Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

[evensaul]

Is there any moral difference between late term abortion and infanticide?

I see no moral difference. Abortion is early infanticide.

[Dionysus]

Would you regard any instance of a parent killing their child as infanticide?

[evensaul]

Would you regard any instance of a parent killing their child as infanticide?

I don't know. I'm sure there are lots of hypotheticals or factual cases you could throw at me to make me pause and consider. But your topic is one separate from mine. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread on that question?

This thread is about the moral equivalency of late term abortion and infanticide. Do you see a moral difference?

[Dionysus]

This thread is about the moral equivalency of late term abortion and infanticide. Do you see a moral difference?

Well, it depends. If you're assuming that all things are equal, then you might as well be asking something like "Is murdering a fully-developed, healthy, newborn baby the same as murdering a fully-developed, healthy baby minutes away from being on the outside of a few inches of its mother's skin?"

If we comparing the intrinsic moral value of two given acts, it's probably important to consider a variety of circumstances relative to those acts in order to draw useful conclusions. But if we're starting off with the assumption that the two things are exactly the same irrespective of any conditions, then there's no point in discussing it, really.

[evensaul]

Well, it depends. If you're assuming that all things are equal, then you might as well be asking something like "Is murdering a fully-developed, healthy, newborn baby the same as murdering a fully-developed, healthy baby minutes away from being on the outside of a few inches of its mother's skin?"

Yes. And one could also ask "Is killing a terribly deformed baby moments after birth the same as killing a terribly deformed baby minutes before birth?"

If we comparing the intrinsic moral value of two given acts, it's probably important to consider a variety of circumstances relative to those acts in order to draw useful conclusions. But if we're starting off with the assumption that the two things are exactly the same irrespective of any conditions, then there's no point in discussing it, really.

I disagree. I'm willing to compare apples to apples. Healthy to healthy, brain dead to brain dead, or whatever condition you want to discuss, if both the unborn and delivered baby are in equal physical condition.

[MindTrap028]

[QUOTE=opIs there any moral difference between late term abortion and infanticide? [/QUOTE]

For clarity, here you are referring to the abortion, where the unborn could survive outside of the womb. Even, as they say, when they are in the birth canal in the process of being born.

-----
To that I would say, no there is zero relevant moral difference, as the only relevant difference is location. Location is not morally relevant.

[Dionysus]

I disagree. I'm willing to compare apples to apples.

You disagree that a discussion that assumes no difference between any two given apples, where the intent is to discover if there is a difference between those two apples, is pointless?

[evensaul]

Yep. I'm putting it out for discussion because efforts from the left to argue what is legal rather than moral, or that the location of the baby matters, or to otherwise muddy the waters, or their complete failure to engage in that discussion, will speak volumes. So let's see if any liberals attempt to make a distinction between late term abortion and infanticide. I'm expecting to hear crickets.

[Dionysus]

Yep. I'm putting it out for discussion because efforts from the left to argue what is legal rather than moral, or that the location of the baby matters, or to otherwise muddy the waters, or their complete failure to engage in that discussion, will speak volumes. So let's see if any liberals attempt to make a distinction between late term abortion and infanticide. I'm expecting to hear crickets.

I imagine so. I mean, if your claim is "Here are two identical things. I'm not interested in talking about those two things if there are differences between them. Discuss!", I don't know how you'd expect anything but crickets.

[evensaul]

I imagine so. I mean, if your claim is "Here are two identical things. I'm not interested in talking about those two things if there are differences between them. Discuss!", I don't know how you'd expect anything but crickets.

Well, Dio, we'll see. If we had a larger "progressive" group here, if liberals hadn't already lost the war on ODN and fled the field of battle (hehe that may get a rise) someone would argue that there is a difference between the unborn and born, such as the umbilical cord or some other nonsense. But I'm glad to see you're not trying to do that.

So, if one believes or is willing to concede that there is no moral difference between late term abortion and infanticide, shouldn't those procedures be treated the same legally? Those people who believe late term abortion should be legal should also believe that infanticide should be legal. And those who believe infanticide should be illegal should also believe that late term abortion should be illegal.

[Dionysus]

I think I want to grant that what you define as “late term abortion” could indeed regarded as the same as infanticide. But I wonder if what you as a critic mean when you say “late term abortion” is what advocates mean when they say it. I don’t know that it is.

[MindTrap028]

I imagine so. I mean, if your claim is "Here are two identical things. I'm not interested in talking about those two things if there are differences between them. Discuss!", I don't know how you'd expect anything but crickets.

