# Why was infanticide so popular in history if mothers bonded with kids like they do now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 8, 2017, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675 "2017-03-08T04:28:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/41 "2017-03-09T07:07:55Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I think men do the plowing, in many cases. A lot of African subsistence farmers don’t really plough, the soil is just hoed and women frequently do it all (certainly the case in Bantu areas of South Africa). But men do do all the cattle herding, usually. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/42 "2017-03-09T10:33:51Z")
I have heard (No cite available, sorry) that the concept of “maternal instinct” is a fairly modern invention, and it wasn’t mothers that invented it. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/43 "2017-03-09T10:47:59Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I have heard (No cite available, sorry) that the concept of “maternal instinct” is a fairly modern invention, and it wasn’t mothers that invented it. Who invented maternal instinct? Fathers? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/44 "2017-03-09T11:05:54Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > Who invented maternal instinct? Fathers? Plenty of women say that they never felt any strong attachment for their children (and often feel guilty as a result : “what kind of mother am I?”). So, I’m not convinced that the “maternal instinct” is an actual instinct. Regarding the OP : in a society were there’s no contraception and no abortion, one shouldn’t assume that the infanticide will be conducted against the will of the mother, as many posters seem to do. She might very well approve it. Also, there was the situation of unwed mothers. Given the very strong social stigma attached until quite recently, this would also result in infanticides. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/45 "2017-03-09T11:29:13Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Also, there was the situation of unwed mothers. Given the very strong social stigma attached until quite recently, this would also result in infanticides. It still does, there’s a few cases every year, generally by exposure. Often, a young girl who was too freaked out to know she could ask for help and where. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/46 "2017-03-09T11:46:03Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Also, I’ll repeat - the problem with girls was they grew up to move away and be productive for the husbands family, not yours. And in many societies, you had to pay the husband to take her. Boys were the peasant’s old age pension. Dude, this is the GQ. Its not “I reckon”, You presume a fuck ton in the above post. You presume that the whole “move away to husband’s house” has been the norm for societies throughout history. In reality it really hasn’t. Firstly, by move to husbands house, for most of history has meant “moving literally yards away to the next hut”, or at least “in house in the same tiny hamlet”. You would still see your daughter everyday, she’ll still work your fields and be there when you need her. Secondly, many places it was normal and expected for a newlywed man to live with his wife’s family; especially true when there were no sons/wife’s brothers were very young; I recall reading during the late Roman Empire, one way to avoid conscription for younger sons, was to marry them off to a woman with no or young brothers. The tropes you describe only took hold when mass transportation made living far away easy. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/47 "2017-03-09T11:51:39Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Plenty of women say that they never felt any strong attachment for their children (and often feel guilty as a result : “what kind of mother am I?”). So, I’m not convinced that the “maternal instinct” is an actual instinct. > > Regarding the OP : in a society were there’s no contraception and no abortion, one shouldn’t assume that the infanticide will be conducted against the will of the mother, as many posters seem to do. She might very well approve it. Yeah, well I do think the whole “attachment” issue many times is the women having an unrealistic idea of what maternal love is, doubtless brought upon by the saccharine and extremely gushingly effusive way its portrayed in the media. > [@](#): > > Also, there was the situation of unwed mothers. Given the very strong social stigma attached until quite recently, this would also result in infanticides. I seem to remember some Pope who published a Papal Bull which said in essence “Fornication is going to damn your soul a lot less than throwing the newborn into the Tiber; please stop doing that, starting now”! ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/48 "2017-03-09T12:31:14Z")
> [@Waxwinged](#): > > Something else that hasn’t been covered yet: it generally takes a bit for parents to bond/fall in love with the new arrival, sometimes as long as weeks- and it’s likely that leaving a screaming stranger on a hill-side is less painful than someone you’re actually attached to/invested in. I’ll go with a firm nope on this. In our support group for parents of babies or children who had died, lots of parents were there for infants who had died before actually being born, were still born or like ours died very shortly after being born. It does not “generally” take time to bond or fall in love with one’s child. