Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Infanticide.

Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 5:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another thing I was thinking. Many Women in those countries are homemakers, so you're killing females who could be potential homemakers.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:06:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

They could just get past their gender schema and use their daughters to help as well instead of just having them be baby-makers.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2015 6:06:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

They could just get past their gender schema and use their daughters to help as well instead of just having them be baby-makers.

True. But daughters wouldn't be able to get a job and get paid for it because they're a Women. So they wouldn't be bringing in any type of income.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:50:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2015 6:45:44 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:06:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

They could just get past their gender schema and use their daughters to help as well instead of just having them be baby-makers.

True. But daughters wouldn't be able to get a job and get paid for it because they're a Women. So they wouldn't be bringing in any type of income.

That'd be included in changing the gender schema, both in the family and in society as a whole.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 6:53:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 6:50:35 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:45:44 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:06:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

They could just get past their gender schema and use their daughters to help as well instead of just having them be baby-makers.

True. But daughters wouldn't be able to get a job and get paid for it because they're a Women. So they wouldn't be bringing in any type of income.

That'd be included in changing the gender schema, both in the family and in society as a whole.

But that means equality. Something that will never exist ;)
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 7:05:10 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 6:53:32 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:50:35 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:45:44 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:06:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

They could just get past their gender schema and use their daughters to help as well instead of just having them be baby-makers.

True. But daughters wouldn't be able to get a job and get paid for it because they're a Women. So they wouldn't be bringing in any type of income.

That'd be included in changing the gender schema, both in the family and in society as a whole.

But that means equality. Something that will never exist ;)

You're right, we will never have equality. That's why we need the matriarchy.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 8:48:42 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 7:05:10 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:53:32 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:50:35 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:45:44 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 6:06:37 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

They could just get past their gender schema and use their daughters to help as well instead of just having them be baby-makers.

True. But daughters wouldn't be able to get a job and get paid for it because they're a Women. So they wouldn't be bringing in any type of income.

That'd be included in changing the gender schema, both in the family and in society as a whole.

But that means equality. Something that will never exist ;)

You're right, we will never have equality. That's why we need the matriarchy.

Indeed! but if that happens, we might go to hell.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 8:53:22 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

Infanticide is never moral, the same way it wouldn't be moral to kill elderly people who can no longer work, or the mentally ill. While a female child might not have a great chance at getting decent paying work, that's the problem that society has to fix. They should make entering the workforce just as accessible to females, it'll be a benefit. Infanticide leads to gender gaps, which just continue to hinder the pursuit for gender equality.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 9:03:48 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 8:53:22 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

Infanticide is never moral, the same way it wouldn't be moral to kill elderly people who can no longer work, or the mentally ill. While a female child might not have a great chance at getting decent paying work, that's the problem that society has to fix. They should make entering the workforce just as accessible to females, it'll be a benefit. Infanticide leads to gender gaps, which just continue to hinder the pursuit for gender equality.

I do believe that Infanticide can be moral under some circumstances. But never just because a baby was born a "Girl".

There are some cases to where Infanticide can be moral.

Perhaps the harshest example of such problems is anencephaly: "a child [born] with anencephaly [is] born without a scalp, without a vault of the cranium, without meninges, without either brain hemisphere and without a cerebellum.

So, all the baby really has is brain stem, which works with the spine to control the unconscious functions of the body. Also, there are many cases to where the child is basically born without a brain. Twenty-five percent of babies with anencephaly do not survive birth; of those that do, life expectancy is only a few hours or days

Keeping a child alive under such circumstances are pointless suffering.

.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 9:04:09 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries?

Um, Morality isn't really subjective here. You're killing a fully formed human you gave birth to just because s/he might be a net cost to you. It is absolutely immoral.

Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

Yeah it does. The entire reason you'd kill a person is because teh act would benefit you. Yeah birthing a daughter in rural parts of india is a net liability since teh culture there is such that you cant really earn through her, and marrying her off is expensive. Once you birth a daughter, your biggest concern is collecting enough dowry for her marriage.

