Even infanticide is okay

[Danioover9000]

@Basman

1 hour ago, Basman said:

We operate on a social-contract of preserving the lives of societies members. The legal right to your life extends to babies, regardless of their ability to understand that. That is the simple reason why infanticide isn't acceptable. As soon the kid is out the womb, there's no room for doubt about its personhood. That's a person and its far too late for an abortion.

Even if there was legal juristiction to kill newborns with certain health issues or genetic defects, who exactly decides what is just or not? It's inherently subjective, therefor it is better to have the standard operating procedure of preserving life for its own sake as a standard operating procedure. Everybody has a chance of happiness in some way.

Also, cutting cost arguments can be a slippery slope, since it is easy to overstate the cost of anything that you don't care about.

   Which is why most debates and arguments about abortion avoid the trimester angle. As soon as a person tries to justify abortion and extend it to after the baby's umbilical cord is severed, to third trimester, to second trimester and even first trimester it makes the pro abortion debater look psychopathic and inhuman, which is why most would argue around the first few weeks to 2 months of pregnancy as a good window to consider and follow through the abortion. Also that angle entails the philosophical issue of personhood as well as the epistemological issue of where the line is drawn which ends up creating self looping arguments over and over.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Basman

   Which is why most debates and arguments about abortion avoid the trimester angle. As soon as a person tries to justify abortion and extend it to after the baby's umbilical cord is severed, to third trimester, to second trimester and even first trimester it makes the pro abortion debater look psychopathic and inhuman, which is why most would argue around the first few weeks to 2 months of pregnancy as a good window to consider and follow through the abortion. Also that angle entails the philosophical issue of personhood as well as the epistemological issue of where the line is drawn which ends up creating self looping arguments over and over.

One thing to take into consideration is that late-term abortions tend to happen because the life of the mother is at stake or the pregnancy isn’t viable (meaning the baby won’t be able to survive outside of the womb).

Very few people would go through 8 months of pregnancy and decide to abort, unless they had to.

So, even though the idea of late-term abortions tend to put people off, those tend to come from people who want to keep their babies but cannot.

The vast majority of abortions happen in the 1st trimester.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, spiritual memes said:

Fair enough. I disagree but I understand your sentiment.

If I was somehow, trapped in a baby body with an extreme deformity such that my life was constantly suffering, I would want to be euthanized and someone keeping me alive would be doing it against my will. Its hard because you can't really understand the will of such a baby.

Like I said, it is very difficult in these cases.

[Breakingthewall]

@LSD-Rumi

Your reasoning is completely logical and your conclusions are the same as those reached by a revolutionary philosophy: Nazism. Let's see, nature is absolutely ruthless. if a baby of an animal is born defective, it is eliminated in minutes. the old survive only as long as they are fit. Species that do not adapt go extinct. going against this is not only weakness and degeneration, it is going against life. we're all going to die anyway, so there's no point in prolonging the inevitable when it's useless. useless for the evolution of the species.

where do you find a flaw in this reasoning?  don't have it right? except for a reason. we humans are not governed by natural law. we were, let's say, expelled from the garden of eden. our path is to transcend the animal. we are a hive organism, not individuals, the individual is non-existent, and our path is towards total ethics, towards the elimination of barriers between us, towards the fusion between individual and group, and the fusion of all groups into one: existing ones. the manifestation of this is solidarity.

[zurew]

17 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

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

 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? 

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. 

If you take such a position, you would have to be okay with killing every person who has some kind of severe mental illness or severe disease or deformity (which would be killing millions of people). Where do you draw the line (what constitutes as a severe illness or disease or deformity), and why do you draw it exactly there?

What about instances, where a person is physically or mentally seriously hurt for a while, but there is a good chance for recovery? How do you deal with those instances?

Or what about the fact, that because of the exponential rate of technological development, as time goes on, we will be able to cure or at the very least, treat more and more severe illnesses and diseases? 

19 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

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.

 where do you draw the line, and how do you measure who will suffer more and who will enjoy life more?