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If one out of every three children died of natural causes (and many societies had higher rates than that) the death of a child was something you accepted as a normal part of life. I think people were less vocal about it, but I can’t see how it would be something that one “accepts” without feelings. Then or now. > [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > True but I think it’s human nature to put up defense mechanisms to avoid psychological pain. If the odds of your kid surviving childhood was 1 in 3, I think a mother might postpone attachment or even avoid it altogether in the early stages. Again, I disagree. > [@](#): > > I see women do that today with pregnancies-they don’t get attached until later in the pregnancy to minimize any grief if the embryo/fetus doesn’t survive. The older the fetus, the more traumatic the loss IME. It really depends on the individual and the circumstances. After our first child died, the my wife lost the second pregnancy and it was hard. Much harder than the loss of her forth pregnancy which came after we had our first surviving child. However, I really had a difficult time seeing how a person voluntarily flips a switch and turns off an attachment to an infant. > [@Sangahyando](#): > > Admittedly, this would have applied to the relative upper echelons of society in the, even then, relatively sophisticated and advanced Western world; people in tougher circumstances then, quite likely had to be harder as regards this aspect of life, and make less of a big deal of it. I think that people made less of a display of their emotions, but I had a hard time seeing how they would actually have fewer emotions. We lost our son while we were living in Japan, and other than us, the members of the group were all Japanese. Most of the people were under a lot of pressure to be stoic and not display their emotions. However, the raw pain there was testimony to the depths of the emotions. A number of the husbands, normally gentle Japanese guys got into fights out in public, and one of the counselors said that is a typical way guys can show emotions. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/49 "2017-03-09T12:39:59Z")
By the way, **TokyoBayer** I did not know that you had lost a child until this thread; I am really sorry, has to be the worst feeling in the world. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/50 "2017-03-09T12:40:46Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I have heard (No cite available, sorry) that the concept of “maternal instinct” is a fairly modern invention, and it wasn’t mothers that invented it. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Plenty of women say that they never felt any strong attachment for their children (and often feel guilty as a result : “what kind of mother am I?”). So, I’m not convinced that the “maternal instinct” is an actual instinct. Hang on here. This \*is \*still in GQ, although it probably shouldn’t be. “Maternal instinct” has nothing to do with bonding. “Maternal instinct” means that a mom just knows how to be a mom and has a unique insight based on unconscious cognition of some sort. It’s often completely bogus, and often used to defend irrational decision making on the part of mothers. “Bonding” is the formation of preferential social associations, and it’s based, depending on species, on placental hormonal shift, smell, and postnatal hormonal shifts caused by touch based stimulus like nursing and cuddling. “Bonding” isn’t terribly fuzzy or opinion based. It’s a thing that happens in all species that require parental care in infancy. It’s well studied, it’s not always gender specific, and humans are not the only animals that experience it. Here’s one study, of many, on the science of maternal bonding: [Mother–infant bonding and the evolution of mammalian social relationships](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764844/) Are there outliers, of every species, who don’t form parental bonds with their individual offspring? Of course. But if you have a successful species that doesn’t form parental bonds with their offspring as a rule, then you’ve got yourself a species that doesn’t require postnatal care, like sea turtles. I do think it’s important to be honest with people that there’s not always love immediately after birth. There’s a dangerous myth that says you’re going to fall head over heels in love with your baby the moment he’s born, and too many new mothers who don’t feel that and think there’s something wrong with them. Love sometimes takes time to take effect, and that’s okay and normal. But if bonding - which is not the same as love - doesn’t begin to happen within the first hours after a birth, that’s an indication that we need to watch that dyad closely for dysfunction, and keep an eye on the mother for postpartum depression or psychosis. > [@](#): > > Regarding the OP : in a society were there’s no contraception and no abortion, one shouldn’t assume that the infanticide will be conducted against the will of the mother, as many posters seem to do. She might very well approve it. > > Also, there was the situation of unwed mothers. Given the very strong social stigma attached until quite recently, this would also result in infanticides. Of course. There are always going to be people who don’t form strong attachments at or after birth. There are always going to situations that are so dire that a parent cannot keep their offspring alive. There are always going to be individuals who don’t form bonds with their infants ever. But, again, to compare it to the closest thing we have today - infant adoption - we know it’s not generally an easy decision, nor is it an entirely intellectual one. We can give up an infant for adoption with full knowledge that this is the best course of action, and it’s still quite often difficult to actually do it. Bonding is not an intellectual or voluntary process. It’s an animal process, and we’re still, and have always been, animals. The OP wants to know why infanticide happens when mothers bond with their infants. And the best answer is: because people sometimes have to make decisions that override our animal urges. