Even infanticide is okay

[LSD-Rumi]

Conservatives are so up  their asses about abortion. I go beyond saying that abortion is entirely ethical amd should always be legal. I say even infanticide should be legal ( under some kind of supervision and court order) in certain circumstances when the baby is born with a deformity or a severe disease. And my argument would be, why not? Infants apperantly don't feel anything and are not even self aware. Why would I bring a deformed infant in to the world and make him suffer when I can bring healthy ones who would enjoy life more. And from an economical point of view, this will massively reduce expenses on such kids. 

Someone would say, how about I kill you? I would say If I am mentally retarded and nobody cares about me, go ahead and shoot me in the head. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[spiritual memes]

Fair enough. They're gonna respawn anyway

[Nilsi]

34 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

Someone would say, how about I kill you? I would say If I am mentally retarded and nobody cares about me, go ahead and shoot me in the head. 

I consider you mentally retarded, so are you cool with me killing you?

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[LSD-Rumi]

23 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I consider you mentally retarded, so are you cool with me killing you?

I am not, maybe a court can decide.

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

I am not, maybe a court can decide.

The court decided, youre definitely mentally retarded - so, can we dispose of you now?

Edited March 19, 2023 by Nilsi

[LSD-Rumi]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The court decided, youre definitely mentally retarded - so, can we dispose of you now?

If Leo agrees 

maybe you  the one who will get disposed of soon, I can smell it from a hundred miles 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, LSD-Rumi said:

maybe you  the one who will get disposed of soon, I can smell it from a hundred miles 

I'm invincible 

[Emerald]

I totally disagree. Babies are absolutely conscious and capable of feeling. And so are babies/people who are mentally disabled or deformed.

If you’ve ever been around a newborn and interacted with one, you would know this. And if you’ve been around special needs kids, you’d also know this.

Abortion exists in large part to avoid infanticide and to assist in family planning.

In times when women didn’t have access to abortion or birth control and their husband was understood as being in charge of their sexual behavior… and they didn’t have enough to feed their family and they already had a bunch of kids, they would sometimes snuff a new baby by leaving it to the elements.

Killing the baby was many women’s only path to avoid having to take care of an unwanted child.

There was one chilling account that I heard of a woman who was raising kids in the 40s (before birth control and abortion was widely available) saying that once she got past her 5th pregnancy, she’d just shove the baby’s mouth full of soil and leave it in the woods.

And fetuses are definitely alive and conscious too. So, the “fetuses aren’t conscious” arguments to allow abortion, just isn’t true once a few months of pregnancy have passed.

So, abortion is still tragic.

But I understand that worse things would come if it weren’t available as an option… like a huge uptick in infantide cases.

And I’m a bodily sovereignty absolutist. I view the individual as the sole governor of their own body.

And it would be a violation of that principle to force someone to carry a child to term.

So, it would be a violation of bodily sovereignty to deny someone access to abortion.

And once the child is born, it would be a violation of bodily sovereignty to commit infanticide.

The whole argument about whether the fetus is conscious is a red herring. And it can lead to people coming to the same infanticidal and anti-disabled conclusions that you have. 

[Roy]

Abortion may be necessary but it's still degenerate. And watch out @LSD-Rumi the Nazis subscribed to the same line of reasoning.

[LSD-Rumi]

@Emerald if I had a deformed baby, I will shoot him in the head instantly out of love of course.

Edited March 19, 2023 by LSD-Rumi

[spiritual memes]

14 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I totally disagree. Babies are absolutely conscious and capable of feeling. And so are babies/people who are mentally disabled or deformed.

If you’ve ever been around a newborn and interacted with one, you would know this. And if you’ve been around special needs kids, you’d also know this.

Abortion exists in large part to avoid infanticide and to assist in family planning.

In times when women didn’t have access to abortion or birth control and their husband was understood as being in charge of their sexual behavior… and they didn’t have enough to feed their family and they already had a bunch of kids, they would sometimes snuff a new baby by leaving it to the elements.

Killing the baby was many women’s only path to avoid having to take care of an unwanted child.

There was one chilling account that I heard of a woman who was raising kids in the 40s (before birth control and abortion was widely available) saying that once she got past her 5th pregnancy, she’d just shove the baby’s mouth full of soil and leave it in the woods.

And fetuses are definitely alive and conscious too. So, the “fetuses aren’t conscious” arguments to allow abortion, just isn’t true once a few months of pregnancy have passed.

So, abortion is still tragic.

But I understand that worse things would come if it weren’t available as an option… like a huge uptick in infantide cases.

And I’m a bodily sovereignty absolutist. I view the individual as the sole governor of their own body.

