Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's wrong with infanticide?

Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 6:20:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.
Nothing is immoral as long as some people think its moral. If you could go back into time and kill Adolph Hitler at 3 years old would you?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:15:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:20:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.
Nothing is immoral as long as some people think its moral. If you could go back into time and kill Adolph Hitler at 3 years old would you?

Nope. One cannot be guilty of a crime until they commit it.

Morality ultimately has nothing to do with the number of people who believe it to be so.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:44:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 7:15:34 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:20:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.
Nothing is immoral as long as some people think its moral. If you could go back into time and kill Adolph Hitler at 3 years old would you?

Nope. One cannot be guilty of a crime until they commit it.

Morality ultimately has nothing to do with the number of people who believe it to be so.

"No one can be guilty of a crime until they commit it".
Hitler wasn't committing a crime in Germany at the time, or was he? (World crimes or country crime?) In the United States women are convicted of saying they will perform sexual favors for money before actually doing it. Surely a person has the right to say something about a crime without committing it and still not be arrested, yet they are.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:02:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to go down the utilitarian route.

The morally right action is that which promotes maximum utility to all those concerned.
So with infanticide, there are two options:

1. Kill the child
2. Let the child live

Now we compare utility:

1. The child loses all its future experiences of happines; albeit also all its future experiences of unhappiness, but it is a fair assumption that the experiences of happiness outweigh the experiences of unhappiness. Therefore, infanticide results in net negative utility.

2. The child lives all its future experiences, which is much more likely to be a net increase in utility.

Therefore, since the former is the option that results in less utility, infanticide is immoral.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 10:10:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 10:04:37 AM, kp98 wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 10:46:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll cut to the chase.

In my view abortion/infanticide is never a good thing, but it shades from being 'not really all that bad' at the start of pregnancy to being a 'totally no-no' nearer the time of birth and beyond. Between those two extremes is a huge grey area where it is not obvious how bad abortion is nor where the balance shifts between the badness of abortion and its benefits.

The abortion debate shouldn't be in terms of 'for' or 'against' but where to draw the line, because in the real world such a line has to be drawn because neither 'no to abortions!' nor 'unregulated full term abortions' are sensible.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:03:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 7:44:48 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/19/2015 7:15:34 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:20:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.
Nothing is immoral as long as some people think its moral. If you could go back into time and kill Adolph Hitler at 3 years old would you?

Nope. One cannot be guilty of a crime until they commit it.

Morality ultimately has nothing to do with the number of people who believe it to be so.

"No one can be guilty of a crime until they commit it".
Hitler wasn't committing a crime in Germany at the time, or was he? (World crimes or country crime?)

Yes he had, he contravened natural law. Positive law is always subject to natural law and any positive law that contravenes natural law is an unjust law. If every nation on earth agreed that slavery of Gingers was just, it doesn't make it just. It simply means that every nation has simultaneously broken natural law.

In the United States women are convicted of saying they will perform sexual favors for money before actually doing it. Surely a person has the right to say something about a crime without committing it and still not be arrested, yet they are.

Should terrorists be arrested if they have not actually detonated the bomb, yet have intent to do so?
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:34:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.

Thank you for your response.

The view that human life is sacred is a widespread belief among Western nations. However, I believe it is mistaken because it's speciesist, i.e. it baselessly gives an individual moral consideration simply because of its species membership. One can imagine beings that are entitled to protection even if they are not human beings, e.g. the Extra-Terrestrial E.T., angels, God ect.
Dookieman
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:37:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 9:02:58 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to go down the utilitarian route.

The morally right action is that which promotes maximum utility to all those concerned.
So with infanticide, there are two options:

1. Kill the child
2. Let the child live

Now we compare utility:

1. The child loses all its future experiences of happines; albeit also all its future experiences of unhappiness, but it is a fair assumption that the experiences of happiness outweigh the experiences of unhappiness. Therefore, infanticide results in net negative utility.

2. The child lives all its future experiences, which is much more likely to be a net increase in utility.

Therefore, since the former is the option that results in less utility, infanticide is immoral.

Thank you for your response, Philocat.

I find it interesting that you're using utilitarianism as a way to argue against infanticide since most opponents of abortion and infanticide would usually use rights based views.

It seems like your argument is that because infanticide deprives the infant of future happiness it's therefore morally wrong. I have three objections to this argument.

1. This argument seems to imply that abstention from procreation is wrong because both infanticide and the abstention from procreation result in one less life filled with happiness.

2. This argument assumes that we are biological organisms, and that the infant will be identical to the human organism in the far future.

