Is Infanticide Inherently Wrong?

[SMS]

I'm considering a powerful argument for the permissibility of abortion (via. non-personhood) that seems to inescapably led to the conclusion that infanticide is not inherently wrong. This, however, does not mean that infanticide is not wrong under certain non-inherent contexts. For example, as Mary Warren argues, infanticide may be wrong under a social context wherein some loving family both wants and can properly raise that infant. Warren continues that while some loving family can both want and properly raise the fetus, the woman's autonomy takes the moral precedence. Thus, this allows for infanticide to be contextually wrong and not abortion.

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong?

[premjan]

Homicide is not inherently wrong.

[Preno]

What does "inherently" mean? Can I construct a context in which infanticide is not wrong? Sure I can, that's trivial - and by the same token irrelevant. Are you asking whether infanticide is wrong in "normal" contexts? Then I have to answer yes.

Or are you actually intending to get into a debate on whether anything is inherently wrong?

[SMS]

What does "inherently" mean? Can I construct a context in which infanticide is not wrong? Sure I can, that's trivial - and by the same token irrelevant. Are you asking whether infanticide is wrong in "normal" contexts? Then I have to answer yes.

I should have been clearer on this point. When I say that infanticide is inherently wrong, I mean that it is wrong to intentionally kill an infant because anything that is an infant (human) has an inherent right to life.


Or are you actually intending to get into a debate on whether anything is inherently wrong? No.

[DMB]

Different cultures have found different answers to the question, so I suppose you can't claim an inherent value for a particular position.

[premjan]

There's some avoidable harm to a sentient entity in it so it is inherently harmful.

[SMS]

There's some avoidable harm to a sentient entity in it so it is inherently harmful.



There is often some avoidable harm (what does harm mean?) to a sentient entity like a cow when it is killed so that we can have steak with our potatoes. Moreover, it's not clear that inherent harm implies wrongfulness.

[premjan]

What does "wrong" mean in philosophy? Maybe you should take it to Moral Foundations and Principles.

ETA: oops wrong discussion board.

[SMS]

Different cultures have found different answers to the question, so I suppose you can't claim an inherent value for a particular position.

I don't see why not. Both the mother and fetus could have inherent rights to life, but the mother could execute the fetus to save her own life. Wouldn't you agree?

[SMS]

What the hell does "wrong" mean in philosophy?

Tough question.

[borealis]

Wiki has an interesting overview of infanticidal practice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

It interests me that most modern people would find it hard to do such a thing, while it would seem most of these previous cultures were relatively indifferent to the killing of infants.

[James T]

Let's consider infanticide in some particular cases, had we caught them in time:
George Bush
SMS
The Pope
Hey Seuss

[Kissaki]

I should have been clearer on this point. When I say that infanticide is inherently wrong, I mean that it is wrong to intentionally kill an infant because anything that is an infant (human) has an inherent right to life.

We have inherent rights? Independent of the societies that grant them?

[Matty]

Not only is infanticide okay, it can be downright sexy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me8aQA0VlI8

[Febble]

I'm considering a powerful argument for the permissibility of abortion (via. non-personhood) that seems to inescapably led to the conclusion that infanticide is not inherently wrong. This, however, does not mean that infanticide is not wrong under certain non-inherent contexts. For example, as Mary Warren argues, infanticide may be wrong under a social context wherein some loving family both wants and can properly raise that infant. Warren continues that while some loving family can both want and properly raise the fetus, the woman's autonomy takes the moral precedence. Thus, this allows for infanticide to be contextually wrong and not abortion.

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong?

No. In some contexts "paliative care only" seems more ethical than late-term abortion, to me, and in any case is practised, but it is a kind of infanticide.

http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/34304/Nav/1/router.asp

At least, after birth, you can make a proper diagnosis, and also ensure that the baby has a comfortable death, which isn't true of abortion.

[SMS]

I should have been clearer on this point. When I say that infanticide is inherently wrong, I mean that it is wrong to intentionally kill an infant because anything that is an infant (human) has an inherent right to life.

We have inherent rights? Independent of the societies that grant them?

Yes. Natural right vs. Human right.

[DMB]

Different cultures have found different answers to the question, so I suppose you can't claim an inherent value for a particular position.

I don't see why not. Both the mother and fetus could have inherent rights to life, but the mother could execute the fetus to save her own life. Wouldn't you agree?

The catholic church wouldn't agree with you.

[SMS]

Different cultures have found different answers to the question, so I suppose you can't claim an inherent value for a particular position.

I don't see why not. Both the mother and fetus could have inherent rights to life, but the mother could execute the fetus to save her own life. Wouldn't you agree?

The catholic church wouldn't agree with you.

Are you sure about that?

[DMB]

I don't see why not. Both the mother and fetus could have inherent rights to life, but the mother could execute the fetus to save her own life. Wouldn't you agree?