Even philosophically speaking this will be probably very hard for you to answer, but then we get into the pragmatic side of things, where you created a world where people using the power of institutions can actually kill people and infants based on an arbitrary principle . Once you create a system like that, It doesn't really matter where you drew your line first, because people will be able to eventually move that line elsewhere(and you will inevitably get an almost nazi like world or an even more extreme world, where  for instance only the top 1% is allowed to survive)

If reducing/preventing suffering is your main argument/objective , then I would ask you this: What is the difference between your position and between an antinatalist position and why do you put more emphasis on suffering than on anything else? 

[Danioover9000]

@Breakingthewall

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@LSD-Rumi

Your reasoning is completely logical and your conclusions are the same as those reached by a revolutionary philosophy: Nazism. Let's see, nature is absolutely ruthless. if a baby of an animal is born defective, it is eliminated in minutes. the old survive only as long as they are fit. Species that do not adapt go extinct. going against this is not only weakness and degeneration, it is going against life. we're all going to die anyway, so there's no point in prolonging the inevitable when it's useless. useless for the evolution of the species.

where do you find a flaw in this reasoning?  don't have it right? except for a reason. we humans are not governed by natural law. we were, let's say, expelled from the garden of eden. our path is to transcend the animal. we are a hive organism, not individuals, the individual is non-existent, and our path is towards total ethics, towards the elimination of barriers between us, towards the fusion between individual and group, and the fusion of all groups into one: existing ones. the manifestation of this is solidarity.

 

   Funnily enough, did you know that the German Nazis created a program of breeding more babies, to increase Germany's population to have more blue eyed and blonde hair people? Well, while it seemed fucked up, the convoluted and twisted irony, is that  Anni-Frid Lyngstad was produced from that event, to eventually become part of the Swedish group ABBA .

   The world is a small place, and truth is stranger than fiction.

[Danioover9000]

@Emerald

11 hours ago, Emerald said:

One thing to take into consideration is that late-term abortions tend to happen because the life of the mother is at stake or the pregnancy isn’t viable (meaning the baby won’t be able to survive outside of the womb).

Very few people would go through 8 months of pregnancy and decide to abort, unless they had to.

So, even though the idea of late-term abortions tend to put people off, those tend to come from people who want to keep their babies but cannot.

The vast majority of abortions happen in the 1st trimester.

   That's true, the average abortions come to around the 1st trimester, and after that are lesser due to health risks to the mother.

   Now before you stated that your hardest line was at body sovereignty, and that the mother has the ultimate say whether to abort or not.

   What if the mother was in a coma and was pregnant beforehand? Or during the comatose state? Would you still say the doctors or state can't intervene here to determine if they should carry the fetus to terms, or due to prior conditions of that pregnancy decide to terminate the fetus while the mother is in a coma?

[Zedman]

@LSD-Rumi

You made a case based on a thing that babies dont feel anything and are not self aware. Then why do you need to justify it further by needing baby to be deformed?

[LSD-Rumi]

5 minutes ago, Zedman said:

@LSD-Rumi

You made a case based on a thing that babies dont feel anything and are not self aware. Then why do you need to justify it further by needing baby to be deformed?

Why to kill a baby that is totally ok and healthy? We are here to experience life, we are here to live not to die. The case I made for deformed babies so that we produce a better life for organism that live on this earth.

[Zedman]

@LSD-Rumi

Then why do you need the other justification? Lets say for a thought experiment we established that babies feel pain and are self aware. So what? One second of pain and fear for the great purpose of better life on earth?

[LSD-Rumi]

7 minutes ago, Zedman said:

@LSD-Rumi

Then why do you need the other justification? Lets say for a thought experiment we established that babies feel pain and are self aware. So what? One second of pain and fear for the great purpose of better life on earth?

You cannot kill a person that is self aware and have a life and want to live and have relatives and friends  who have known them for years. A baby has nothing of that. A baby is like a living tissue that has very low levels of consciousness and self awareness, a baby doesn't mind being killed. 