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/51 "2017-03-09T12:52:29Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I think people were less vocal about it, but I can’t see how it would be something that one “accepts” without feelings. Then or now. It’s not a matter of accepting without feelings. What I think Little Nemo is talking about is the difference _right now_ between losing a child and losing an 80 year parent. You will grieve either way, but on some level, you expected the parent to die pretty soon and on some level , you always expected to outlive your parent. No one expects to outlive their child, no matter when the loss occurs. It seems to be a disruption of the natural order of life- and that’s the part that becomes different when 1 out of 3 children die young. There will be grief , yes, but more similar than to the grief one feels after the loss of a parent. Not the utter devastation that comes with losing a child now - it is not uncommon to hear people say " I will never be happy again" years after losing a child, while I never hear that said about the death of a parent. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/52 "2017-03-09T13:46:39Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > The OP wants to know why infanticide happens when mothers bond with their infants. And the best answer is: because people sometimes have to make decisions that override our animal urges. Given how many types of animal mothers will kill, or allow to die, their offspring I question if that’s really “overriding” our “animal urges”. Death of offspring is common in the animal kingdom, for a variety for reasons including such “economic” ones as the parents being unable to get enough food to support all of a litter. If anything, infanticide seems a very old process and humans finding a way around the need for it is the new thing, ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/53 "2017-03-09T13:51:14Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Given how many types of animal mothers will kill, or allow to die, their offspring I question if that’s really “overriding” our “animal urges”. Death of offspring is common in the animal kingdom, for a variety for reasons including such “economic” ones as the parents being unable to get enough food to support all of a litter. If anything, infanticide seems a very old process and humans finding a way around the need for it is the new thing, I’ll accept that. I was trying to find a way to word it without using the word “instinct” in the biological sense, so as not to confuse the issue with “maternal instinct” in the social sense. But you’re right. Allowing or causing the death of an infant is definitely part of the animal world. Let me try again: The OP wants to know why infanticide happens when mothers bond with their infants. And the best answer is: because people sometimes have to make decisions that override our bonding tendencies. Better? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/54 "2017-03-09T15:09:23Z")
Let’s see… Who expected the wife to move in with the husband and leave her family? China? > [@](#): > > Marriage was under the near-absolute control of family elders and was considered an important part of a family’s strategy for success”.[6] The system of patrilineal succession and ancestral worship left no place for daughters within their natal family trees. Traditionally, brides became a part of their husband’s family and essentially cut ties with their natal families with special emphasis placed on a wife’s ability to produce a male heir.[4] As arranged marriages were customary, husband and wife often did not meet each other until the day of the wedding Pakistan? > [@](#): > > The Rukhsati (Urdu: رُخصتی‎) (sending off) takes place, when the groom and his family will leave together with the bride. The Qur’an is normally held over the bride’s head as she walks from the stage to the exit (or if the ceremony is being held at home, to the main entrance of the house) in order to bless and protect her. This is a sombre occasion\*\* for the bride’s parents as it marks the departure of their daughter from their home.\*\* The departure of the bride becomes a very emotional scene as \*\*she says farewell to the home of her parents and siblings \*\*to start a new married life. Zulu? > [@](#): > > In the morning – after very little sleep if any at all, the bride with her maid of honor and an Aunt or two called the “Sanyowami” meaning remain with me, remain with her at the home after most of the visitors have left. They have brooms to sweep the yard and clean up all the pots and dishes used at the party – before anyone is awake, then make breakfast for everyone. The bride now called “Umalokazana” or daughter in law, has to make sure everything is done so her **parents in law know that their Umalokazana is a good housekeeper and will take great care of their son, their grandchildren and themselves**. India? > [@](#): > > There are additional ceremonies, such as bidhai and vadhupravesh, that center on leaving the ceremony site and welcoming the bride to the groom’s home. And certain regions and sects have their own variations on the basic Hindu ceremony. Jain, Punjabi, Marathi, Gujarati, Tamil, Kashmiri, and Bengali ceremonies will all have their own unique customs that make Hindu weddings so special. The Ojibway and the Lakota, for example, don’t seem to have had a marriage ceremony - the woman just moved in with the man if it was OK with her father (the price was right,too). > [@](#): > > Sitting Bull knew exactly who was driving the wagon and the question he would be asked when the wagon finally reached his door. And sure enough, as the wagon got closer he and his wives could see clearly that it was the minister from the local church. > > …He said to the great Lakota leader, “It is un-Christian of you to have two wives. It is against the will of God. And it is barbarian and heathen.” > > Sitting Bull sat there with his head cocked and listened patiently to the outburst of the minister. He was being dressed down by this white man but his only emotion was the slight smile on his face. Finally he raised his hand to quiet the angry minister and waved his hand at his two wives and said to the minister, “Well, there they are: you tell them which one has to leave.” Inca: > [@](#): > > Trial marriages were typical within Inca culture. In this type of