VERY STRONG INDICATION that 'it' was NOT asked OPENLY for CLARITY, but expressed as a statement of "truth" from one's OWN current BELIEF of 'things').

A person having experienced objective conscience knows it isn't an interpretation of Man but rather perennial knowledge; the awareness of value that always was.

And, so what?

EVERY one has EXPERIENCED this.

Can a person experience freedom from indoctrinated beliefs long enough to experience objective conscience?

YES. EVERY time they are NOT having NOR maintaining A BELIEF.

By the way, WHY NOT just have True FREEDOM, not just from 'indoctrinated' BELIEFS but from ALL BELIEFS.

Yes, but who is capable of it?

EVERY one of 'you', human beings.

And, in fact, EVERY one of you WAS ONCE Truly FREE of ALL BELIEFS, and so EVERY one of ALSO KNEW EXACTLY what is Right and what is Wrong, in Life.

Simone Weil wrote:

WHO CARES?

LOTS of 'you', human beings, SAY LOTS of 'things'.

There Comes

If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,

there comes

a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;

if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.

Who can stay still long enough to ponder what the objective respect for the cycle of life, from birth to death, as opposed to defending subjective interpretations, really means?

EVERY one.

[RCSaunders]

Sounds like 'you' are ....

Come back when you are interested in discussing ideas. What I or anyone else is or thinks personally is irrelevant.

[iambiguous]

Of course, from my own "subjective, rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, in the absence of God, there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to determine definitively which behaviors are inherently/necessarily moral and which are inherently/necessarily immoral.

If morality is about what is permissible/impermissible between and among men, I can't point to a font, but, more modestly, I can point to a universal (or universal commonality, if you prefer).

Universal given your own set of assumptions?

Suppose, for example, back in the day when China had a "one child policy", a woman gives birth to a female and both she and her husband [for whatever personal reason] wanted a male. So, having been raised in a No God society, they rationalize killing the baby and try again.

Now, if there is an omnsicent and omnipotent God -- say the Christian God -- what they did is either beyond all doubt a Sin to be judged on Judgment Day or it's not. What does te Bible say?

But if there is no God, what universally applicable philosophical argument could there be able to establish that the killing here was objectively Good or Evil? How would that actually be demonstrated beyond sets of conflicting assumptions?

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

This intuition of self-possession, of ownness, is a good place to start if you're lookin' for a moral baseline.

Okay, but my own understanding of the "self" here is rooted in a very different set of assumptions...assumptions that revolve around the points I raise on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

[Nick_A]

So I've proven my point. Living in Plato's cave we don't experience objective consciousness or objective conscience and instead have become limited to subjective interpretation of both. Consciousness is now defined by the contents of consciousness and objective conscience and is now expressed as indoctrinated morality. Yet some are aware of their limitations and seek those who have already escaped cave limitations.

Simone Weil wrote in a personal letter: "but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides."

Does conscious humanity exist in which human consciousness and objective conscience abides rather than subjective self justifying interpretations? Such people would have respect for life. But as we are it only exists in us as a potential. Can't blame Simone for being attracted to truth including what respect for life means. But most are content to justify the absurd in a world of absurdities