[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 22 KB, 308x320, _-Gosen-quits-Nintendo-Europe-_..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3537470 No.3537470 [Reply] [Original]

How do you guys feel about infanticide? Peter Singer has pointed out that infants do not possess (at least in full measure) the characteristics of personhood, insofar as they can't have preferences like an adult can. So, if an infant doesn't have the same moral personhood that an adult does, it would seem to logically follow that the adult's preferences outweigh the baby's right to life. Not that torturing babies would be justified of course, but since they're presumably incapable of holding a preference for their own survival, ending their lives painlessly wouldn't be immoral and therefore ought to be legal.

Of course, it'll be a while before politicians progress socially to the point where infanticide even gets discussed seriously, but I have great hope for the future. Where do you guys think the cutoff should be? One year old? Three?

>> No.3537495

I'd really rather people just used condoms, and took emergency contraceptives if they broke.

>> No.3537502

>and therefore ought to be legal
This doesn't follow and I somehow doubt that Singer has actually said this. It's much better for society to draw the legal line at birth, even if it's a bit off, than to try to guess when a child first gains such preferences.

>> No.3537516

also killing an engineer is mcuh more costly for society than killing a child.

>> No.3537766

>wouldn't be immoral and therefore ought to be legal.

Abortions are justifiable because the baby is a part of the mother, and the mother can choose whatever she wants to do with her own body.
Once the baby is born it is no longer a part of the mother as the baby is physically separated.
It is a completely new entity and a unique human being.

All humans have the right to live, regardless of mental and/or physical capabilities.
Legalizing infanticide based off of personhood creates a very subjective area.
At which point does personhood begin?
Do adults have a higher valued personhood than children?
I am an adult, can I kill your newborn since it isn't a "person" yet?

>> No.3537770

>they're presumably incapable of holding a preference for their own survival
Yeah, no.

>> No.3537771

How do you guys feel about OPicide? Peter Singer has pointed out that OP do not possess (at least in full measure) the characteristics of personhood, insofar as they can't have preferences like me. So, if the OP doesn't have the same moral personhood that I do, it would seem to logically follow that my preferences outweigh the OP's right to life. Not that torturing OP would be justified of course, but since he's presumably incapable of holding a preference for their own survival, ending his life painlessly wouldn't be immoral and therefore ought to be legal.

Of course, it'll be a while before politicians progress socially to the point where OPcide even gets discussed seriously, but I have great hope for the future. Where do you guys think the cutoff should be? One post? Three?

Saying a baby doesn't want to survive is futile since it wants to eat and drink therefor showing a will to live, therefor having a survival instinct.

>> No.3537791

All sentient beings deserve right to live.

>> No.3537801

If given the choice to choose the life of an adult over that of an infant, I would choose the adult and then agonize over the choice for the rest of my life.

I also recognize the naturalness of infanticide. Just like rape and murder, it's just something that happens when lifeforms that have to struggle to eat exist.

However I don't think infanticide should be legal. As much of a hippy as I am, our ability to keep babies alive is one of man's greatest accomplishments.

I think we should lower the penalties for all forms of murder, but I don't think we should legalize any form of it. The trust that people around us fear reprisal for such actions keeps us safe, to a degree.

>> No.3537824

I prefer that parents have the right to abort unborn children. Yes, both parents, the father too.

This to me is not about the child "being part" of the mother and her being inconvenienced for the last three months of pregnancy or so, but about the far more important decision whether to raise a child for xx years.

That the right to kill ends with the date of birth is just a random cut-off date. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it is objective and easily recognizable whether a birth happened or not. An easy to understand rule on the legal side of things.

I don't mind if you have baby drop boxes at hospitals where parents can place babies for adoption, though.

>> No.3537850

I don't really care if my kids die before 2 yrs old. I can make more.

>> No.3537875

>>3537470

Welcome.

Your argument is flawed. First, I'll explain its lack of consistency, and then the fallacious nature itself.

