Infanticide - Classic Or Dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Toraneko suggests on the Abortion thread that there is nothing wrong with a mother killing or attempting to kill her new born infant. Kiwi was the only person who disagreed on-thread, but I would assume this isn't a common ILE view. Is she right? If not, why not? Would she be more right in countries or regions which don't have mechanisms of public care for new-born children, or mechanisms for adoption?

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 12:59 (twenty-two years ago)

The question is tied up with so many other issues. Depends on the abortion "market". Depends on standards of healthcare (if abortion itself would be too dangerous) .Certainly the existance of infanticide on the statute books suggests that in the laws eyes it is different.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 30 September 2002 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

the real problem in 2002 is obviously regicide.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 30 September 2002 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

It's pretty disgusting, that's all I care to say about it.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)

ever read the pre-persons by Philip K. Dick? In some future, it's deemed that children don't have souls until they are about 10, and can be legally aborted up until this age. Terrifying.

I can't agree with murder.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 30 September 2002 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

infanticide continues in some countries where male children are considered to be the only desirable ones. to me it is dud most definately.
i agree with pete that it is tied up with many other issues and the reasons behind killing an infant may seem justified to the person at the time depending on their situation/religious beliefs.
but it is still DUD

― donna (donna), Monday, 30 September 2002 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

For the purpose of nutritional supplementation and the elimination of ugly, ugly children, classic.

― Leee (Leee), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 00:43 (twenty-two years ago)

i agree - most hcildren should be slaughtere,d doesn't m atter whether it's the mum or the government or the rotweillers.

― Queen G (Queeng), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 06:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I am not in favour of the slaughter of children.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 07:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I may have been too subtle here. I am not interested in whether infanticide is classic or dud because it seems fairly obviously dud to me. I am interested in why nobody really replied to Toraneko about it.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 07:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe because it was obviously dud and toraneko is a bit nuts?

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 07:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Good nuts.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 07:56 (twenty-two years ago)

We would rather not oppose even a bonkers statement by Toraneko for fear of finding ourselves, in any respect, on the same side as Kiwi and the other nutter who turned up on that thread? We thought it was hyperbole, and not worth arguing about? Because everyone (bar Toraneko) accepts it is wrong to kill children, and that there is no controversy to discuss?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

You see those three are very different reasons. I think Toraneko holds some pretty mentalist views (hyperbolic or not) but she tends to present them rationally and saying "oh Toraneko is a nut" (even a 'good nut') is a bit insulting really.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 11:53 (twenty-two years ago)

We would rather not oppose even a bonkers statement by Toraneko for fear of finding ourselves, in any respect, on the same side as Kiwi and the other nutter who turned up on that thread?

I would hope not. Kiwi was anti-abortion, or at least unsure of the ethics. Toraneko was advocating killing babies. I think if you had to choose sides it's a no-brainer. Abortion good/bad is not an obvious question (ie an argument exists), whereas infanticide good/bad is very obvious (ie no argument exists (or so I thought)).

in other words this is a better reason :Because everyone (bar Toraneko) accepts it is wrong to kill children, and that there is no controversy to discuss?

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

saying "they are a nut" = "i need not detain myself persuading same of their error" = "i am nervous that deep down and under pressure my own position will be shown to be i. incoherent/illogical, ii. mere reactive mentalism after all"

speaking as someone who's discovered himself to be a good deal more argumentative and difficult than his self-image of 2 yrs ago allowed for, there are nevertheless endless good pragmatic reasons for not joining full battle at any given moment — with ppl you know and like (= toraneko) it's straight selfish preference, as often as not; with ppl you don't yet know so well (= kiwi) it's easier to cut yr losses re loss of potential future good moments, cz you simply haven't had time for so many yet (i actually think kiwi's been perfectly straightforward and open — and brave, given the general tenor of the boards — abt his beliefs on several threads, so i'd rather he wz cut more slack than he gets (kiwi: DON'T POST WHEN DRUNK!!)

i don't think contesting toraneko's position is a no-brainer: i used to think something pretty similar myself (mine was more extreme: as a consequence of what birthing entails, a mother is entitled to kill anything born of her at ANY AGE)

(this was a consequence of line-in-the-sand moral logic as much as anything, an approach i now find a lot less convincing)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, no ethical questions are no-brainers I guess. What I'm saying is that Martin's saying that a possible reason for not arguing with a position he disagrees with is that people might think he's pro-life! Or at least unsure.

