As somewhat of a counterpoint to the anti-abortion threads, I’m wondering if infanticide should be fully legalised. Until relatively recently, infanticide was the normal method of abortion (q.v. Greek tragedies etc) and infanticide (by the male) is widely practiced in mammals. Further, infanticide is a special mitigating plea (for women only) against a charge of murder in U.K. law (pdf).
Should there be a difference between infanticide by males and infanticide by females?
Now, I’m well aware that the alternative of putting the child out for adoption exists, but this thread is questioning whether infanticide be made lawful, rather than right, so I ask those who would be proponents of adoption instead respectfully refrain from posting.
Well, I’m completely in agreement with a woman’s right to choose, but to broaden the scope to include infanticide crosses the line with me; so I say no.
And the law most certainly treats infanticide by females MUCH differently than by males already. There was a case here in Ottawa recently. She got house arrest for a year or something.
Meanwhile Robert Latimer is still in jail 16 years after compassionately euthanizing his gravely ill, crippled, and pain-ridden daughter.
I was wondering that, too. Maybe they’re looking at cases where someone didn’t know they were pregnant/were in denial and just left the baby to die instead of actively killing it?
I was amazed, rather than shocked when I first heard that the Greeks did this.
Similarly when I learned that American Indians would let their elderly wander off into the forest to lay down and die. Or the Eskimos to float them away on sea ice. And of course Moses attests to that sort of thing happening with infants set out in baskets.
I suppose when the community buys into it, it’s like the firing squad with one dud charge. Each person feels no individual guilt.
The law treats men and women differently for a lot of crimes. Someone with good Google-fu might be able to help out, but I recall that female teachers who have sex with underaged boys in the class do not receive the same kind of sentences as their male counterparts. Same goes for spousal abuse and domestic homicide.
I’m guessing that when a woman does it, we mostly assume some post-partum disorder.
And in answer to the OP, of course not. The reason to terminate a pregnancy is to end a pregnancy. I am entitled to remove a fetus from my body. I am not entitled to kill it once it’s outside my body.
Lets say we as a society agree to the following principle:
A man CAN be an island - you do not need to take responsibility for anyone but yourself. (This means if you get a woman pregnant you don’t need to pay child support - but neither does society need to support the child via any sort of social welfare - complete freedom of choice on your responsibilities).
Let’s further posit that there is not a waiting list of people looking to adopt - on the contrary, there are more babies born than homes available for those babies.
Now, what is the social solution to this? In a society where the infant mortality rate is high to start with - but plenty of infants are born because there isn’t much in good birth control and people are relatively fertile, infanticide seems reasonable. Other options are going to reside on the good will of others in society - orphanages for instance. But, remember, we don’t obligate people to support orphanages - so when the number of orphans exceeds the resources provided by charity we - let them starve?
We don’t live in that society. Unlike abortion, where we are talking about using one persons body to support another person, raising children is about using one person’s property to support another person. We DO force people to use their property to support others.
Infanticide is a great evil, but God is above even that and can save the parents and the baby. IMHO It does cause intense hardship for all, but God can turn that to a greater good. To quote Scriptures ‘everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial’ and leave it at that.
The OP’s link confirms this. It also appears the policy is there mainly for practical reasons. Apparently the UK legal system has problems convincing woman to mount an effective defense in cases of post-partum depression related killings as the perpetrators are often in denial regarding their crimes.
In anycase, it hardly amounts to legalizing infanticide, and so isn’t really relevant to the rather silly OP.
Jesus Fucking Christ! Hell No! First of all while it is true other civilizations did practice civilization I think we are above that. It is no better then murder of an adult and be treated as such: infanticiders should be hanged or sent to a nuthouse.
Killing a baby *might *not automatically be an immoral act in a primitive subsistence situation where adding one more mouth to feed would put the whole group in jeopardy, but in a culture as prosperous as ours there’s no reason to allow it.
Why stop at infanticide? If you wake up one day and decide you have had enough of your lazy, freeloading son with no job, no girlfriend, no prospects for either and his only real accomplishment in life is an epic set of gear on WoW and you decide to take a mulligan by way of a .44, be my guest!