The catholic church wouldn't agree with you.

Are you sure about that?

Unless they've changed their doctrine fairly recently and I didn't notice, YES.

[Columbus]

The catholic church wouldn't agree with you.

Are you sure about that?

Unless they've changed their doctrine fairly recently and I didn't notice, YES.
I am no Catholic Apologeticist, but you are wrong about this. The RCC does make a distinction between abortions that are medically necessary to save the life of the mother and elective abortions. The RCC is not quite as medeviel as it is sometimes made out to be.
Tom

[Columbus]

I should have been clearer on this point. When I say that infanticide is inherently wrong, I mean that it is wrong to intentionally kill an infant because anything that is an infant (human) has an inherent right to life.

We have inherent rights? Independent of the societies that grant them?

Yes. Natural right vs. Human right. What do you mean by a "natural right" or a "human right"? What makes either of these "inherent"? I gather that you consider "natural rights" to be inherent, but I don't think so. Nobody has any "rights" at all. There are only laws and rules, intentions and outcomes. There are ideals, and there is reality.
Nobody has any rights, "rights" is just a way of describing "ideals" in a way that makes them sound concrete. But they're not. They are vague abstractions that only exist between peoples' ears, if at all. "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" doesn't mean squat if the people around you don't think that blacks, or the unborn, or homosexuals, or Aborigines, or women, or the Irish, or whomever don't count.
There are no "natural rights", or "inherent rights", there are only civil rights. They are purely the function of a society's ideals.
Tom

[Copernicus]

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong?

Nothing is "inherently" wrong. Wrongness is a scalar concept, so it only makes sense in the context of some kind of evaluation metric--a scale on which to weight the act. Since you do not specify any context, people will argue over imaginary contexts, but they won't necessarily know whether they are imagining similar ones.

In the context of human society, the life of an infant is always most important to the parents, and I don't think that many of us would want to live in a society where one's babies could be easily put to death. I don't think that that would lead to a very stable or enjoyable society.

[GenesisNemesis]

Nothing is "inherently wrong".


Nothing is "inherently" wrong.

Beat me to it.

[DMB]

Are you sure about that?

Unless they've changed their doctrine fairly recently and I didn't notice, YES.
I am no Catholic Apologeticist, but you are wrong about this. The RCC does make a distinction between abortions that are medically necessary to save the life of the mother and elective abortions. The RCC is not quite as medeviel as it is sometimes made out to be.
Tom

Quoting from Eunuchs for Heaven: The Catholic Church and Sexuality by the German Catholic theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann:

Until quite recently, women giving birth in Catholic hospitals could be deprived of urgent medical assistance and their lives placed in jeopardy if the hospital authorities adhered to official Catholic doctrine, which holds that it is more important to baptise a moribund child than to let it die unbaptised and save its mother's life. They are still at risk where the official line continues to hold sway, for this macabre chapter is far from closed.

As far as Germany is concerned, the danger has somewhat diminished since 7 May 1976, when the German bishops resolved to 'respect' (but not endorse) 'conscientious medical decisions in hopeless situations where a choice must be made between losing the lives of both the mother and the unborn child and losing one life only'. In plain language: if mother and child were both dying, the bishops would acquiesce in the doctor's decision to save the life of the former while sacrificing that of the latter. In even plainer language: the doctor was permitted to save the mother by aborting her if and only if she and the child would otherwise die, not if it was a simple choice between the mother and the child. This, however, was merely a concession to doctors who deviated from true Catholic doctrine...

...Many people believe that the Church now sanctions abortion if the mother's life is in danger. They are quite wrong, as Cardinal Höffner made clear to me in a letter dated 5 August 1986: ...
...the choice was 'between the loss of both lives, if nature were permitted to take its course, or the loss of one life only'. He concluded: 'I should, however, like to point out in this connection that the statement...recalled by you relates to "conscientious medical decisions", and that it thus refrains from passing any moral judgement on this borderline situation.' That is: the German bishops did not endorse the doctors' decision in favour of one life rather than two deaths, they merely 'respected' it.

...The Church's official doctrine, which remains unrevoked and in force, takes a different view, and many other countries have yet to sidestep the Vatican's rulings. Furthermore, the German bishops' declaration is nowhere near as favourable to the mother as it has been painted. They leave it to the doctor's absolute discretion which of the two lives he may legitimately save, given that both would otherwise be past saving. According to their declaration, he can rest assured of the same episcopal respect if he decides to save the child's life and kill the mother.

{Apologies if I have introduced typos in copying from the book}

Now as far as I am aware, there have been no changes in official doctrine since that book was published. I believe Pope JPII canonised a woman who died rather than abort. And, of course, we have countries which under the influence of catholicism refuse abortion even in the case of ectopic pregnancy, which if left to take its course is bound to result in the death of woman and foetus.