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't finish that ... and I would hope that's not the reason because I think that's a terrible reason.

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

''ever read the pre-persons by Philip K. Dick? In some future, it's deemed that children don't have souls until they are about 10, and can be legally aborted up until this age. Terrifying.''

as it happens i just finished reading his book Valis this morning and this two year old kid (well who knows really, she might have been christ reborn or a robot) was killed in it.

he's fucking crazy (in a good way). but also his sister (?) died at a very young age too.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't argue with toraneko becuz i quickly read the thread. when she was arguing this I was thinking it was just me speed reading so i didn't say anything.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah the dynamics of who-you-argue-with are what are really interesting me, I think.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark s and Tom are right, I should not have called toraneko nuts but the spectre of kiwi haunts me. Saying she is not nuts, and pontificating about the morality of infanticide might make him think 'a ha - abortionists really do take seriously the possibility of killing children'. Whereas saying she is nuts I suppose gives him the 'at least toraneko is being consistent' card.

Real answer why I didn't respond to toraneko - like Julio, I missed the sentence.

My view on abortion: Protection-worthy human life does not begin at some magic age, and more like a 'when does blue become green?' thing. Lots of issues are like thisbut that doesn't mean you have to say 'well in that case it's all green', as kiwi seeks to do.
In abstract terms, I think the whole 'it's a woman's right to choose' argument is a red herring and plays into the hands of pro-lifers (if they want to be known by that stupid name then let them). I mean if it *were* a fully conscious human being in there then this argument would just look stupid. But at the same time, I know that in the real world, outside of philosophical debate, it very much is bound up with issues of women's protection of their own lives and bodies.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I think there was a topic-specific slant to this too, i.e. both Kiwi and Toraneko are actually agreeing on the central point: that by their logic if you are pro-abortion you must be pro-infanticide. Toraneko is saying fine yes I am. To people who don't agree with this logic what Toraneko's saying is irrelevant and can be skipped over.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll have to read the abortion thread tonight really.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah Tom, but did toraneko give any indication of what stage she thinks it's not OK to end human life? I presume she's not in favour of decriminalising murder generally, but maybe she is.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I dont think she has to Nick - it could conceivably be in the same blue-becomes-green area you're talking about.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

In abstract terms, I think the whole 'it's a woman's right to choose' argument is a red herring and plays into the hands of pro-lifers (if they want to be known by that stupid name then let them). I mean if it *were* a fully conscious human being in there then this argument would just look stupid.

I have just remembered that made this same point in a house debating competition at the age of 14 ha ha. I won, too.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I just don't think it's worth disagreeing w/that (Toraneko's, if that's REALLY what she meant) viewpoint, it's so odd/nuts that it must be pretty deeply ingrained. I don't like infanticide, and to accept it on grounds of cultural relativity means you have to accept female circumcision and so on as well. Sad things happen. We can't do much about it. boohoo!

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 12:54 (twenty-two years ago)

who said anything about "cultural relativism"? this is just a bogey word to avoid having to think seriously about someone else's argument: which means to avoid having to think seriously about yr own position

"it's so odd/nuts that it must be pretty deeply ingrained": you're the one who's avoiding rocking the boat (yr own boat)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Sue Bridhead to thread

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I dont think she has to Nick - it could conceivably be in the same blue-becomes-green area you're talking about.
No, she doesn't have to. But not because of the blue-green thing. We still (IMO) have to make laws, even if the end up being based on lines in the sand. cf. paedophilia.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Fine, I'll think seriously about infanticide. I'm sorry, I can't relate to a situation in which infanticide could be justified; I doubt you or Toraneko could either. "Cultural relativism" is the only reference point I have on this. Why would I pretend to rock my boat?