And it would be a violation of that principle to force someone to carry a child to term.

So, it would be a violation of bodily sovereignty to deny someone access to abortion.

And once the child is born, it would be a violation of bodily sovereignty to commit infanticide.

The whole argument about whether the fetus is conscious is a red herring. And it can lead to people coming to the same infanticidal and anti-disabled conclusions that you have. 

@Emerald What's your view on antinatalism? The antinatalist would argue that abortion or killing the baby painlessly reduces the total suffering in the world. Especially if its disabled. I don't necessarily agree but I find it interesting.

[LSD-Rumi]

1 minute ago, Roy said:

Abortion may be necessary but it's still degenerate. And watch out @LSD-Rumi the Nazis subscribed to the same line of reasoning.

Hitler was a vegan 

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

@Emerald if I had a deformed baby, I will shoot him in the head instantly out of love of course.

I firmly disagree with eugenics.

[LSD-Rumi]

@Emerald I totally understand your position, but I also believe women are soft in general and don't easily adopt such extremes views.

[Nilsi]

12 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I firmly disagree with eugenics.

Where do you draw the line?

Do you allow parents to abort a pregnancy, if it's clear that the child is going to be severely disabled?

What about wearing a condom or being on birth control, when you don't want to have a baby?

"Firmly disagreeing with eugenics" is a big nothing burger.

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, spiritual memes said:

@Emerald What's your view on antinatalism? The antinatalist would argue that abortion or killing the baby painlessly reduces the total suffering in the world. Especially if its disabled. I don't necessarily agree but I find it interesting.

I disagree with anti-natalism because it mis-attributes the many global issues to over-population and it puts the onus of blame for things like climate change onto individuals instead of onto systems.

And it poses the solution “just don’t have babies” to issues that require more complex solutions.

The reality is that most anti-natalists probably didn’t want babies in the first place. So, they probably didn’t stop themselves from having babies to help the climate.

It’s that they didn’t want babies and saw one of the perks of that decision as being that it puts less strain on the environment. And then they developed an ideology around that decision as more and more nosy people tried to pressure them into having children.

I don’t believe anyone actually makes the decision to not have babies to save the climate. This is why the rhetoric of anti-natalism will always fall flat.

But the issue isn’t over-population, it’s the way that society operates that makes it such a burden on our planet. And there are many structural changes we could make to curb things like climate change.

Also anti-natalism and concerns about over-population can and often have led to Eco-Fascist eugenic arguments. 

[zurew]

39 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I totally disagree. Babies are absolutely conscious and capable of feeling. And so are babies/people who are mentally disabled or deformed.

Depends on what development stage we are talking about. If there is no formed brain or central nervous system what makes you think that the baby can feel or be consious of anything? - We know  for example, that if parts of your brain isn't working you can't feel pain.

[LSD-Rumi]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Depends on what development stage we are talking about. If there is no formed brain or central nervous system what makes you think that the baby can feel or be consious of anything? - We know  for example, that if parts of your brain isn't working you can't feel pain.

even if it can feel, we can use methods of painless killing. 

[spiritual memes]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I disagree with anti-natalism because it mis-attributes the many global issues to over-population and it puts the onus of blame for things like climate change onto individuals instead of onto systems.

And it poses the solution “just don’t have babies” to issues that require more complex solutions.

The reality is that most anti-natalists probably didn’t want babies in the first place. So, they probably didn’t stop themselves from having babies to help the climate.

It’s that they didn’t want babies and saw one of the perks of that decision as being that it puts less strain on the environment. And then they developed an ideology around that decision as more and more nosy people tried to pressure them into having children.

I don’t believe anyone actually makes the decision to not have babies to save the climate. This is why the rhetoric of anti-natalism will always fall flat.

But the issue isn’t over-population, it’s the way that society operates that makes it such a burden on our planet. And there are many structural changes we could make to curb things like climate change.

Also anti-natalism and concerns about over-population can and often have led to Eco-Fascist eugenic arguments. 

I agree with all of your points, but antinatalism has a deeper philosophy. Banatar's asymmetry argues that the absence of pain is a good thing but thr absence of pain is not bad. As long as no being is deprived of said happiness, then it is, as he puts it, "not bad"

I've been reading about it and a surprising number of philosophers are into it. Antinatalism sees birth as an inherently negative thing and their endgame is the extinction of the human species.

 

[zurew]

1 minute ago, LSD-Rumi said:

even if it can feel, we can use methods of painless killing. 

I disagree with that, because that would open up a bunch of bullet bitings, that I wouldn't be comfortable with philosophically.