However, that doesnt really change anything. Its still immoral.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 9:55:41 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
India is so messed up that it's almost comical. Still, they are pushing for social change, so they might improve over the next 20 years.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 10:08:22 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 9:55:41 PM, SM2 wrote:
India is so messed up that it's almost comical. Still, they are pushing for social change, so they might improve over the next 20 years.

They will never change.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 10:22:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 10:08:22 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 9:55:41 PM, SM2 wrote:
India is so messed up that it's almost comical. Still, they are pushing for social change, so they might improve over the next 20 years.

They will never change.

The West did.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2015 11:39:13 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

In my view infanticide carried out on the basis of a babies gender is not a good strategy as it's creates a gender imbalance in the population and is on the whole a negative thing for economic and social development in the areas it is common. Although I acknowledge it can benefit individual families in rural areas.

I would allow infanticide in the following circumstances

1. The baby was the result of a rape.
2. The baby has a physical disability.
3. The baby has a mental disability.
4. The baby has some type of condition that makes its prospects for a good life slim such as a terminal illness or degenerative condition.
5. The baby has no family member willing to care for it and needs to be put into care.

I acknowledge my views are controversial on this issue but I only view the life of a human to be special when it's cognitive development exceeds that of animals regularly slaughtered for meat such as sheep and cattle. I don't view human life in itself as anything special. If a creature is unable to understand or memorize anything significant it does not really grasp its existence and would not notice, fear or feel being permanently put to sleep. My views are shaped on the long term suffering of those involved in the above scenarios and the economic burdens these situations create.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2015 12:00:13 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

Murder is never moral, whether of an adult, a newborn or the child within the womb. They are all murder.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 11:29:21 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 11:39:13 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

In my view infanticide carried out on the basis of a babies gender is not a good strategy as it's creates a gender imbalance in the population and is on the whole a negative thing for economic and social development in the areas it is common. Although I acknowledge it can benefit individual families in rural areas.

I would allow infanticide in the following circumstances

1. The baby was the result of a rape.

The circumstances of one's conception justify his/her murder then? How?

2. The baby has a physical disability.

There goes my elder brother then. He's got a shortened left arm. So would my parents be justified in killing him? Despite the fact he is an upcoming Paralympic athlete and a graduate from a distinguished university?

3. The baby has a mental disability.

Why should people with, say, downs syndrome be deprived of their life? Many downs people live happy lives; how are we justified in depriving them of this?

4. The baby has some type of condition that makes its prospects for a good life slim such as a terminal illness or degenerative condition.

Medicine is advancing at such a rate that the possibility of a cure cannot be totally ruled out. Notwithstanding, this may be the only case where infanticide could be justified - even so it's a very grey area.

5. The baby has no family member willing to care for it and needs to be put into care.

Does that mean I would be justified in bombing an orphanage?
Balacafa
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:00:18 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:

Let's debate the resolution: Infanticide can be justified
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:01:59 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:00:18 PM, Balacafa wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:

Let's debate the resolution: Infanticide can be justified

Sure. Just give me until after the 18th. I have exams.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Balacafa
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:02:40 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:01:59 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:00:18 PM, Balacafa wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:

Let's debate the resolution: Infanticide can be justified

Sure. Just give me until after the 18th. I have exams.

I'll send the challenge now and you can accept whenever.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:05:00 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:02:40 PM, Balacafa wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:01:59 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:00:18 PM, Balacafa wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:

Let's debate the resolution: Infanticide can be justified

Sure. Just give me until after the 18th. I have exams.

I'll send the challenge now and you can accept whenever.

Ooooor you could wait. Plus, we need to discuss rules, definitions etc.
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
Balacafa
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:07:54 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 5:05:00 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:02:40 PM, Balacafa wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:01:59 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/13/2015 5:00:18 PM, Balacafa wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:

Let's debate the resolution: Infanticide can be justified

Sure. Just give me until after the 18th. I have exams.

