Philosophy Now Forum

Infanticide

the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.

I’ve learned that many secularists on this site do not believe in objective eternal values. How can there be if there is no Source of existence within which eternal values originate? Consequently we either create our own subjective values or allow the state to enforce its subjective values by law.

From this perspective is there any reason to be against infanticide? If there is no objective value, there can be no objective difference in value of a late term fetus and a week old baby. They are both equally dependent creatures with no objective right to life. So if the mother doesn’t want it, why shouldn’t she kill it? She has created her own reality which states that this week old creature has no objective worth. Is she wrong? How can she be if respect for life as an eternal value is just imagination?

Should subjective societal laws be changed to allow a woman to kill her one week old baby since it lacks objective eternal value and is now just an inconvenience? If not, why not?

after they are born in america, they have a constitutional right to life...

other than that, happy murder party

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:34 am after they are born in america, they have a constitutional right to life...

other than that, happy murder party

-Imp

But a constitutional right is a subjective value. As we know subjective values change with the tides. If there is no objective right to life, are you in favor of changing the law and allowing infanticide or the destruction of something not supplying anything good for society?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:42 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:34 am after they are born in america, they have a constitutional right to life...

other than that, happy murder party

-Imp

But a constitutional right is a subjective value. As we know subjective values change with the tides. If there is no objective right to life, are you in favor of changing the law and allowing infanticide or the destruction of something not supplying anything good for society?

the only right you have is that which you can force others to observe...

-Imp

"is there any reason to be against infanticide?"

Probably not.

By the same token: there's no reason to be for infanticide either.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:47 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:42 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:34 am after they are born in america, they have a constitutional right to life...

other than that, happy murder party

-Imp

But a constitutional right is a subjective value. As we know subjective values change with the tides. If there is no objective right to life, are you in favor of changing the law and allowing infanticide or the destruction of something not supplying anything good for society?

the only right you have is that which you can force others to observe...

-Imp

Yes, Force is a societal right but is it an eternal value?

“Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.”
― Simone Weil, War and the Iliad

Not another damn abortion thread.

tl:dr for newcomers: Nick does not like women. Aside from a few female mystics, he sees us as weak, emotional creatures that men must control so as to save the children. This is dressed up as "eternal values". These values involve female subjugation to male power and privilege. Back to the 50s, basically. Trump is his favourite politician, as one might expect. He also detests atheists and agnostics - "secularists".

Every child must be saved as a potential soldier for Middle East invasions, or as a target for crazy people with military grade weapons, or as a test case against vaccination. As Gorge Carlin noted, for "right to lifers" we are born we are terribly precious while in the womb but once we are out we don't matter.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:48 am "is there any reason to be against infanticide?"

Probably not.

By the same token: there's no reason to be for infanticide either.

Makes sense. Why concern yourself with a sleeping baby. If it is awake and smiling it should live. If it is being annoying, then it should die as a creature with no objective and eternal value.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:59 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:47 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:42 am

But a constitutional right is a subjective value. As we know subjective values change with the tides. If there is no objective right to life, are you in favor of changing the law and allowing infanticide or the destruction of something not supplying anything good for society?

the only right you have is that which you can force others to observe...

-Imp

Yes, Force is a societal right but is it an eternal value?

yes it is, usurping force requires a greater force

-Imp

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:01 am Not another damn abortion thread.

tl:dr for newcomers: Nick does not like women. Aside from a few female mystics, he sees us as weak, emotional creatures that men must control so as to save the children. This is dressed up as "eternal values". These values involve female subjugation to male power and privilege. Back to the 50s, basically. Trump is his favourite politician, as one might expect. He also detests atheists and agnostics - "secularists".

Every child must be saved as a potential soldier for Middle East invasions, or as a target for crazy people with military grade weapons, or as a test case against vaccination. As Gorge Carlin noted, for "right to lifers" we are born we are terribly precious while in the womb but once we are out we don't matter.

OK, so I'm a svoloch and the only reason to allow an annoying child to live is to serve as a soldier for Middle East invasions. Makes sense. If they have no objective value and cannot be used, they cannot serve society. They must be destroyed if their mother doesn't want them.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:01 am Not another damn abortion thread.

tl:dr for newcomers: Nick does not like women. Aside from a few female mystics, he sees us as weak, emotional creatures that men must control so as to save the children. This is dressed up as "eternal values". These values involve female subjugation to male power and privilege. Back to the 50s, basically. Trump is his favourite politician, as one might expect. He also detests atheists and agnostics - "secularists".