marriage, the man and woman would agree to try out being married to one another for a few years. At the end of this time, the woman could\*\* go home to her parents if she wished\*\*, and her husband could also send her home if he did not think it would work out. However, once the marriage was made final, they could only divorce if the woman was childless. Polynesia - > [@](#): > > When a young girl is betrothed, and her future husband has paid the amount in full,\*\* she goes and lives with his mother \*\*until the time arrives when she may become his wife. Soon after the purchase has been made her parents give a feast to those who subscribed towards the tattooing ; this is followed by another feast given by the bridegroom’s parents, and there are no other ceremonies, either at betrothals or marriages. > > Somewhat different customs prevail in one of the Solomon Isles known as Florida. Here the usual tattooing takes place, but there may be a delay of several months, or even years, before the young man’s father pays down the full amount of the purchase-money. In order to transact this business, he pays a visit to the girl’s home, and even when the payment has been made, and the visit has been prolonged for two days, the parents make a great fuss about giving up their daughter, interposing many imaginary difficulties. When at last \*\*the time of parting comes \*\*they demand further payment. This is called " the money to break the post near the door (used to take hold of in going in and out of the house), **to finish her going in and out of the old home**." This payment is made to the bride’s female relations, who take her by the hand and give her up. The act of giving away the bride is rather curious ; she is lifted off the ground and carried out of the house on the back of one of the women, who delivers her to the bridegroom’s father. For two or three months after this the bride stays in her father-in-law’s house, until the necessary presents of pigs and food arrive. Not till then can the wedding be celebrated. And here we meet with a curious custom, rather suggestive of the ransom " paid in the Tyrol and elsewhere. During the morning of the feast, the boys of the village harass the bride’s relations by playfully shooting arrows at them. So skilful is the youths’ practice that they can safely send arrows whizzing past the ears of a guest, over his head, between his legs, or even through his hair ! These delicate attentions, however, become a positive nuisance ; and after many forcible expressions of disgust, the men gladly purchase immunity by paying ransom. Even Tibet, where a woman could have multiple husbands - this was so that several brothers shared the same wife and so the brothers’ farm was not subdivided - implying the woman lived in the household of her husbands. > [@](#): > > Studies have attempted to explain the existence of polyandry in Tibet. One reason put forward in traditional literature is that by not allowing land to be split between brothers, Tibetan families retained farms sufficiently large to continue supporting their family. Another reason for polyandry is that the mountainous terrain makes some of the farm land difficult to farm, requiring more physical strength. Women take multiple husbands because they are strong and able to help tend their land. And so on… Of course, in this varied world with myriad customs, there are a number of matrilinean societies; the Cherokee, for example: > [@](#): > > In old times, divorce was fairly common and the dissolution of a marriage informal. If a man wanted to end the marriage, he simply gathered his belongings and moved out. If a woman wished to dissolve the marriage, she placed her husband’s belongings outside the door to signal the end of the relationship. And you do have a valid point that the daughter often may be only a short distance from her family; however, in many cases, the resources were the husband’s - completely or also, or shared among his extended family, complicating support for her parents. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/55 "2017-03-09T15:12:48Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > By the way, **TokyoBayer** I did not know that you had lost a child until this thread; I am really sorry, has to be the worst feeling in the world. Thanks. I think society is much better off now that medicine has helped reduce infant mortality. The emotional costs to the parents is indeed enormous. Protip: Numbing pain with alcohol isn’t as good of an idea as it seems at the time. > [@doreen](#): > > It’s not a matter of accepting without feelings. What I think Little Nemo is talking about is the difference _right now_ between losing a child and losing an 80 year parent. You will grieve either way, but on some level, you expected the parent to die pretty soon and on some level , you always expected to outlive your parent. No one expects to outlive their child, no matter when the loss occurs. It seems to be a disruption of the natural order of life- and that’s the part that becomes different when 1 out of 3 children die young. There will be grief , yes, but more similar than to the grief one feels after the loss of a parent. Not the utter devastation that comes with losing a child now - it is not uncommon to hear people say " I will never be happy again" years after losing a child, while I never hear that said about the death of a parent. Again, I disagree. I’ve read accounts of my Mormon ancestors who lost babies, and the pain they felt was very real. Even ones who lost three out of 12 babies. Accounts of others who lost babies were also quite poignant. In the past, there was very strong social pressure to keep the grief internal. That has changed now, which IMHO, is more healthy because bottling up the pain often leads to much worse consequences. See protip above. The emotional bonds between parents and children are enormous. Stories after stories after stories tell of how surprised people are with the attachment they have toward their offspring. I think there is a tendency to believe that modern people are somehow different than those of the past, but I don’t buy it. I also have a really hard believing that even though some people don’t feel a bond or an emotional attachment immediately that they would be less sensitive to losing the child. Both my wife and I felt a much stronger, immediate bond with our first son because we knew that he would be with us for only a few hours. My older sister gave up a child for adoption and says that now more than 25 years later, she still gets depressed around that time of the year. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/56 "2017-03-09T15:26:32Z")