3. Even if we ignore the first two points, it seems like infanticide could still be permissible if a new infant was brought into existence after the other one was destroyed. When the first infant is killed it loses out on all the net happiness its life as a whole would have contained. But if one brought a new infant into existence once the other one died, the happiness that was lost has now been compensated by this new infant.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 12:56:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:34:37 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.

Thank you for your response.

The view that human life is sacred is a widespread belief among Western nations. However, I believe it is mistaken because it's speciesist, i.e. it baselessly gives an individual moral consideration simply because of its species membership. One can imagine beings that are entitled to protection even if they are not human beings, e.g. the Extra-Terrestrial E.T., angels, God ect.

It is speciesist in that every member of the species is sacred. However, it does not preclude other species from also being such. Humanity is a subset of personhood and not a superset.

I would argue that if one excludes any member of the species from personhood, you have effectively excluded the entire species.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:46:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Infanticide is always gravely immoral, and the idea that someone could legitimately question the morality of infanticide frightens me.
Nolite Timere
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 4:32:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:46:12 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Infanticide is always gravely immoral, and the idea that someone could legitimately question the morality of infanticide frightens me.

I think the question was about why it's bad, and not about your emotional reaction to it.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
DisKamper
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 5:19:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:37:57 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/19/2015 9:02:58 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to go down the utilitarian route.

The morally right action is that which promotes maximum utility to all those concerned.
So with infanticide, there are two options:

1. Kill the child
2. Let the child live

Now we compare utility:

1. The child loses all its future experiences of happines; albeit also all its future experiences of unhappiness, but it is a fair assumption that the experiences of happiness outweigh the experiences of unhappiness. Therefore, infanticide results in net negative utility.

2. The child lives all its future experiences, which is much more likely to be a net increase in utility.

Therefore, since the former is the option that results in less utility, infanticide is immoral.

Thank you for your response, Philocat.

I find it interesting that you're using utilitarianism as a way to argue against infanticide since most opponents of abortion and infanticide would usually use rights based views.

It seems like your argument is that because infanticide deprives the infant of future happiness it's therefore morally wrong. I have three objections to this argument.

1. This argument seems to imply that abstention from procreation is wrong because both infanticide and the abstention from procreation result in one less life filled with happiness.

2. This argument assumes that we are biological organisms, and that the infant will be identical to the human organism in the far future.

3. Even if we ignore the first two points, it seems like infanticide could still be permissible if a new infant was brought into existence after the other one was destroyed. When the first infant is killed it loses out on all the net happiness its life as a whole would have contained. But if one brought a new infant into existence once the other one died, the happiness that was lost has now been compensated by this new infant.

If we are going to use a consequentialist approach, I don't think utilitarianism makes much sense in this scenario, as has been outlined. We can examine the situation more broadly:

1. The child is killed/aborted/not conceived. This is the baseline scenario.

2. The child is allowed to grow up. Someone has to carry the burden of that child for a few years- and the child will have its share of positive and negative moments. Ultimately, we can assume the child has a long-term positive impact on others, as well as a long-term positive life experience. The question here becomes whether the overall positive impact the child leaves outweighs the burden the child will bring. The answer to the question relies fundamentally on the maximum allowable pain a person should suffer through to in order to provide a defined social benefit.

Of course, this is all a consequentialist analysis. Pro-lifers will tend to use a different approach.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 9:01:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 12:37:57 AM, Dookieman wrote:
At 8/19/2015 9:02:58 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to go down the utilitarian route.

The morally right action is that which promotes maximum utility to all those concerned.
So with infanticide, there are two options:

1. Kill the child
2. Let the child live

Now we compare utility:

1. The child loses all its future experiences of happines; albeit also all its future experiences of unhappiness, but it is a fair assumption that the experiences of happiness outweigh the experiences of unhappiness. Therefore, infanticide results in net negative utility.

2. The child lives all its future experiences, which is much more likely to be a net increase in utility.

Therefore, since the former is the option that results in less utility, infanticide is immoral.

Thank you for your response, Philocat.

I find it interesting that you're using utilitarianism as a way to argue against infanticide since most opponents of abortion and infanticide would usually use rights based views.

It seems like your argument is that because infanticide deprives the infant of future happiness it's therefore morally wrong. I have three objections to this argument.

1. This argument seems to imply that abstention from procreation is wrong because both infanticide and the abstention from procreation result in one less life filled with happiness.

No, because utilitarianism only concerns the utility of *those who are involved*. In other words, only actual persons are considered in the utilitarian calculation.


2. This argument assumes that we are biological organisms, and that the infant will be identical to the human organism in the far future.

I don't quite understand this point, are you saying that the infant may not be the same being as when it grows to become and adult?