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

situations in which infanticide has been deemed justified (by the infanticidal) as a result of refusing to countenance "cultural relativism": firebombing of dresden, hiroshima/nagasaki, vietnam war (inc. bombing of laos and cambodia), sanctions against iraq (the "other side" in most of these also justified infanticide for non-relativistic reasons)

"thinking seriously" = "rocking yr own boat"

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Stan Fish to thread

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Aren't these political differences, not cultural? Was ww2 about German customs? I'm sorry, I may have a differing def. of Cultural relativism than you. And also these examples seem to be of incidental infanticide, no better morally but different from a mother killing her child, which is what I thought this thread was about.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Overpopulation?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

isn't this thread about why you might or mightn't take issue with someone who said "infanticide is OK"?: i'm trying to show that there are situations where the discussion of the mass deaths of children — and the choosing which ones will die — becomes an element where it's no longer a no-brainer to decide either way... i'm not going to second-guess toraneko's position on when-why it's ok for mothers to kill their babies, and i'm certainly not going to second-guess whether it'll turn out to something you'd define as "cultural" or "political" (or indeed "relativistic")

is it hard to imagine such a position, let alone to imagine being convinced by such a position? maybe it is: but that's what i'm gettin at — do we avoid talking about certain things because we absolutely know where we stand, or because we're (deep down) insecure about where we stand?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

There is the issue as well of responsibility. Whilst a child is inside the mothers body it can be seen as part of that body - mother can do what she will with it (why abortion can never be easily banned because it will take place anyway). Outside of the body the baby is seen to be an autonomous being. However it is not - without someone to look after it in the first six months (and probably two years in this day and age) that child will die. Is neglect infanticide? I can certainly think of situations where it would be justifiable (as I can with murder to be fair).

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Personally I'm sure, though more than likely only because I'm not now nor ever likely to be in a position where this sureness could be challenged. It's not that hard to imagine myself in a different one, but I'm not sure what the point would be. I'm not judging anyone's actions, or opinions, I'm speaking for myself. I guess. I'm not insecure personally (on this issue), at all. In terms of the acts of NATIONS, I don't know... I may disagree, but what use is that? I can't affect them, so does it matter whether or not I think it's right? And aren't these actions "political"? Also, "justifiable" vs "right", etc. We can hope for one while living w/the other... it's 3am here, btw.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

before you said before "i can't relate": now you're saying, OK, i think i can relate, and I think i know what i'd feel and think — though i'm not sure what relevance that has, and yes i'm aware that i''m probably safe from actually having to face the situation

in other words, you actually are prepared — given the urgent personal need — to think seriously about toraneko's position, even though (or possibly because) you're fairly confident you wouldn't have to betray yr beliefs (=tear yrself apart) doing so

it's the "it's nuts"/"it's just relativism" lines that i distrust, cz to me they are evasions not criticisms — there really aren't very many "absolute relativists" (whatever that wd mean), and a lot of the foax who say they are (haha s.fish) just ain't....

i don't imagine my entire belief system is logical or coherent, though i think i'd prefer it to be: engaging (seriously rather than dismissively) with stuff from way outside it is part of the process of discovering where its weaknesses or contradictions are (as in "here's some stuff you never thought of, howdja like it")

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

STOP GETTING AT ME ABOUT MY NUTS. It was just a throwaway 'sod this open-mindedness' jokey comment. (I know you don't believe in jokes)

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I meant that "I" as I stand, can't relate; I can IMAGINE relating. That doesn't seem like the same thing at all. I can think about it, but I don't have to, given my position in the world, so it seems kind of patronising to do so. I wasn't really criticising, I was saying what I thought, from that position. It seems (to me!) false to pretend I'm coming from any other, or can truly relate to others. I really am interested in why Toraneko can claim to relate/possibly support (individual, I think) infanticide. I don't trust my belief system either, don't worry. Also I am very tired and am most likely talking rubbish by now. Oh I only meant "nuts" in relation to Toraneko, not anyone justifying infanticide. Maybe I was being unclear. Sorry. I like my nuts, too.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

"No-one is really a relativist" - Richard Rorty.