I'll send the challenge now and you can accept whenever.

Ooooor you could wait. Plus, we need to discuss rules, definitions etc.

I'll set it up and put the rules and definitions that I think should be put in place. You can contest if you want. I'm pretty sure you won't disagree with every single rule and it save me time by setting it up now.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 7:40:35 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 11:29:21 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:39:13 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

In my view infanticide carried out on the basis of a babies gender is not a good strategy as it's creates a gender imbalance in the population and is on the whole a negative thing for economic and social development in the areas it is common. Although I acknowledge it can benefit individual families in rural areas.

I would allow infanticide in the following circumstances

1. The baby was the result of a rape.

The circumstances of one's conception justify his/her murder then? How?

Basically my views on this issue are formed on the basis that I value life on intelligence and cognitive development not the fact it is merely human. I would advocate abortions over infanticide in this scenario but in the case of the abortion potentially being dangerous to the woman involved I would allow infanticide as an alternative option. This is a rare scenario though. I don't believe women should be forced to have a child they do not desire especially when the result of rape.

2. The baby has a physical disability.

There goes my elder brother then. He's got a shortened left arm. So would my parents be justified in killing him? Despite the fact he is an upcoming Paralympic athlete and a graduate from a distinguished university?

I'm not suggesting infanticide should be mandatory of disabled children I'm saying it should be optional. In some cases the disability may hinder the quality of life of the ondividuual involved considerably although obviously not in all cases. I'm not suggesting murdering adults so it has no effect on your brother whatsoever.

3. The baby has a mental disability.

Why should people with, say, downs syndrome be deprived of their life? Many downs people live happy lives; how are we justified in depriving them of this?

Generally people with conditions preventing the brain from functioning normally are a negative thing although I acknowledge this is not always the case. If a family does not want to spend a lifetime caring for a severely mentally handicapped child I don't believe they should have to. The economic, emotional and time burden is considerable.

4. The baby has some type of condition that makes its prospects for a good life slim such as a terminal illness or degenerative condition.

Medicine is advancing at such a rate that the possibility of a cure cannot be totally ruled out. Notwithstanding, this may be the only case where infanticide could be justified - even so it's a very grey area.

Agree the family should have the right to decide on this issue.

5. The baby has no family member willing to care for it and needs to be put into care.

Does that mean I would be justified in bombing an orphanage?

In my view it is fairly clear babies put into care have much poorer life prospects then those raised by families. It is also very expensive to raise children in care.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 8:18:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

It's a cultural practice, like any other. It was practiced in Sparta on 'weak children', and was actually pretty valuable when you consider that the culture was centered around a robust, powerful military and a cult of masculinity at a time when physical prowess often decided success in war.

When it comes to gender-based infanticide, in China it's rooted in deeply seated, traditional Confucian ideas of filial piety (the duty to produce a son). In the Middle East it was more rare, because of the way that Islam set up 'Dowers' or 'bride-prices': when a woman married, the man had to pay her money, and she only had to return it if she divorces him under very specific circumstances (for a reason not usually invoked: she doesn't have to return it if he was adulterous, abusive, didn't satisfy her sexually, becomes sick, or didn't provide for her material needs). If he divorces her she always got to keep it. Because of this setup, women brought money in to the family, and were considered an asset. As a result women would sometimes become incredibly wealthy, especially if their husbands/fathers died; one of them founded and funded the first university in the world. India is such a hodgepodge of different cultures, ethnic groups and religions that I don't feel comfortable commenting on it, as I'm still not up to par on their history.