Before such concessions as that of the German bishops, it was the norm to put the life of the child above the life of the mother in Catholic hospitals, such was the importance attached to the baptism of the child. Everything possible had to be done to result in a live birth so that the baby could be baptised, even if it expired a few minutes later.

A different case of choosing between one life and none and the Catholic position on it was illustrated by a case that found its way into the British courts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/937586.stm). A Maltese woman came to England for help with a pregnancy of conjoined twins. When the twins were born, it became clear that one was essentially parasitic on the other and there was no chance that they would both survive if they remained conjoined, but that if they were separated, the stronger twin would have a good chance. The weaker twin would, however, be bound to die after the separation. The parents being good Catholics, refused to allow the operation, believing that God would take care of things. The hospital authorities took the case to court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the operation should go ahead against the wishes of the parents. As expected, the weaker twin died. Fortunately the stronger twin survived and developed normally.

It's worth clicking on the link to see the arguments that the judges made in coming to their decision. But these were not Catholic arguments. They were arguments about what is permissible according to English (secular) law.

[Columbus]

DMB, you are mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism. It really isn't the monolithic corporation that some think it is. One of my best friends is a hard-core Catholic church lady who has worked at Planned Parenthood for over twenty years. I favor far more restrictions on elective abortion than she does. We don't argue about it like we used to, but once we could clear a room by getting into an argument about abortion. She was the Catholic church lady defending RvW, and I was the queer atheist defending the rights of the unborn. Whenever the term abortion came up around the dinner table our spouses learned to run outside and talk about the weather.
Tom

[David B]

DMB, you are mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism. It really isn't the monolithic corporation that some think it is. One of my best friends is a hard-core Catholic church lady who has worked at Planned Parenthood for over twenty years. I favor far more restrictions on elective abortion than she does. We don't argue about it like we used to, but once we could clear a room by getting into an argument about abortion. She was the Catholic church lady defending RvW, and I was the queer atheist defending the rights of the unborn. Whenever the term abortion came up around the dinner table our spouses learned to run outside and talk about the weather.
Tom

Reading both your and DMB's posts, it looks to me as if you are the more guilty of mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism.

Catholicism being a hierarchical church, in which the views of the powers that be in the church have more sway than the occasional Catholic who dissents on some issues.

David B

[Febble]

DMB, you are mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism. It really isn't the monolithic corporation that some think it is. One of my best friends is a hard-core Catholic church lady who has worked at Planned Parenthood for over twenty years. I favor far more restrictions on elective abortion than she does. We don't argue about it like we used to, but once we could clear a room by getting into an argument about abortion. She was the Catholic church lady defending RvW, and I was the queer atheist defending the rights of the unborn. Whenever the term abortion came up around the dinner table our spouses learned to run outside and talk about the weather.
Tom

Reading both your and DMB's posts, it looks to me as if you are the more guilty of mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism.

Catholicism being a hierarchical church, in which the views of the powers that be in the church have more sway than the occasional Catholic who dissents on some issues.

David B

Well, Vatican II was supposed to have changed that round. Hence the We Are Church (http://www.we-are-church.org/) movement.

[David B]

DMB, you are mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism. It really isn't the monolithic corporation that some think it is. One of my best friends is a hard-core Catholic church lady who has worked at Planned Parenthood for over twenty years. I favor far more restrictions on elective abortion than she does. We don't argue about it like we used to, but once we could clear a room by getting into an argument about abortion. She was the Catholic church lady defending RvW, and I was the queer atheist defending the rights of the unborn. Whenever the term abortion came up around the dinner table our spouses learned to run outside and talk about the weather.
Tom

Reading both your and DMB's posts, it looks to me as if you are the more guilty of mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism.

Catholicism being a hierarchical church, in which the views of the powers that be in the church have more sway than the occasional Catholic who dissents on some issues.

David B

Well, Vatican II was supposed to have changed that round. Hence the We Are Church (http://www.we-are-church.org/) movement.

Is it as clear cut as that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_2

David B

[Febble]

Reading both your and DMB's posts, it looks to me as if you are the more guilty of mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism.

Catholicism being a hierarchical church, in which the views of the powers that be in the church have more sway than the occasional Catholic who dissents on some issues.

David B

Well, Vatican II was supposed to have changed that round. Hence the We Are Church (http://www.we-are-church.org/) movement.

Is it as clear cut as that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_2

David B

Well, no. It seemed clear enough at the time but four popes later, not so much.

[Boro Nut]

I should have been clearer on this point. When I say that infanticide is inherently wrong, I mean that it is wrong to intentionally kill an infant because anything that is an infant (human) has an inherent right to life.Rights are rights. How can they be inherent? Game over.

How easy is this philosophy bollocks.