Every child must be saved as a potential soldier for Middle East invasions, or as a target for crazy people with military grade weapons, or as a test case against vaccination. As Gorge Carlin noted, for "right to lifers" we are born we are terribly precious while in the womb but once we are out we don't matter.

OK, so I'm a svoloch and the only reason to allow an annoying child to live is to serve as a soldier for Middle East invasions. Makes sense. If they have no objective value and cannot be used. They cannot serve society so must be destroyed if their mother doesn't want them.

save the planet, eat soylent green

-Imp

Nick,

You live on a planet where human life (young and old) is dirt cheap. The West sez otherwise, civilization sez otherwise, and the three quarters of the globe that isn't the West, isn't civilized, keeps right on ignoring the one quarter.

I don't favor killin' babies (in or out of the womb). I don't favor killin' old folks. I don't favor killin' the disabled.

Reality is, I'm in the minority.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:01 am Not another damn abortion thread.

tl:dr for newcomers: Nick does not like women. Aside from a few female mystics, he sees us as weak, emotional creatures that men must control so as to save the children. This is dressed up as "eternal values". These values involve female subjugation to male power and privilege. Back to the 50s, basically. Trump is his favourite politician, as one might expect. He also detests atheists and agnostics - "secularists".

Every child must be saved as a potential soldier for Middle East invasions, or as a target for crazy people with military grade weapons, or as a test case against vaccination. As Gorge Carlin noted, for "right to lifers" we are born we are terribly precious while in the womb but once we are out we don't matter.

OK, so I'm a svoloch and the only reason to allow an annoying child to live is to serve as a soldier for Middle East invasions. Makes sense. If they have no objective value and cannot be used, they cannot serve society. They must be destroyed if their mother doesn't want them.

No, the main reason is the desire to get back at women for rejecting you.

You don't give a damn about people dying or child welfare. I have not once seen concern from you about any deaths but abortions - the ones perpetrated by Demon Woman. This has nothing to do with morality or "eternal values" and everything to do with your frustration that you don't live in a time when women are subservient nothings under your control.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:16 am Nick,

You live on a planet where human life (young and old) is dirt cheap. The West sez otherwise, civilization sez otherwise, and the three quarters of the globe that isn't the West, isn't civilized, keeps right on ignoring the one quarter.

I don't favor killin' babies (in or out of the womb). I don't favor killin' old folks. I don't favor killin' the disabled.

Reality is, I'm in the minority.

You may be in a minority but you can be helped. You can be educated to accept that eternal values do not exist. You can learn to justify the kill as an educated modern human being. It is a matter of knowing the fashionable scapegoat for the world's problems. The babies being produced by these scapegoats are declared offensive to society and deserve being killed since they lack any objective or eternal value.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:25 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:01 am Not another damn abortion thread.

tl:dr for newcomers: Nick does not like women. Aside from a few female mystics, he sees us as weak, emotional creatures that men must control so as to save the children. This is dressed up as "eternal values". These values involve female subjugation to male power and privilege. Back to the 50s, basically. Trump is his favourite politician, as one might expect. He also detests atheists and agnostics - "secularists".

Every child must be saved as a potential soldier for Middle East invasions, or as a target for crazy people with military grade weapons, or as a test case against vaccination. As Gorge Carlin noted, for "right to lifers" we are born we are terribly precious while in the womb but once we are out we don't matter.

OK, so I'm a svoloch and the only reason to allow an annoying child to live is to serve as a soldier for Middle East invasions. Makes sense. If they have no objective value and cannot be used, they cannot serve society. They must be destroyed if their mother doesn't want them.

No, the main reason is the desire to get back at women for rejecting you.

You don't give a damn about people dying or child welfare. I have not once seen concern from you about any deaths but abortions - the ones perpetrated by Demon Woman. This has nothing to do with morality or "eternal values" and everything to do with your frustration that you don't live in a time when women are subservient nothings under your control.

Sheesh! How do you come up with this stuff. There is no way to respond. I can see you armed with a flaming torch and a pitchfork cursing out random men who dare raise non-flattering philosophical questions. Just silly.