I don't see infanticide as 'helping' anything on the familial level: usually it's a side-cost of other cultural practices and institutions which produce benefits outweighing the sacrifice of human life. The practice itself is rarely good, but combined with other considerations it can make up a series of cultural institutions which, as an aggregate, benefit society.
"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 -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 4:28:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 8:18:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

It's a cultural practice, like any other. It was practiced in Sparta on 'weak children', and was actually pretty valuable when you consider that the culture was centered around a robust, powerful military and a cult of masculinity at a time when physical prowess often decided success in war.

When it comes to gender-based infanticide, in China it's rooted in deeply seated, traditional Confucian ideas of filial piety (the duty to produce a son). In the Middle East it was more rare,

- The practice was common in pre-Islamic Arabia though.

because of the way that Islam set up 'Dowers' or 'bride-prices': when a woman married,

- I would've gone with 'because the punishment for - intentional aggressive - infanticide is death penalty', but ok.

the man had to pay her money, and she only had to return it if she divorces him under very specific circumstances (for a reason not usually invoked: she doesn't have to return it if he was adulterous, abusive, didn't satisfy her sexually, becomes sick, or didn't provide for her material needs). If he divorces her she always got to keep it. Because of this setup, women brought money in to the family, and were considered an asset.

- I see where you're going with this. A manifest example came to mind, in the mountain regions of North Africa, where the Law was not as effective, families used to persuade or even force the females to sign off their wealth from dower or inheritance, to the point where it became the norm. Judges in Fez had to issue special decrees to combat the practice. When you have women who are ok with giving up their wealth because it's the norm, judges get wary.

As a result women would sometimes become incredibly wealthy, especially if their husbands/fathers died; one of them founded and funded the first university in the world.

- Oh! Yeah.

India is such a hodgepodge of different cultures, ethnic groups and religions that I don't feel comfortable commenting on it, as I'm still not up to par on their history.

I don't see infanticide as 'helping' anything on the familial level: usually it's a side-cost of other cultural practices and institutions which produce benefits outweighing the sacrifice of human life.

- Hmm! Such as?

The practice itself is rarely good, but combined with other considerations it can make up a series of cultural institutions which, as an aggregate, benefit society.

- I would think given a set of circumstances, such practices become bare necessities, but how would you weigh their benefits?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 5:42:44 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/11/2015 10:08:22 PM, Rosalie wrote:
At 12/11/2015 9:55:41 PM, SM2 wrote:
India is so messed up that it's almost comical. Still, they are pushing for social change, so they might improve over the next 20 years.

They will never change.

Um they already are changing
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 1:55:59 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/14/2015 4:28:32 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/13/2015 8:18:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

It's a cultural practice, like any other. It was practiced in Sparta on 'weak children', and was actually pretty valuable when you consider that the culture was centered around a robust, powerful military and a cult of masculinity at a time when physical prowess often decided success in war.

When it comes to gender-based infanticide, in China it's rooted in deeply seated, traditional Confucian ideas of filial piety (the duty to produce a son). In the Middle East it was more rare,

- The practice was common in pre-Islamic Arabia though.

I think it was common just about everywhere at some point.

because of the way that Islam set up 'Dowers' or 'bride-prices': when a woman married,

- I would've gone with 'because the punishment for - intentional aggressive - infanticide is death penalty', but ok.

Yeah, but we're looking a this from a different perspective. You see Islam as handing down divine law from the creator of the universe. I see it as a remarkably successful political and cultural system. Therefore, from my point of view, the prohibition on infanticide was guided by the fact that there was no need for infanticide due to how the rest of the system was set up (focus on charity, more gender parity when it came to things like finances).

the man had to pay her money, and she only had to return it if she divorces him under very specific circumstances (for a reason not usually invoked: she doesn't have to return it if he was adulterous, abusive, didn't satisfy her sexually, becomes sick, or didn't provide for her material needs). If he divorces her she always got to keep it. Because of this setup, women brought money in to the family, and were considered an asset.