**md2000** , did you seriously (except Incas) think modern day countries and societies still operate on the same principal as societies hundreds of years ago? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/57 "2017-03-09T15:28:15Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > T > I’ve read accounts of my Mormon ancestors who lost babies, and the pain they felt was very real. Even ones who lost three out of 12 babies. Accounts of others who lost babies were also quite poignant. > > In the past, there was very strong social pressure to keep the grief internal. That has changed now, which IMHO, is more healthy because bottling up the pain often leads to much worse consequences. See protip above. > > The emotional bonds between parents and children are enormous. Stories after stories after stories tell of how surprised people are with the attachment they have toward their offspring. > > I think there is a tendency to believe that modern people are somehow different than those of the past, but I don’t buy it. > > I also have a really hard believing that even though some people don’t feel a bond or an emotional attachment immediately that they would be less sensitive to losing the child. Both my wife and I felt a much stronger, immediate bond with our first son because we knew that he would be with us for only a few hours. > > My older sister gave up a child for adoption and says that now more than 25 years later, she still gets depressed around that time of the year. True. [QUOTE=Man who also lost a child] “Grief fills the room up of my absent child, Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me, Puts on his pretty look, repeats his words, Remembers me of his gracious parts, Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form” [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/58 "2017-03-09T15:37:20Z")
Famine can change things significantly. A new baby has little chance of survival and faces a long lingering death from starvation. It’s also consuming food that the other family members desperately need to survive. What can be done? Give it away? To who? Everyone in the village is starving. They can’t endanger their own family by feeding another person’s kid. It’s a horrible choice. I can easily understand infanticide in primitive cultures. Real famine is something most cultures today don’t face. There are exceptions in a few places. But at least there is a possibility of aid from outside. That option didn’t exist in ancient times. The crops fail? You and everyone you know starves. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/59 "2017-03-09T17:14:19Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Again, I disagree. > > I’ve read accounts of my Mormon ancestors who lost babies, and the pain they felt was very real. Even ones who lost three out of 12 babies. Accounts of others who lost babies were also quite poignant. I don’t think anyone has said that there was no pain involved- and I know I certainly didn’t. And 27 years after I had a stillbirth I still get depressed at that time of year. But I suspect ( although neither you nor I can possibly know) that losing a child in a time and place where 1 in 3 children die young is a different experience than losing a child in a time and place where few children die young. Just like losing a child is a different experience from losing a parent and losing a parent when you are 8 is almost certainly a different experience than losing a parent when you are 50 ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675/60 "2017-03-09T17:16:35Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > In the past, there was very strong social pressure to keep the grief internal. That has changed now, which IMHO, is more healthy because bottling up the pain often leads to much worse consequences. See protip above. I think that’s a large part, along with the lack of sources for 95% of the Population for most of history - no diaries from the common farmer from 1500 or 1000 AD on how he felt putting his newest Baby outside to die because it was another Girl again, or how the mother felt. When we do have testimonies, they all seem to Show that despite death being common, People still grieved hard- they just probably didn’t Show it. (The common example I know of is Martin Luther, who wrote a Poem about losing one of his babies). We also know, both from what’s recorded, and mostly, what we see now, that People are able to “rationalize” practises which are harmful if presented as Tradition. The battle against FGM in those regions where it’s still practised is very hard, even though today, we have Access to Information on how harmful it is, and Statements from clergy that Religion does not demand it - and yet People, esp. mothers and grandmothers, are convinced they have to Keep doing it because otherwise their daughters will be outcast. Going as far as traveling from Europe to the old Country during School Holidays to do it. And in the case of high dowries (as India still today) or scarce resources, the proof that this works is even visible without education. Better to kill the child quickly than let it slowly hunger to death; better to put it outside in the Hands of the Gods, instead of making a decision you are to blame for. Coping mechanisms. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-infanticide-so-popular-in-history-if-mothers-bonded-with-kids-like-they-do-now/781675.md?page=4)