I would disagree with this. Even if we aren't the same being existentially (even that I would dispute), in regards to utilitarianism we are the same being from conception to death. We can prove this by observing that, if I do lasting damage to an infant, when it grows into an adult it will still experience the pain from that damage. I would call this 'the continuity of utility' (it has a nice ring to it).


3. Even if we ignore the first two points, it seems like infanticide could still be permissible if a new infant was brought into existence after the other one was destroyed. When the first infant is killed it loses out on all the net happiness its life as a whole would have contained. But if one brought a new infant into existence once the other one died, the happiness that was lost has now been compensated by this new infant.

Again, the utilitarian calculation concerns itself with all actual beings at the time of the moral act. In the case of infanticide, the being concerned is the actual child. Potential children do not yet exist, and hence cannot be considered in a utilitarian calculation.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's wasteful. I mean, if the child is terminally ill than euthanasia can be justified, but other than that it's just senseless waste. People will spend north of 30k to adopt a baby, and with gay marriage legalized that demand will only be going up.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.

What do you mean when you say "sacred"?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:22:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

From a utilitarian standpoint, infanticide wouldn't be the best option simply because the adoption of an infant would increase net utility (i.e. happiness of the person who adopts the child). So adoption would be > euthanasia, at least when counting into increasing happiness.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Geogeer
Posts: 4,261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 5:11:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:20:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.

What do you mean when you say "sacred"?

Every culture has had different concepts of this based on their theology. However, since our civilization is fundamentally, Christian in nature (if no longer in practice) I will use the Christian basis for all human rights:

And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

The founders of the US, while adopting a deistic view, understood that the only true basis for rights was a creator:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

These are the philosophical underpinnings of western civilization (formerly known as Christendom).
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 5:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 4:32:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/20/2015 2:46:12 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Infanticide is always gravely immoral, and the idea that someone could legitimately question the morality of infanticide frightens me.

I think the question was about why it's bad, and not about your emotional reaction to it.

Others have already provided reasons similiar to what I would provide, so I found that part unnecessary.
Nolite Timere
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:31:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 5:11:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/20/2015 3:20:02 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/19/2015 6:04:17 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:46:44 AM, Dookieman wrote:
If you believe that it is intrinsically seriously morally wrong to euthanize the typical newborn infant give an argument for why it is. I suspect that this poll will get some people riled up, but try and keep it civil. Thank you.

I'll cut to the chase, we can drill down through arguments or just make the fundamental argument beneath it all - human life is sacred.

What do you mean when you say "sacred"?

Every culture has had different concepts of this based on their theology. However, since our civilization is fundamentally, Christian in nature (if no longer in practice) I will use the Christian basis for all human rights:

You realize I'm not an American?


And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

The founders of the US, while adopting a deistic view, understood that the only true basis for rights was a creator:

Not necessarily a creator who is opposed to infanticide.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Atheism =/= nihilism.


These are the philosophical underpinnings of western civilization (formerly known as Christendom).

But Christian grounds no longer exist. Morality should be judged by some secular standard, looking at the world's state. What standard would that be? Not *necessarily* one that does not permit anything "spiritually impure".
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:15:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 10:10:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:04:37 AM, kp98 wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:23:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:15:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:10:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:04:37 AM, kp98 wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.

There is no essential difference between a person 10 minutes prior to birth and a person 10 minutes after birth. Also, birth doesn't mark the point at which it can sustain itself, that is the point of viability (~22 weeks).
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:46:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:23:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:15:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:10:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:04:37 AM, kp98 wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.

There is no essential difference between a person 10 minutes prior to birth and a person 10 minutes after birth.

Oh? Before a birth, if mom dies, if no action is taken, its assured the fetus will die, too. Post birth, such is not the case.

Also, birth doesn't mark the point at which it can sustain itself, that is the point of viability (~22 weeks).

Assumes facts not in evidence. "birth" was the subject and how morally arbitrary it is. It is quite definitive in its purpose, and what that purpose bears out for 2 individual people.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:46:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:13 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:15:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:10:32 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/19/2015 10:04:37 AM, kp98 wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.

There is no essential difference between a person 10 minutes prior to birth and a person 10 minutes after birth.

Oh? Before a birth, if mom dies, if no action is taken, its assured the fetus will die, too. Post birth, such is not the case.

That's a circumstantial difference, not an essential one. There is no difference, in essence, between a person just before birth and a newborn person.

Also, birth doesn't mark the point at which it can sustain itself, that is the point of viability (~22 weeks).

Assumes facts not in evidence. "birth" was the subject and how morally arbitrary it is. It is quite definitive in its purpose, and what that purpose bears out for 2 individual people.