N: OTM

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not as big a dick as I think I sound, btw, and I figured this thread was more about our personal opinions than how we could imagine justifying infanticide. I need to sleep. Night all! Oh Pinefox, does that mean we're all absolutists? Jeepers.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:41 (twenty-two years ago)

What's the difference between a Cadillac and a pile of dead babies?

― gabriel rodriguez-doerr (gabe), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't say it, Dick did. Maybe he thought it meant we were all pragmatists; I'm not sure.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

f.kogan to thread (or r.rorty, since he actually said it)

there are very few absolutists also

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I grew up on a farm. Mother animals frequently kill their own babies by smothering, eating or abandoning them. They do this when they either feel the baby is a dud, that they can't look after it (or when they're plain mental - in which place they probably can't look after it anyway).

Medical ethicists have been argueing about infanticide for a long time and when is is and isn't okay.

e.g. Baby is born with major abnormalities and won't survive without ongoing medical attention and even then may not survive. Should it be euthanised? Should it be starved to death (this is apparently pretty much the standard)? Should every medical procedure possible be done to preserve the life? Should a finite number of medical prodedures be done and what then if they fail - euthunise or starve to death?

How long should a baby born with no brain or spinal cord be kept "alive" using a life support machine for?

Who decides what happens with the abnormal baby? The doctor? The mother? The father? If one of the parents chooses is this then infanticide?

What about a woman who has not discoved that she is pregnant until it is too late for an abortion? What if she has some nasty hereditary thing and is not prepared to take the risk of passing it on?

Women suffering from post-natal-depression and other mental compromises are not usually convicted for killing their babies, are they?

If the baby is induced at time after 20 weeks (that's half-term for those who don't know) it quite possibly can be kept alive with lots of medical assistance. Is a >20 abortion an abortion or infanticide if it cries before it dies?

You guys don't read enough women's magazines. Infanticide is all over the place in them and it's very hard to ever feel that what the woman did was wrong.

e.g. Girl is pregnant but still gets periods through whole pregnancy and hardly shows at all and so doesn't realise she's preggers -OR- girl is preggers but somehow in major denial. Girl gives birth to baby in toilet (frequently at nightclub) thinking all she needs is a good crap. Baby dies in toilet due to hitting head/drowning/not getting the right attention to start breathing etc. -OR- Girl sees messy baby thing and tries to flush it or wraps it up in loo paper and shoves it in the bin either knowing or not knowing what it is. Baby dies, girl carries on dancing. I mean, sure, she's a mentalist and needs some counselling but would you convict her of murder?

I'm not talking about women casually killing their children willy-nilly. I'm talking about women in desperate situations, whether due to physical, medical or mental problems or their own or of the baby's choosing to kill their new-born.

I don't know where there should be a cut off point. I don't think my mum should be allowed to kill me at 29 years of age. I sort of suspect somewhere between one day and two years would be what I feel comfortable with, depending on what abnormalities, if any, a child has. On the other hand maybe I don't believe in any age limit because I do believe in euthanasia and if I was really ill or damaged to the point of being a vegetable then I would want my mum or someone else to kill me. With a non-abormal child then it's a bit arbitrary. Maybe a month or so.

Of course, defining abnormal becomes the next bit step.

― toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't have a cadillac in my garage.

― gabriel rodriguez-doerr (gabe), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

OK a lot of question marks on yr post toraneko.

