I just stumbled across this couple month old thread: about how female sexual habits would change if we had no abortion.
Anyway, as a tangent, this post came up:
In a normal society where abortion is allowed and we have adoption and the infant drop off laws, this seems pretty horrifying. Are there ever cases where this stance would be okay? Is a society where abortion is banned enough to make this okay? Or if the mother knows that the child is going to have a horrible life (i.e., a mother killing a child born into slavery like in Beloved).
I guess I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around infanticide ever being okay. It seems that once the baby is physically no longer dependent on the mother’s body that you really can’t justify it…can you?
Well; if the child is being born into slavery or similar horrible conditions I can certainly see it as being justified. And in places where abortion is unavailable, it may be a matter of saving the lives of the rest of the family from starvation. And you can’t expect decent treatment of women or children in a place that outlaws abortion; so just handing it over for adoption may not be a moral option either.
True…I’m reminded of the thread I started last summer, about whether it would be ethical to ban abortion in some “Humanity might come to an end” scenario. The idea of raising a child in a situation like that sounds pretty nightmarish. I could see a slave in the antebellum South considering the situation like that–what’s the point of bringing a child into this world? Is this truly a life worth living?
I don’t see the connection. I’ve been given to understand that the right to abortion has nothing to do with wanting the baby/foetus/whatever dead, but only the woman’s right to not be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be. By the time the infant’s born, that question’s already settled.
Infanticide was common practice in the ancient world. Unwanted babies were left for the wolves or to die from exposure. Perhaps the most famous example is Oedipus. Indeed, you could argue that the Oedipus tale is a cautionary one, warning of the perils of infanticide.
It’s perfectly easy to justify. A baby is not self-aware. We can morally go out and kill dogs and cats and cows and all these animals because they have no particular ability to choose and enjoy their life, or even understand their life in a way that is personal.
If a woman has been prevented by circumstance or law from aborting, there’s no difference between the baby and the fetus so far as ending its life except for where it happens to currently be located.
Obviously a demarcation point does need to be created, and previous to leaving the womb is a fairly good and easily understood one, but that would be assuming that abortion was legal and safe. Minus that, “immediately upon leaving” would be the second best answer.
No, people do not get an abortion to avoid pregnancy, they get an abortion to avoid having a child. For instance, I don’t think you’ll find a correlation with women who abort and women who adopt. Point in fact, I think you’ll find that it’s women who can’t have a child who adopt, which is the exact opposite.
When a child is born, if you didn’t want a child, you still don’t want a child.
Your objection seems rather backwards. My statement seeks equality based on ability. Black people were discriminated against even though one could provably show that they had all the same abilities as a white person. With my way of handling things, AI, aliens, etc. would all have to be considered equals if they were self-aware without any room for argument based on origin.
The point is you’ve just demonstrated the exact same thinking that was used against African Americans being full citizens. Forever it was thought that were incapable of being as intelligent as whites, so it was perfectly okay to treat them like cattle. You’ve demonstrated that you feel the same about babies.
And congratulations for proving pro-lifer’s right (at least in your case). They always argue that pro-choicers aren’t really going on about the woman’s right to her body, they really just want to kill the lifeform inside. Not even Roe v. Wade supports this, as it has nothing to do with a woman’s right to privacy.
I pray to Og you don’t and will never have kids, not just for their sakes, but so Darwinian selection can take over when you are no longer with us.
I’m sure you’re right. I just get paranoid when people use the arguments “They aren’t really ‘aware’ in the same way as you and I” or “It’s for their own good”. Those two arguments tend to be used to do very bad stuff, so I will automatically be more skeptical of any argument that is supported by them. And I don’t think we can ‘morally’ go out and kill cats, dogs and cows indiscriminately.
Yeah, a much more proper response. I’m seem to be losing my ability to read lately, due to getting way too mad. You only advocated this if abortion was illegal, which, while bad, does not deserve that level of invective. And, unfortunately, I couldn’t go back and delete my post, as Stoneberg’s came right after mine.
Still, I do feel quite strongly that any argument that advocates killing the offspring of a woman (whether born or unborn), instead of arguing that it’s better for the woman, is ethically indefensible. I think some of Caesario’s points are less squicky.
…and now the actual killing of actual born kids is acceptable; people are still hiding it in some nice language of “self-aware” and “preventing suffering” of others.
I wonder what the “scientific” moment where infanticide becomes unacceptable will be.
Yes, but once the pregnancy is over, the child is no longer dependent on your particular person for survival. If another person is likely to want to take over its care, it is definitely immoral to kill it, all other considerations aside.
What difference does the person involved being an infant make? The real issue is whether, if we are morally required to care for another, we have a right or even a duty to kill them ‘for their own good’.
My answer is - it depends. Is the action truly for ‘their own good’? My friends had a grandmother who was dying of a mixture of dementia and cancer. she was in constant pain and had only enough conciousness left to suffer … in that situation, it could well be argued that it would be kinder, more humane, to have her dead, than to keep her alive. Maybe some situations of slavery or other sorts of truly extreme desperation would justify the same with newborns.
The whole “life is my gift and I can take it away” argument, OTOH, is creepy in the extreme. Presumably that could equally well apply if the kid is three, or eighteen. To my mind, once a person is created, by the development of human level conciousness, he or she has certain rights - they are at that point no longer a mere thing, but have a seperate existance.
Not wanting a child is one thing; killing a child is another. Abortion is morally okay because it is not the killing of a child, it is the killing of a fetus prior to it becomming a child.
Way I look at it is this: being forced to bear a child is no different conceptually from being thrown into a cell with some stranger’s baby. I may not want the baby, and our association is forced on me by my captors (for whatever twisted reasons of their own) - but I’d not be justified in throttling the tot.