I think that it is generally an attempt to see the limiting principle.
I mean there are those that argue that it is reasonable to kill the newly born.
So for those that are pro abortion, but against that.. they should be held to account to justify that belief.

By showing that the only point of distinction is not relevant, it reveals that there is a break down in their logic and reasoning.
or it pushes them to be consistent with their views and stand to uphold infanticide as o.k.

It is a kind of attempt to fight against that moral drift that isn't very far removed from a Nazi(for lack of a better comparison) death camp.

[Dionysus]

I think that it is generally an attempt to see the limiting principle.

I understand that. That's exactly why I asked "Would you regard any instance of a parent killing their child as infanticide?" Details matter. Reasons matter. But if we're simply going to assume that there are no reasons and no details that matter, then what's the point of even discussing it?

[mican333]

It's pretty clear that one cannot morally be against killing a new-born baby and be for killing a late-term fetus that is about to be born.

But late-term allowances for abortion are generally only if:
1. The life of the mother is in danger
2. The fetus is not viable.

And these don't really apply to a decision to kill a born baby. A born baby cannot be a threat to the life of the mother and if it's not viable, then it has died already or will die very soon and therefore there is no decision to be made on whether to kill it or not.

So being for allowing late-term abortions as they generally are allowed does not really come in any realistic moral conflict about how born babies should be treated.

[Sigfried]

There is a small moral difference, primarily that the unborn child is inside of another human being so if you wanted to make it a ward of the state, you would have to remove it from that person or imprison that person. That makes moral actions on the child have other moral dimensions.

There is also a long moral tradition among some that until born one is not a citizen, a person, or a holder of moral rights. I don't hold to that view but some people do.

I am pretty well aligned with the Supreme court's decisions that once you reach viability, the state has a reasonable duty to protect the life of the unborn, allowing for exceptions where it's life is already in grave danger or the mother's life or health is in serious danger.

So there is a differrence in that the mother's life is not in danger in the case of a child that is already born. This changes the moral calculus, not due to the moral value of the child but due to the moral entanglement with it's mother.

[MindTrap028]

But late-term allowances for abortion are generally only if:
1. The life of the mother is in danger
2. The fetus is not viable.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...walsh/1644839/

Most abortions are not for health reasons. The non-profit Guttmacher Institute says three-quarters of women having abortions say they can't afford a child, and an equal number say having a baby would interfere with work, school and the ability to care for others, including existing children. A study published in Guttmacher's International Family Planning Perspectives in 1998 said risk to a woman's health was the main reason for 2.8% of U.S. abortions in 1987-88.

The assertion that the allowance is for the health of the mother, is not consistent with the implementation of the policy.

While this is a fairly valid distinction to be made. It seems to be more of a smoke screen. Where a woman has the intent to kill her unborn, and then a dr Ad hoc's his way into some vague implication that the mothers life is at risk. No similar reasoning exists when dealing with the already born. It would be like a mother killing her new born and telling the judge "it was coming right for me!, and I feared for my life".

And these don't really apply to a decision to kill a born baby. A born baby cannot be a threat to the life of the mother and if it's not viable, then it has died already or will die very soon and therefore there is no decision to be made on whether to kill it or not.

The funny thing about "threat to the health of the mother" that reasoning is applied not only to the physical body of the mother, but also to the mental state of the mother.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion...fdefence.shtml

In some circumstances it may be ethical for a mother to have an abortion to defend herself from the danger to her mental or physical health that continuing with the pregnancy would cause.

Because the driving force for "medical" reasoning is to end the life of the child, that is at conflict with a born child where the same forces are at play.

There is a small moral difference, primarily that the unborn child is inside of another human being so if you wanted to make it a ward of the state, you would have to remove it from that person or imprison that person. That makes moral actions on the child have other moral dimensions.

Well, that isn't quite true. All that needs to be done is deny the mother the ability to harm herself or the unborn. Then it would be born fairly naturally without any gov intervention.
Also, it is pretty common for us to restrain people who are a threat to others. It is kinda the gov only job to protect people (citizens or no) from threat of harm to others.

further, there is a pretty clear line of consent. The mother has already entered an unspoken contract with the unborn by consenting to activities that lead to the creation of the unborn. Which leaves a very slim minority of cases where it is both an instance of rape, and an instance of immanent threat to personal life (not mental state). It would be interesting to see how many of the 2percent of abortions done due to threat of life of mother.. are also due to rape.