''Baby dies, girl carries on dancing. I mean, sure, she's a mentalist and needs some counselling but would you convict her of murder?''

she should be held to account in a court of law surely?

''I don't know where there should be a cut off point. I don't think my mum should be allowed to kill me at 29 years of age. I sort of suspect somewhere between one day and two years would be what I feel comfortable with, depending on what abnormalities, if any, a child has.''

what abt the father's role in this? and with abnormalities it's all a matter of degrees isn't it? ppl with disabilities can lead a good life too.

''What about a woman who has not discoved that she is pregnant until it is too late for an abortion?''

why not give it away for adoption?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 19 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Mang, you grew up in the south too! You know as well as I do that trying to argue against sentimentality never really gets you anywhere. ;)

I dare you to run for Congress on a baby-killing platform.

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:40 (eighteen years ago)

"latebloomer, you and I may be completely okay with that criterion, but the vast majority of people really, really, really don't want to think of themselves as equivalent to animals in any way (see: refusal to except evolutionary biology). I'm not saying this make sense, I'm just saying it's the way things are."

i know, i'm fully aware of this. but this is ilx...we're all reasonable, mature rational beings here are we not?

(teehee)

― latebloomer, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:40 (eighteen years ago)

Killing dolphins makes me really sad. Babies not so much.

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:40 (eighteen years ago)

I dare you to run for Congress on a baby-killing platform.

jessie monster on Saturday, March 17, 2007 6:40 PM (13 seconds ago)

if i get elected, do i gets a cookie?

― latebloomer, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:41 (eighteen years ago)

what we need is TIM@KFC.EDU's most rational argumentation stylee to solve this debate.

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:41 (eighteen years ago)

you get to tell dead baby jokes in inaugural address!

― strgn, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

The scary part is, you might could pull it off.

"NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, I'LL BE DAMNED IF THEY TAKE MAH GUNS, and lol killing babies A-OK."

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

maybe if you said "KILLING BABIES, INCLUDING THOSE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS."

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:43 (eighteen years ago)

babies = terrorists!

― strgn, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:43 (eighteen years ago)

oh yeah, can't forget the all-important "killing arab babies" contingent.

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

I like how this thread and the rolling parenting thread are now next to each other.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

racism makes everything more palatable in the south!

― jessie monster, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

I like how this thread and the rolling parenting thread are now next to each other.

Me, I'm not so keen.

― Michael Jones, Saturday, 17 March 2007 23:53 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, i don't mean this thread to disparage or downgrade the parents here or their children.

i just started randomly thinking about this today for some reason. i'm usually not the best person to argue delicate issues like this, either.

― latebloomer, Sunday, 18 March 2007 00:17 (eighteen years ago)

oh boo hoo 'i have a baby now so the very mention of baby-killing offends my delicate & vital sensibilities!!'

― and what, Sunday, 18 March 2007 00:40 (eighteen years ago)

lol @ I R CONTROVERSIALIST TINKER, I HAVE TRANSCENDED YOU PUNY MORALISTS & YER RITE & RONG

― gershy, Sunday, 18 March 2007 01:15 (eighteen years ago)

meh? it's a fun exercise to think about things like this every once in a while.

― jessie monster, Sunday, 18 March 2007 01:18 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sure I will be viewed as a nut job for saying this, but infanticide is, quite literally classic. It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome. It has been practised in most societies at one time or another, and it has been an indispensible tool for preventing population from badly outpacing available resources. It has been most notably a feature of resource-poor countries and island societies.

The usual way this is done is to expose the infant soon after birth. Sometimes there is a designated place where this is done. This method also allowed exposed infants to be rescued by people who could raise it - although the rescued infant could live out its life as a slave.

On the whole, contraception is much the sanest and most humane approach to this problem. Abortion is a more problematic, but still reasonably humane approach. Infanticide after birth is easily the most wrenching, unethical and cruel way of attaining the required end. Because of this, I don't recommend it, since there are much better ways to get where you need to go.