- I see where you're going with this. A manifest example came to mind, in the mountain regions of North Africa, where the Law was not as effective, families used to persuade or even force the females to sign off their wealth from dower or inheritance, to the point where it became the norm. Judges in Fez had to issue special decrees to combat the practice. When you have women who are ok with giving up their wealth because it's the norm, judges get wary.

Yep, exactly. Islam as a political and cultural system valued women in a way that cultural systems like Confucianism never have.

As a result women would sometimes become incredibly wealthy, especially if their husbands/fathers died; one of them founded and funded the first university in the world.

- Oh! Yeah.

India is such a hodgepodge of different cultures, ethnic groups and religions that I don't feel comfortable commenting on it, as I'm still not up to par on their history.

I don't see infanticide as 'helping' anything on the familial level: usually it's a side-cost of other cultural practices and institutions which produce benefits outweighing the sacrifice of human life.

- Hmm! Such as?

Confucianism, for example. It lead to stability, a hard working populace, dedication to a central cause, and a drive for self-improvement. Part of that cost were strict roles for everything, including women. Those strict rules lead to men being valued over women, and gender-driven infanticide was more common because of that. It was a loss, but societal cohesion was much more important. Then you have systems like Sparta, where the cult of masculinity and martialized class system demanded physical fitness. The malformed/weak babies were collateral damage here as well.

The practice itself is rarely good, but combined with other considerations it can make up a series of cultural institutions which, as an aggregate, benefit society.

- I would think given a set of circumstances, such practices become bare necessities, but how would you weigh their benefits?

Just look at what happens when such systems fall apart. Without the system laid down by Lycurgus, which enabled this practice, Sparta would not be Sparta. It wouldn't have survived for nearly as long as it did. The same applies to China; the loss of Chinese cultural practices to a degree which lead to female babies being as valued as male babies would cripple it.
"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 -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 6:37:24 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 1:55:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think it was common just about everywhere at some point.

- Probably.

Yeah, but we're looking a this from a different perspective.

- That.

You see Islam as handing down divine law from the creator of the universe.

- Not that. I was speaking from a legal perspective, while you were speaking from a socio-economic perspective.

I see it as a remarkably successful political and cultural system.

- Agreed. =)

Therefore, from my point of view, the prohibition on infanticide was guided by the fact that there was no need for infanticide due to how the rest of the system was set up (focus on charity, more gender parity when it came to things like finances).

- I disagree with this, not on the purpose but on the reason. I don't think it was the uselessness of the practice that warranted its ban, it was rather the new found ethical/theological awareness. Norms & circumstances can certainly guide particular attitudes towards infanticide, in this case, awareness of the nature of the act plays the major role. As for the purpose, that is, coping with a particular socio-economic lifestyle, I agree with you. The system does indeed relieve a lot of the pressure that would probably push people to go that way in preserving their lifestyle.

Yep, exactly. Islam as a political and cultural system valued women in a way that cultural systems like Confucianism never have.

- I am not too familiar with Confucianism to make such a statement, but I presume its teachings value Family a lot, no?

Confucianism, for example. It lead to stability, a hard working populace, dedication to a central cause, and a drive for self-improvement. Part of that cost were strict roles for everything, including women. Those strict rules lead to men being valued over women, and gender-driven infanticide was more common because of that. It was a loss, but societal cohesion was much more important.

- Given the fact that I don't know much about Confucianism, I am not sure what you're implying. Does Confucianism allow the practice in face of the more important societal cohesion? Or, does the pressure of its rules drive people, probably against the teachings, to commit infanticide?

Then you have systems like Sparta, where the cult of masculinity and martialized class system demanded physical fitness. The malformed/weak babies were collateral damage here as well. Just look at what happens when such systems fall apart. Without the system laid down by Lycurgus, which enabled this practice, Sparta would not be Sparta. It wouldn't have survived for nearly as long as it did.

- There is certainly some logic to this. A society which value strength over all else, has to be coherent with itself in order to survive. Stigmatising & shaming weakness would, then, be a matter of course.