I understand that. That's exactly why I asked "Would you regard any instance of a parent killing their child as infanticide?" Details matter. Reasons matter. But if we're simply going to assume that there are no reasons and no details that matter, then what's the point of even discussing it?

I'm not following you on the relevance, but the answer to your question IMO is yes. Any time a parent kills their infant child, that is infanticide. Is there an instance where it isn't that you have in mind?

Cultures used to not have abortions, so they would just leave the newly born out to the elements to die. That practice seems barbaric to our current culture, but through a variety of mental gymnastics we do the same thing only in a different location.

[Dionysus]

I'm not following you on the relevance, but the answer to your question IMO is yes. Any time a parent kills their infant child, that is infanticide. Is there an instance where it isn't that you have in mind?

Well, to the first part, sorry, I wasn't being intentionally obscure. I'm just trying to take it slow.

The reason I ask is to pin down the reasons why a thing is moral or immoral. Infanticide is, by definition, the killing of an infant child; whether or the killing is done by the parent doesn't matter (but I brought up parents in my question, so your answer was perfectly relevant).

Why is killing an infant immoral? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, btw. We are in agreement that it is. I'm simply asking what makes it so. For example, is it a form of murder?

[eye4magic]

Is there any moral difference between late term abortion and infanticide?

I see no moral difference. Abortion is early infanticide.

I would agree. The bigger problem, however, is when ethicists see the issue as morally irrelevant. This is not some new idea.

Their logic is quite simple. They regard the location of the foetus/infant -- inside or outside the womb -- as morally irrelevant. Both newborns and not-yet-borns are, at best, "potential" persons, lacking self-awareness and the ability "to make aims and appreciate their own life." It follows that the needs of the adults concerned, especially the mother, and perhaps of society as a whole, should take precedence over the purely notional "rights" of the person-to-be.

[evensaul]

There is a small moral difference, primarily that the unborn child is inside of another human being so if you wanted to make it a ward of the state, you would have to remove it from that person or imprison that person. That makes moral actions on the child have other moral dimensions.

Who is talking about making the child a ward of the state? You're creating a straw man argument, Sig.

There is also a long moral tradition among some that until born one is not a citizen, a person, or a holder of moral rights.

If those people come argue that tradition, I will respond and point out that appeals to tradition are argumentative fallacies.

I am pretty well aligned with the Supreme court's decisions that once you reach viability, the state has a reasonable duty to protect the life of the unborn, allowing for exceptions where it's life is already in grave danger or the mother's life or health is in serious danger.

You explain where you are, but not why. But it sounds like you're generally against late term abortion, so I won't press you for the reasoning.

So there is a differrence in that the mother's life is not in danger in the case of a child that is already born. This changes the moral calculus, not due to the moral value of the child but due to the moral entanglement with it's mother.

I'm sorry, what changes the moral calculus against the chilid? You didn't exactly say how a mother's life is in danger with a late term baby. Can you give me examples in which an abortion at 8.5 months is necessary instead of having a C-section delivery?

I don't think you've offered anything that supports the idea that a child has less moral value four minutes before birth than four days after. Or even four weeks in either direction.

[MindTrap028]

Well, to the first part, sorry, I wasn't being intentionally obscure. I'm just trying to take it slow.

The reason I ask is to pin down the reasons why a thing is moral or immoral. Infanticide is, by definition, the killing of an infant child; whether or the killing is done by the parent doesn't matter (but I brought up parents in my question, so your answer was perfectly relevant).

Why is killing an infant immoral? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, btw. We are in agreement that it is. I'm simply asking what makes it so. For example, is it a form of murder?

Not a problem, I'm a little slow so I appreciate it when you take it slow.

Yes, the why is it immoral is important.
So when you ask "is it a form of murder" it seems to beg the question as to "why is murder immoral". Which we would agree (I think) because it violates your rights.

So basically there are two routs.

1) Rights are something you earn, or are given.
2) Rights are something that are inherent to you. (inalienable if you will)

So when it comes to the unborn, it becomes about their rights, and #1 and #2 come into play.

As some argued, one must be born to be a citizen and thus have rights. Which is a form of #1.

I'm sure you know that I am in the camp of #2.

So, long story short. the reason it is immoral to kill an infant is because it violates their rights. The unborn are not different in any way relevant to the nature of those rights. Thus it is immoral to kill an unborn in the same way it is immoral to kill the new born.

(sorry my brain doesn't exactly go in strait lines).