OTOH, rejecting all means of controlling population (except the proved-ineffectual method of abstinence) will only ensure an unstable, famine-ridden, unhealthy and desperately poor society in the end. It's a certainty. So when the pro-life people start talking about the holocaust of the unborn, they are talking about something real, but they also live in a fantasy where unfettered procreation never causes comparable sorrow or harm.

― Aimless, Sunday, 18 March 2007 01:24 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.truthtree.com/images/eugenics.jpg

― gershy, Sunday, 18 March 2007 01:34 (eighteen years ago)

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!

― Kiwi, Sunday, 18 March 2007 02:18 (eighteen years ago)

Aimless your post 4 realz?

― Kiwi, Sunday, 18 March 2007 02:20 (eighteen years ago)

he speaks sooth

― unfished business, Sunday, 18 March 2007 02:35 (eighteen years ago)

Orly? Well Im glad we agree truth is a criterion we can use...but it has to be a pisstake.

― Kiwi, Sunday, 18 March 2007 02:44 (eighteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to be anything. He's right about classical practices, anyway!

― Laurel, Sunday, 18 March 2007 04:11 (eighteen years ago)

I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know if this point has been made already, but it's important to distinguish between infanticide and abortion. Abortion takes place in the womb before the fetus has developed into a child; infanticide occurs after the child is born. Anti-choice activists will have you believe that two are one and the same, but they're not.

― souldesqueeze, Sunday, 18 March 2007 04:31 (eighteen years ago)

i've done and said my fair share of shit i'm not proud of, but defending the killing of babies on the grounds of retaining precious resources when most of us have cable (for example) makes you a very very evil and bad person.

even if was just a for instance argument.

― darraghmac, Sunday, 18 March 2007 13:35 (eighteen years ago)

Kiwi, I think you have read my post through the lens of your emotion. The fact that I coupled "infanticide" and "classic" in the first sentence seems to have cast a distorting effect over what I actually said. If you go back and reread each sentence carefully and in context, I think you might find that I did not argue in favor of infanticide in the present day or as a means of population control. I specifically did not, in the second paragraph.

It is equally true that I did not vehemently condemn infanticide in its historic context, and I accept the idea that a society must protect itself from overpopulation. Since my vehemence cannot change the past and is not required to change the present, I don't see it as necessary to the subject. If you were to put me into a room with an infant about to be killed, I would protect it. Vehemently, I assure you.

― Aimless, Sunday, 18 March 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

what if the room was fairly full, y'know, getting kinda stuffy?

― darraghmac, Sunday, 18 March 2007 19:47 (eighteen years ago)

defending the killing of babies on the grounds of retaining precious resources when most of us have cable (for example) makes you a very very evil and bad person

This is a parochial POV and applies mainly to wealthy post-industrial societies. If you expand "us" to include humans everywhere, then it also includes people in places like Haiti, an island nation, desperately overpopulated and the poorest in the Western hemisphere, where the universality of cable tv is not so much in evidence. The same is true in most of Asia, Africa and South America, where most humans live.

But again, I repeat, better methods exist and they are far less brutal. Those are the appropriate tools to use. Infanticide is not required to achieve the purpose. But I will defend the purpose - population control - and I don't consider that purpose evil at all. Allowing society to degrade itself to the lowest possible level seems like a greater evil to me, and brings all manner of further evils in its train.

― Aimless, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

darraghmac, in spite of your efforts to bait me, I can't believe our positions on killing babies is much different on any practical level, or that you can prove any of what I have said to be factually wrong. I would be much interested for you to uncloak your own thoughts (or inarticulate feelings) on the subject of population control, contraception and abortion, if you would, please. I think we've both already ruled out infanticide as the preferred alternative.

― Aimless, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:10 (eighteen years ago)

where do you stand on the whole "gimps & 'tards" issue - throw them off cliffs before or after the babies?

― gershy, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

gershy, if only you knew...you wouldn't feel so proud of what you just wrote.