The same applies to China; the loss of Chinese cultural practices to a degree which lead to female babies being as valued as male babies would cripple it.

- You mean in modern China?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 7:04:15 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/15/2015 6:37:24 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/15/2015 1:55:59 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think it was common just about everywhere at some point.

- Probably.

Yeah, but we're looking a this from a different perspective.

- That.

You see Islam as handing down divine law from the creator of the universe.

- Not that. I was speaking from a legal perspective, while you were speaking from a socio-economic perspective.

Yeah, but the basis for respect for human life is theological to a degree. The basis of law is in theology, mine is in amoral political development. That does have some influence.

I see it as a remarkably successful political and cultural system.

- Agreed. =)

Therefore, from my point of view, the prohibition on infanticide was guided by the fact that there was no need for infanticide due to how the rest of the system was set up (focus on charity, more gender parity when it came to things like finances).

- I disagree with this, not on the purpose but on the reason. I don't think it was the uselessness of the practice that warranted its ban, it was rather the new found ethical/theological awareness.

I don't think that it warranted it's ban so much as enabled it.

Norms & circumstances can certainly guide particular attitudes towards infanticide, in this case, awareness of the nature of the act plays the major role. As for the purpose, that is, coping with a particular socio-economic lifestyle, I agree with you. The system does indeed relieve a lot of the pressure that would probably push people to go that way in preserving their lifestyle.

Yep, that's more in line with what I was going for.

Yep, exactly. Islam as a political and cultural system valued women in a way that cultural systems like Confucianism never have.

- I am not too familiar with Confucianism to make such a statement, but I presume its teachings value Family a lot, no?

A particular sort of family. Filial piety is important; the highest duty of a woman is to birth a son and be obedient and submissive to her husband. There's very little of that strain of female independence which runs through Islamic culture.

Confucianism, for example. It lead to stability, a hard working populace, dedication to a central cause, and a drive for self-improvement. Part of that cost were strict roles for everything, including women. Those strict rules lead to men being valued over women, and gender-driven infanticide was more common because of that. It was a loss, but societal cohesion was much more important.

- Given the fact that I don't know much about Confucianism, I am not sure what you're implying. Does Confucianism allow the practice in face of the more important societal cohesion? Or, does the pressure of its rules drive people, probably against the teachings, to commit infanticide?

Mostly the latter, though Chinese society in general has very alien views on justice and the sanctity of life when compared to societies impacted by Abrahamic faiths. Just look at practices like the nine familial exterminations or Lingchi, both of which would be considered abhorrent here. The focus has always been more collectivist then anything in the West. It wouldn't be considered with the same sort of outrage as it would in the West back then because there's no 'child of god' background. Gender-selective infanticide was practiced historically through various periods, I think through both exposure to the elements and deliberate drowning.

Then you have systems like Sparta, where the cult of masculinity and martialized class system demanded physical fitness. The malformed/weak babies were collateral damage here as well. Just look at what happens when such systems fall apart. Without the system laid down by Lycurgus, which enabled this practice, Sparta would not be Sparta. It wouldn't have survived for nearly as long as it did.

- There is certainly some logic to this. A society which value strength over all else, has to be coherent with itself in order to survive. Stigmatising & shaming weakness would, then, be a matter of course.

The same applies to China; the loss of Chinese cultural practices to a degree which lead to female babies being as valued as male babies would cripple it.

- You mean in modern China?

Those cultural practices still exist in modern China, yes, and the One Child policy exacerbate them.
"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 -
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2015 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/13/2015 7:40:35 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/13/2015 11:29:21 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 12/11/2015 11:39:13 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 12/11/2015 5:16:37 PM, Rosalie wrote:
I find the topic of Infanticide very interesting.

For those who don't know what "Infanticide" is, it means "

1. the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
"the practice in some societies of killing unwanted children soon after birth.

2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. In certain countries, its considered to be the "norm".