Birth is simply the event in which a baby disconnects from the mother. I don't see any morally relevant factors pertaining to this particular event, especially to the degree at which it determines the presence of human rights such as the right to life.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:10:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.

There is no essential difference between a person 10 minutes prior to birth and a person 10 minutes after birth.

Oh? Before a birth, if mom dies, if no action is taken, its assured the fetus will die, too. Post birth, such is not the case.

That's a circumstantial difference, not an essential one. There is no difference, in essence, between a person just before birth and a newborn person.

Yes, and that circumstance is the birth itself, the subject of which is the discussion from one state of being to another. Its how a person is either "born" or "not". I think that is pretty essential to the assessment.

Also, birth doesn't mark the point at which it can sustain itself, that is the point of viability (~22 weeks).

Assumes facts not in evidence. "birth" was the subject and how morally arbitrary it is. It is quite definitive in its purpose, and what that purpose bears out for 2 individual people.

Birth is simply the event in which a baby disconnects from the mother.

So, the point at which the baby is its own person. And not biologically dependent on the mother. But that is just "circumstance".

I don't see any morally relevant factors pertaining to this particular event, especially to the degree at which it determines the presence of human rights such as the right to life.

You don't see how a right to life argument can be made when one life is NOT disconnected from another?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:16:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:10:00 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.

There is no essential difference between a person 10 minutes prior to birth and a person 10 minutes after birth.

Oh? Before a birth, if mom dies, if no action is taken, its assured the fetus will die, too. Post birth, such is not the case.

That's a circumstantial difference, not an essential one. There is no difference, in essence, between a person just before birth and a newborn person.

Yes, and that circumstance is the birth itself, the subject of which is the discussion from one state of being to another. Its how a person is either "born" or "not". I think that is pretty essential to the assessment.

I disagree; I contend that whether a person is or isn't located within the womb is irrelevant to whether that person had basic human rights.

Also, birth doesn't mark the point at which it can sustain itself, that is the point of viability (~22 weeks).

Assumes facts not in evidence. "birth" was the subject and how morally arbitrary it is. It is quite definitive in its purpose, and what that purpose bears out for 2 individual people.

Birth is simply the event in which a baby disconnects from the mother.

So, the point at which the baby is its own person. And not biologically dependent on the mother. But that is just "circumstance".

Why does personhood necessitate biological independence? Conjoined twins wouldn't be persons then, according to that premise.

I don't see any morally relevant factors pertaining to this particular event, especially to the degree at which it determines the presence of human rights such as the right to life.

You don't see how a right to life argument can be made when one life is NOT disconnected from another?

Conjoined twins?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 1:02:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:16:23 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:10:00 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Hmm.. we aren't going to compare infanticide and abortion, are we?

It inevitably comes up, seeing as birth is an morally-arbitrary event.

I am pretty sure there is nothing morally arbitrary about it. A birth is the definitive moment at which an infant is no longer a fetus, and has the capability (assuming full term) the ability for its own life processes to sustain it.

There is no essential difference between a person 10 minutes prior to birth and a person 10 minutes after birth.

Oh? Before a birth, if mom dies, if no action is taken, its assured the fetus will die, too. Post birth, such is not the case.

That's a circumstantial difference, not an essential one. There is no difference, in essence, between a person just before birth and a newborn person.

Yes, and that circumstance is the birth itself, the subject of which is the discussion from one state of being to another. Its how a person is either "born" or "not". I think that is pretty essential to the assessment.

I disagree; I contend that whether a person is or isn't located within the womb is irrelevant to whether that person had basic human rights.

Ah.... okay. Hm. Sorry I didn't pick up on that part. Given that view, sure, I can see where you are coming from.

Also, birth doesn't mark the point at which it can sustain itself, that is the point of viability (~22 weeks).

Assumes facts not in evidence. "birth" was the subject and how morally arbitrary it is. It is quite definitive in its purpose, and what that purpose bears out for 2 individual people.

Birth is simply the event in which a baby disconnects from the mother.

So, the point at which the baby is its own person. And not biologically dependent on the mother. But that is just "circumstance".

Why does personhood necessitate biological independence? Conjoined twins wouldn't be persons then, according to that premise.

Conjoined twins -can't- separate. At least, for the purposes of the example I think you are bringing up. They also, are 1 system. I, personally, consider them to be 1 being because of that. Though, this point of the conversation provokes a whole other conversation, should you want to take part. I don't think it should remain in this thread, though.

I don't see any morally relevant factors pertaining to this particular event, especially to the degree at which it determines the presence of human rights such as the right to life.

You don't see how a right to life argument can be made when one life is NOT disconnected from another?

Conjoined twins?

Indeed, see my previous about this.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...