The Philosophy Of Infanticide

[Tassman]

So why use this arbitrary definition of personhood in the first place? Why not use the scientific, undeniable, point when human life begins - conception?

[seer]

See there you go again, no scientific, undeniable, point where personhood begins. Only subjective, arbitrary definitions.

[Tassman]

See there you go again, no scientific, undeniable, point where personhood begins. Only subjective, arbitrary definitions.

'Personhood' is a legal concept, not a scientific one. There are several appropriate options that are scientifically determined, e.g. conception, fetal viability or birth. Why focus on the moment of conception?

[Tassman]

But what we think now is only for us right? Who are we to judge past societies? So it was not actually wrong for them to burn witches back then was it? In fact, it was moral since that society believed it was.

Just like it was moral for Hitler to gas Jews because that society believed it was moral.

If morals are just a group consensus by various societies, then there are no "universal ethical principals"

The burning of witches was grounded in the supposedly universal moral values of the bible. But, as always, the biblical interpretation was based on prior beliefs, presuppositions, worldviews, and the like which inevitably shape biblical interpretation. But the universal ethical principles that are commonly held by most people, groups, and cultures nowadays are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[seer]

'Personhood' is a legal concept, not a scientific one. There are several appropriate options that are scientifically determined, e.g. conception, fetal viability or birth. Why focus on the moment of conception?

Because we know human life like begins at conception, it is not arbitrary and does not depend on subjective definitions of "personhood." And when speaking of human life should we not err on the side of caution, on the side of life? Even in your atheistic worldview killing our own offspring can not be a good evolutionary strategy.

[Tassman]

Because we know human life like begins at conception, it is not arbitrary and does not depend on subjective definitions of "personhood."

Yes, human life like begins at conception, fetal viability begins at around 23 weeks and independent life begin at birth. None of these things are arbitrary.

And when speaking of human life should we not err on the side of caution, on the side of life?

Even in your atheistic worldview killing our own offspring can not be a good evolutionary strategy.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Because we are socialised during out formative years and acculturated by the community in which we live, to behave in a way that is acceptable to that society...whether it be a secular society or a theist society.

So I ought to follow "universal ethical principles" because I am socialized and acculturated by the community to behave in a way that is acceptable to that society? So should I engage in the killing and pillaging a group of people if I am socialized and acculturated by the community to behave in that way (which, in this context, is acceptable to that society)?

[Tassman]

So I ought to follow "universal ethical principles" because I am socialized and acculturated by the community to behave in a way that is acceptable to that society?

Whether you "ought" or not is beside the point, you probably will because this is how you have been acculturated.

So should I engage in the killing and pillaging a group of people if I am socialized and acculturated by the community to behave in that way (which, in this context, is acceptable to that society)?

Again, whether or not you "should" engage in such activities is beside the point. You probably would, e.g. the Israelite's under Moses had no hesitation in the genocide, slavery and rape of the Midianites.

[kiwimac]

Judging by what the UK just did recently to two babies, Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, they not only support infanticide, but practice it.

Starlight must be proud.

Maybe we can extend the idea of 'moral status as nonpersons' to include prochoice nutjobs who support infanticide? They can't be human.

[Sparko]

Birth is a change of location. There is no difference between the baby 30 seconds earlier and after birth.

[Sparko]

The burning of witches was grounded in the supposedly universal moral values of the bible. But, as always, the biblical interpretation was based on prior beliefs, presuppositions, worldviews, and the like which inevitably shape biblical interpretation. But the universal ethical principles that are commonly held by most people, groups, and cultures nowadays are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But then as you said, back then the universal ethical principals were not the same as today, so using your definition, it was perfectly moral for them to burn witches, stone women for infidelity, treat women like property in general, right?

And just 50 years ago we had a society that said Jews were not people and it was OK to destroy them. Perfectly moral in your world.

Just because you personally think the best morals are "embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." doesn't actually make them the best. Some other society could disagree, or heck, 10 years from now, this same society could disagree.

[Sparko]

Yes, human life like begins at conception, fetal viability begins at around 23 weeks and independent life begin at birth. None of these things are arbitrary.

Why do you consider a baby which is born, a person? It can't think, speak, feed itself, or even help messing itself. Dogs are smarter. So why is that baby a person in your eyes?

[element771]

Why do you consider a baby which is born, a person? It can't think, speak, feed itself, or even help messing itself. Dogs are smarter. So why is that baby a person in your eyes?

They actually even refer to the 3 month period after being born as the 4th trimester.

The reason is that the baby is still underdeveloped but could not go through the birth canal if it was born when it was "ready".

[Tassman]

Birth is a change of location. There is no difference between the baby 30 seconds earlier and after birth.

Very true! This is why the law states that an abortion should not occur (other than in the most exceptional circumstances), once the fetus can survive independently of the mother as a viable person...i.e. at the end of the second trimester. The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester.

[Tassman]

But then as you said, back then the universal ethical principals were not the same as today, so using your definition, it was perfectly moral for them to burn witches, stone women for infidelity, treat women like property in general, right?

Straight from the bible! Just goes to show that one cannot obtain a universal moral code from scripture.

And just 50 years ago we had a society that said Jews were not people and it was OK to destroy them. Perfectly moral in your world.

Just because you personally think the best morals are "embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." doesn't actually make them the best. Some other society could disagree, or heck, 10 years from now, this same society could disagree.

True! Just as this same society no longer accepts that it is perfectly moral to burn witches, stone women for infidelity, treat women like property in general and discriminate against LGBT folk.