What exactly would infanticide accomplish? Mercy killing? Your argument relies on the (incredibly trivial) convenience of not looking after an infant. A logical inference from this would be that killing an infant is too much hassle, so we ought to let them starve to death, as the adults preference takes over baby's right to life. This does not overlap with torturing the baby, as that would require the adult to go out of their way to do something. So your reasoning of "adult preference over baby life" doesn't actually support infanticide, it just supports not giving a shit. If you say that this is a cruel way to treat an infant, congratulations. Now re-read your original post. If an adult cares enough about an infant to end their pain quickly, then how can they kill it without any sort of moral dissonance?

continued

>> No.3537879

>>3537875

As for the overall argument, let's look closely as this line: "it would seem to logically follow that the adult's preferences outweigh the baby's right to life"

It would seem at first glance, except that a baby will generally have a preference for various routines, implying that it also has a preference to live. furthermore, adult's preferences are all too often a combination of neurosis, conditioning and taught belief. Hardly something more sacred than the primitive desires of an infant. Finally, in order for an infant to exist, the adult had to create it, with help no less. Having a baby without abortion or morning-after implies that yes, that adult does want a baby, and simply killing it on a whim is the kind of hypocritical back-sliding, the kind of irresponsibility, that make infants so hard to logically sympathize with, and which also allegedly disqualifies them from life.

>> No.3537883

killing babies=species suicide

i can't believe this is even being considered. what's next, euthanizing the mentally or physically disabled?

>> No.3537888

>Peter Singer
>Fraud

pick two

>> No.3537910
File: 69 KB, 750x600, babies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3537910

So can I also eat them after I kill them? Mmm.. babies...

>> No.3537913
File: 74 KB, 500x500, Raid-500x500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3537913

>>3537791
Agreed! Stop killing flies now, people!

(Sentience doesn't mean what you think it means, Mr I-Learn-Words-Through-SciFi-Not-Science. inb4 you infer meanings I am not implying; not once have I argued either way regarding the OP, so piss off. I'm just pointing out that your argument makes no sense.)

>> No.3537944

It's not infanticide. It's very late abortion.

>> No.3537946

yea, assuming morality is objective.

but since it isn't, i'll stay nice and happy not letting babies get killed. i was born with this preference, you know.

>> No.3537949

>>3537913

>flies
>sentience

pick one.

>Sentience doesn't mean what you think it means

sentience is the ability to feel, the presence of mind

>I'm just pointing out that your argument makes no sense.

Why?

>> No.3537971

>>3537502
This. Erring on the side of caution is infinitely better than killing humans.

Of course, the whole pain & suffering thing is entirely arbitrary. Deciding what should & shouldn't be allowed is probably far more based upon cultural norms than any other measure.

>> No.3537972

guys, I think this a troll thread. The OP hasn't even replied to first couple of posts which were minutes after the start.

>> No.3537974

>>3537949
apes, Dolphins, Pigs and Dogs could all be said to have presence of mind.

>> No.3537976

If consciousness is the metric of humaneness, why can't we murder retards and idiots ?

>> No.3537980

>but I have great hope for the future

you seem to have forgotten about americas credit rating

>> No.3538008

>>3537974

Yes. Killing an adult dog or dolphin is probably more wrong than killing a fresh newborn.

The correct answer is not to take away newborns right to live.
The answer is to stop being speciecist and recognise right to live of all sentient beings (regardless of if its sentient higher animal, alien or sentient AI or mind upload) regardless of some obscure order of nucleotides in their DNA (or absence of it). If you dont need to kill them for survival of course, then its killing in selfdefense which is acceptable.

>> No.3538015

> killing a fetus is fine always
> if you kill a pregnant mother you should be charged with two murders

Democrats actually believe this.

>> No.3538025

> if you kill a pregnant mother you should be charged with two murders

I dont believe this.

>> No.3538026

>>3537470
>infants do not possess (at least in full measure) the characteristics of personhood.

In a way I do agree with this. But the same line of reasoning would then also have to apply to other groups. Those borne with mental retardation, those who have suffered injuries to the brain, people with mental diseases, and even some stupid people.

In a way you could even go as far as to say that a child has more value than the groups I just mentioned because they at least have the potential to become a "full" human being.

Then again, such reasoning will invariably lead us to a eugenics discussion (and that has never worked well on /sci/).