 

[Zedman]

1 minute ago, LSD-Rumi said:

You cannot kill a person that is self aware and have a life and want to live and have relatives and friends  who have known them for years. A baby has nothing of that. A baby is like a living tissue that has very low levels of consciousness and self awareness, a baby doesn't mind being killed. 

 

I am still not convinced man. Each of 2 arguments cant stand on its own and is wrong. Can we really put two wrongs together and get a right? And now we even opened a can of worms about consent and about measuring levels of consciousness. And until what age is it ok? Lets say child got deformed at 2 months? is it ok? 2 years, still ok? Each of which is another debate on its own. I am not anti abortion but my feeling and intuition says born baby is a no-no.

[LSD-Rumi]

@Zedman it is a tricky topic but the basic idea sis still true. 

[Danioover9000]

@LSD-Rumi  @Carl-Richard @Leo Gura @Arcangelo @Space @zurew

   And other users, since @Emerald is dodging the question, what are your thoughts about the crux of the issue of bodily agency? What if the mother is unconscious that she can't make a decision whether to keep or deliver?

22 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Emerald

   That's true, the average abortions come to around the 1st trimester, and after that are lesser due to health risks to the mother.

   Now before you stated that your hardest line was at body sovereignty, and that the mother has the ultimate say whether to abort or not.

   What if the mother was in a coma and was pregnant beforehand? Or during the comatose state? Would you still say the doctors or state can't intervene here to determine if they should carry the fetus to terms, or due to prior conditions of that pregnancy decide to terminate the fetus while the mother is in a coma?

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@LSD-Rumi  @Carl-Richard @Leo Gura @Arcangelo @Space @zurew

   And other users, since @Emerald is dodging the question, what are your thoughts about the crux of the issue of bodily agency? What if the mother is unconscious that she can't make a decision whether to keep or deliver?

I’m not dodging any questions.

I notice that this is the third time you’re ascribing motives to me that I don’t have.

First the thing about thinking I was secretly replying to you when I was replying to someone else.

The second was the thing where you thought I was bullying you.

And now you’re ascribing to me that I’m dodging questions.

I feel like you may be projecting something/someone onto me that I’m not.

What specifically was your question about the issues with bodily sovereignty?

[Danioover9000]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

What if the mother was in a coma and was pregnant beforehand? Or during the comatose state? Would you still say the doctors or state can't intervene here to determine if they should carry the fetus to terms, or due to prior conditions of that pregnancy decide to terminate the fetus while the mother is in a coma?

@Emerald  The questions above.

 

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I’m not dodging any questions.

I notice that this is the third time you’re ascribing motives to me that I don’t have.

First the thing about thinking I was secretly replying to you when I was replying to someone else.

The second was the thing where you thought I was bullying you.

And now you’re ascribing to me that I’m dodging questions.

I feel like you may be projecting something/someone onto me that I’m not.

What specifically was your question about the issues with bodily sovereignty?

   Okay, so what took you so long to reply to me?

[Juan]

17 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Okay, so what took you so long to reply to me?

Dude…relax! You know we are human beings and we have a life right? We have a lot of more stuff going on and work to do outside either the forum and the internet.

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Emerald  The questions above.

   Okay, so what took you so long to reply to me?

As to your question, it’s a difficult one.

What I would say is that the best solution is for it to be policy that the mother should create a birth plan for if these contingencies.

And part of it could be that she grants the father (or another friend/family member in the absence of the father) to make that decision if she’s unable to consent.

Otherwise, I think the default position should be with the doctor.

[Danioover9000]

@Something Funny

10 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

Wtf is this question, lol. 

WTF is this post LOL?

[Danioover9000]

@Juan

3 hours ago, Juan said:

Dude…relax! You know we are human beings and we have a life right? We have a lot of more stuff going on and work to do outside either the forum and the internet.

   Oh, so you're @Emerald's white knight now? That very sweet of you to answer for her instead, you are a darling. I'll keep that in mind that people have lives for now next time okay?