In certain countries, Women are undervalued. Their earning potential is much lower then Men's. For a poor family who is struggling to make ends meet, if they have a son, that means they have a helper, and someone who is able to help. Bur, if the mother has a daughter, the daughter has no value but to reproduce, which means feeding a extra mouth in the house.

Infanticide is very common in India. Statistics provide that there are 35 million less Women then there are Men.

So, my question comes in here. Is Infanticide moral in poor countries? Does Infanticide really help the income of ones family?

In my view infanticide carried out on the basis of a babies gender is not a good strategy as it's creates a gender imbalance in the population and is on the whole a negative thing for economic and social development in the areas it is common. Although I acknowledge it can benefit individual families in rural areas.

I would allow infanticide in the following circumstances

1. The baby was the result of a rape.

The circumstances of one's conception justify his/her murder then? How?

Basically my views on this issue are formed on the basis that I value life on intelligence and cognitive development not the fact it is merely human. I would advocate abortions over infanticide in this scenario but in the case of the abortion potentially being dangerous to the woman involved I would allow infanticide as an alternative option. This is a rare scenario though. I don't believe women should be forced to have a child they do not desire especially when the result of rape.

Without starting yet another abortion debate, I would like to take issue with your criterion for determining whether it is permissible to kill someone.

You seem to believe that one's present cognitive state determines whether it is right to kill them, no? In other words, if Person X has no cognitive state, then it is permissible to kill them.

I would counter that it is the future as well as the present cognitive state that determines whether it is right to kill someone. To illustrate, a baby may have little cognitive function, but the near-certainty that it will eventually become an intelligent adult is enough to make it immoral to kill it.

Should we take one's future state into consideration? In my opinion we should. What happens in the future affects us just as much as what is happening at present - it stands to reason therefore that one's future state should be taken into account. So if a human being will one day become cognitively advanced, this should be enough to mean that it is impermissible to kill him/her even if right now he/she is cognitively basic.

2. The baby has a physical disability.

There goes my elder brother then. He's got a shortened left arm. So would my parents be justified in killing him? Despite the fact he is an upcoming Paralympic athlete and a graduate from a distinguished university?

I'm not suggesting infanticide should be mandatory of disabled children I'm saying it should be optional. In some cases the disability may hinder the quality of life of the ondividuual involved considerably although obviously not in all cases. I'm not suggesting murdering adults so it has no effect on your brother whatsoever.

My point being that even if it was optional to kill disabled children then, inevitably, many rewarding and valuable lives will be snuffed out. This is down to the simple truth that we cannot predict whether one will have a good quality of life.


3. The baby has a mental disability.

Why should people with, say, downs syndrome be deprived of their life? Many downs people live happy lives; how are we justified in depriving them of this?

Generally people with conditions preventing the brain from functioning normally are a negative thing although I acknowledge this is not always the case. If a family does not want to spend a lifetime caring for a severely mentally handicapped child I don't believe they should have to. The economic, emotional and time burden is considerable.

Of course it is a considerable burden, but is it right to kill off vulnerable persons, without their consent, just to alleviate hardship? If this is permissible, then why not kill mentally handicapped adults for the same reason? Often, retarded adults are even more of a burden. But if being a burden justifies their murder, then it would follow that we can kill mentally handicapped adults without their consent.


4. The baby has some type of condition that makes its prospects for a good life slim such as a terminal illness or degenerative condition.

Medicine is advancing at such a rate that the possibility of a cure cannot be totally ruled out. Notwithstanding, this may be the only case where infanticide could be justified - even so it's a very grey area.

Agree the family should have the right to decide on this issue.

5. The baby has no family member willing to care for it and needs to be put into care.

Does that mean I would be justified in bombing an orphanage?

In my view it is fairly clear babies put into care have much poorer life prospects then those raised by families. It is also very expensive to raise children in care.

Agreed, but killing babies with poorer life-prospects doesn't seem to follow from this observation.