Boro Nut

[DMB]

DMB, you are mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism. It really isn't the monolithic corporation that some think it is. One of my best friends is a hard-core Catholic church lady who has worked at Planned Parenthood for over twenty years. I favor far more restrictions on elective abortion than she does. We don't argue about it like we used to, but once we could clear a room by getting into an argument about abortion. She was the Catholic church lady defending RvW, and I was the queer atheist defending the rights of the unborn. Whenever the term abortion came up around the dinner table our spouses learned to run outside and talk about the weather.
Tom

No, Columbus, it's the other way round. I'm aware of the differences among catholics, but I wasn't talking about "some catholics" but the official vatican position.

[duck of the day]

I'm considering a powerful argument for the permissibility of abortion (via. non-personhood) that seems to inescapably led to the conclusion that infanticide is not inherently wrong. This, however, does not mean that infanticide is not wrong under certain non-inherent contexts. For example, as Mary Warren argues, infanticide may be wrong under a social context wherein some loving family both wants and can properly raise that infant. Warren continues that while some loving family can both want and properly raise the fetus, the woman's autonomy takes the moral precedence. Thus, this allows for infanticide to be contextually wrong and not abortion.

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong?Depends whether - or when - you count abortion as infanticide.

Sounds like someone's trying to smuggle foetus = person in via infant (icide).

[Columbus]

DMB, you are mistaking the opinions of some Catholics for Catholicism. It really isn't the monolithic corporation that some think it is. One of my best friends is a hard-core Catholic church lady who has worked at Planned Parenthood for over twenty years. I favor far more restrictions on elective abortion than she does. We don't argue about it like we used to, but once we could clear a room by getting into an argument about abortion. She was the Catholic church lady defending RvW, and I was the queer atheist defending the rights of the unborn. Whenever the term abortion came up around the dinner table our spouses learned to run outside and talk about the weather.
Tom

No, Columbus, it's the other way round. I'm aware of the differences among catholics, but I wasn't talking about "some catholics" but the official vatican position. It is easy, given history, to over-estimate the authority of official vatican positions. Catholicism really isn't the way Protestants describe it. Or even the way authoritarian Catholics describe it. A case in point is the Iraq War. The Pope called it a crime against humanity. Conservative, authoritarian, Catholics who believed in the Bush Administration suddenly got a dose of their own "you can't be a 'cafeteria' Catholic, either you believe what the Pope says or else you aren't a True Catholic". Coming as it did, during the pedophile priest scandal, Catholicism just isn't what it used to be in ancient history. (like pre-Vatican II)
Tom

[Columbus]

I'm considering a powerful argument for the permissibility of abortion (via. non-personhood) that seems to inescapably led to the conclusion that infanticide is not inherently wrong. This, however, does not mean that infanticide is not wrong under certain non-inherent contexts. For example, as Mary Warren argues, infanticide may be wrong under a social context wherein some loving family both wants and can properly raise that infant. Warren continues that while some loving family can both want and properly raise the fetus, the woman's autonomy takes the moral precedence. Thus, this allows for infanticide to be contextually wrong and not abortion.

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong?Depends whether - or when - you count abortion as infanticide.

Sounds like someone's trying to smuggle foetus = person in via infant (icide).
SMS' argument is weak, to say the least. As a hard-core Pro-Lifer I can think of better ways to defend Life as a concept.
Tom

[Columbus]

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong? No, I do not think that infanticide is inherently wrong. Killing babies is so consistently wrong that it can be seen as inherently wrong. But the fact is that an imaginative hypotheciser(sp?) could come up with a circumstance where infanticide would be the Pro-Life choice. "Suppose you are a Jewish family hiding in a closet in 1941 Berlin. The SS agents are getting closer and closer. Would it be wrong to...." But no, infanticide is not inherently wrong, it is just consistently wrong.
Tom

[SMS]

I'm considering a powerful argument for the permissibility of abortion (via. non-personhood) that seems to inescapably led to the conclusion that infanticide is not inherently wrong. This, however, does not mean that infanticide is not wrong under certain non-inherent contexts. For example, as Mary Warren argues, infanticide may be wrong under a social context wherein some loving family both wants and can properly raise that infant. Warren continues that while some loving family can both want and properly raise the fetus, the woman's autonomy takes the moral precedence. Thus, this allows for infanticide to be contextually wrong and not abortion.

Do you think that infanticide is inherently wrong?Depends whether - or when - you count abortion as infanticide.

Sounds like someone's trying to smuggle foetus = person in via infant (icide).
SMS' argument is weak, to say the least. As a hard-core Pro-Lifer I can think of better ways to defend Life as a concept.
Tom

It's not my argument.

[DougP]

No, it isn't inherently wrong. Morality is subjective.

[GenesisNemesis]

Nothing is inherently wrong. But someone on FRDB seems to think so.