― Aimless, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:18 (eighteen years ago)

population control- iq and attractiveness testing before mating is allowed.

contraception- not necessary after above

abortion- smart and pretty woman don't have abortions. only ugly and evil hags do. i saw it on a pamphlet.

but

i don't agree the legitimisation of infanticide, or any -icide, for any means whatsoever. population control certainly doesn't do it for me. i don't agree that a child below the age of two should draw the short straw because resources are tight, because they may or may not have less awareness.

i think in that argument, my feelings would be people that aren't emotionally aware enough to put themselves forward for 'sacrifice' (babies, basketcases, hormonal females, what have you) shouldn't be included as possible sacrificial prospects. i'd go for getting rid of oldsters first, then women of past childbearing age. then (in order)

single mothers
minorities
emos/goths
golfers
middle managers
the fat and ugly
and then a larger group comprising of anyone who isn't me.

― darraghmac, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:32 (eighteen years ago)

[/tongue]
[/cheek]

― darraghmac, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

i just want to know how this line of thinking works....also, in any society where desperate decisions about resources take place, it's the powerful in society, regardless of age/mental capacity, who will do ok, so i find these "rationalist" (in more way than one) ideas completely useless.

― gershy, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:37 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood -- did darraghmac just claim that contraception isn't necessary if only smart and/or pretty people mate? I can't even tell who thinks they're kidding and is just being really clumsy about it.

― Laurel, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

Who would have thought that the ultimate troll thread would generate so many earnest positive responses? Count on ILX to get ahead of the curve, I guess.

Infanticide = Dud*1000,000, you freaks!

― schwantz, Sunday, 18 March 2007 20:55 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

what bout withholding vactination to the weaki\est specimens of the species in the hope that thjey do not grow up and reproduce

― Electronic Bugaloo, Sunday, 23 March 2008 00:29 (seventeen years ago)

Would you include poor literacy as a weakness?

― Jarlrmai, Sunday, 23 March 2008 00:33 (seventeen years ago)

no, people likely to grow into sticklers for correct spellings/grammar would probably succumb to disease, only tough people would survive

― Electronic Bugaloo, Sunday, 23 March 2008 00:45 (seventeen years ago)

What if they were tough and had a penchant for a properly constructed sentence?

― Jarlrmai, Sunday, 23 March 2008 00:51 (seventeen years ago)

Then they would LIVE! and REPRODUCE!!

― Electronic Bugaloo, Sunday, 23 March 2008 01:07 (seventeen years ago)

holy shit. so many seriously broken brains above.

― sunny successor, Sunday, 23 March 2008 06:00 (seventeen years ago)

i'm not quite sure if i was being serious or not:-/

― latebloomer, Sunday, 23 March 2008 07:33 (seventeen years ago)

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!

It was practised in both ancient Greece and Rome!
-- Kiwi, Saturday, March 17, 2007 7:18 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

fwiw

classic: adj. 1.[ ... ] 3. Of or characteristic of the literature, art, and culture of ancient Greece and Rome; classical.

― Aimless, Sunday, 23 March 2008 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

what about INFANTACIDE?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3280256.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=4F84C7EF07395AB69314BA16F825F54AA55A1E4F32AD3138

― moonship journey to baja, Sunday, 23 March 2008 18:54 (seventeen years ago)

http://la.metblogs.com/archives/fanta.jpg

― latebloomer, Sunday, 23 March 2008 20:03 (seventeen years ago)

srsly guy sometimes i think it would have been better if I had died in my infancy

― Electronic Bugaloo, Sunday, 23 March 2008 20:28 (seventeen years ago)

one year passes...

So this is the most horrifying news story I've heard in a while:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/otty-sanchez-woman-accuse_n_245627.html

― ENBB, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 17:43 (sixteen years ago)

Woman Accused Of Killing Newborn, Ate Brain

wau

― karl...arlk...rlka...lkar..., Wednesday, 29 July 2009 17:53 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.