After-Birth Abortion: Is Infanticide Wrong?

[Jolly_Penguin]

The most recent thread on abortion raised an argument in favour of after-birth abortion (positive spin), also known as early infanticide (negative spin).

Credit to PyramidHead for linking this article to that thread:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

I think this deserves its own thread and would like to hear opinions on it. Should it be legal or illegal? Why?

[W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

Is consciousness the key? When do babies become conscious?

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/baby-consciousness/

The team was surprised to see that the 5-month-olds also showed a late slow wave, although it was weaker and more drawn out than in the older babies. Kouider speculates that the late slow wave may be present in babies as young as 2 months.


This late slow wave may indicate conscious thought, Kouider and colleagues report online today in Science. The wave, feedback from the prefrontal cortex, suggests that the image is stored briefly in the baby’s temporary “working memory.” And consciousness, Kouider says, is composed of working memory.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep.

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. Called active and quiet sleep, these states can be distinguished using electroencephalography. Their different EEG signatures go hand in hand with distinct behaviors: breathing, swallowing, licking, and moving the eyes but no large-scale body movements in active sleep; no breathing, no eye movements and tonic muscle activity in quiet sleep. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

One complication ensues. When people awaken during REM sleep, they often report vivid dreams with extensive narratives. Although consciousness during dreams is not the same as during wakefulness—most noticeably insight and self-reflection are absent—dreams are consciously experienced and felt. So does the fetus dream when in REM sleep? This is not known. But what would it dream of?

So what say you? Should it be considered murder to kill a newborn in his/her crib?

 

[Toni]

The most recent thread on abortion raised an argument in favour of after-birth abortion (positive spin), also known as early infanticide (negative spin).

Credit to PyramidHead for linking this article to that thread:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

I think this deserves its own thread and would like to hear opinions on it. Should it be legal or illegal? Why?



Is consciousness the key? When do babies become conscious?

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/baby-consciousness/

The team was surprised to see that the 5-month-olds also showed a late slow wave, although it was weaker and more drawn out than in the older babies. Kouider speculates that the late slow wave may be present in babies as young as 2 months.


This late slow wave may indicate conscious thought, Kouider and colleagues report online today in Science. The wave, feedback from the prefrontal cortex, suggests that the image is stored briefly in the baby’s temporary “working memory.” And consciousness, Kouider says, is composed of working memory.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care. And as it is so much easier to observe and interact with a preterm baby than with a fetus of the same gestational age in the womb, the fetus is often considered to be like a preterm baby, like an unborn newborn. But this notion disregards the unique uterine environment: suspended in a warm and dark cave, connected to the placenta that pumps blood, nutrients and hormones into its growing body and brain, the fetus is asleep.

Invasive experiments in rat and lamb pups and observational studies using ultrasound and electrical recordings in humans show that the third-trimester fetus is almost always in one of two sleep states. Called active and quiet sleep, these states can be distinguished using electroencephalography. Their different EEG signatures go hand in hand with distinct behaviors: breathing, swallowing, licking, and moving the eyes but no large-scale body movements in active sleep; no breathing, no eye movements and tonic muscle activity in quiet sleep. These stages correspond to rapid-eye-movement (REM) and slow-wave sleep common to all mammals. In late gestation the fetus is in one of these two sleep states 95 percent of the time, separated by brief transitions.

One complication ensues. When people awaken during REM sleep, they often report vivid dreams with extensive narratives. Although consciousness during dreams is not the same as during wakefulness—most noticeably insight and self-reflection are absent—dreams are consciously experienced and felt. So does the fetus dream when in REM sleep? This is not known. But what would it dream of?

So what say you? Should it be considered murder to kill a newborn in his/her crib?

Yes.

 

[Trausti]

Why not? The Spartans threw their unwanted and inconvenient newborns down a cliff. The Carthaginians had a culture of child sacrifice. And mid-20th Century German socialists routinely removed undesirable young from the population. Why not us, too?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

My day used to advocate for legal abortion until "God's little cruel jokes bundles of joy" reached their 21st year.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes.

A better question might be: should the murder of a newborn be treated as more egregious, less egregious, or the same as the murder of a fully grown adult?

 

[Toni]

Yes.

A better question might be: should the murder of a newborn be treated as more egregious, less egregious, or the same as the murder of a fully grown adult?

The murder of a newborn is as egregious as that of a fully grown adult.

 

[Toni]

Why not? The Spartans threw their unwanted and inconvenient newborns down a cliff. The Carthaginians had a culture of child sacrifice. And mid-20th Century German socialists routinely removed undesirable young from the population. Why not us, too?

More accurately, mid-20th century Nazis routinely removed 'undesirable' persons of all ages from the population, first by moving them to labor camps and from there, they were sorted into those from whom it was possible and more expedient to extra slave labor and those who were not worth that much trouble. The goal was ultimately death for all. Timing was merely a matter of convenience for the Nazis.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why not? The Spartans threw their unwanted and inconvenient newborns down a cliff. The Carthaginians had a culture of child sacrifice. And mid-20th Century German socialists routinely removed undesirable young from the population. Why not us, too?

I think we're a bit more civilised that that'; well maybe just a little.

- - - Updated - - -

My day used to advocate for legal abortion until "God's little cruel jokes bundles of joy" reached their 21st year.

Why leave it at 21. We can rename murder as retrospective birth control.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A better question might be: should the murder of a newborn be treated as more egregious, less egregious, or the same as the murder of a fully grown adult?

The murder of a newborn is as egregious as that of a fully grown adult.

On what basis? Don't just give your answer. Show your work for extra credit.

 

[LordKiran]

The murder of a newborn is as egregious as that of a fully grown adult.

On what basis? Don't just give your answer. Show your work for extra credit.

I could just as easily ask you the same question though. Why wouldn't it be just as wrong to kill a baby as any other person? Is there something inherent to a fully grown person that makes their murder more 'wrong'?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I could just as easily ask you the same question though. Why wouldn't it be just as wrong to kill a baby as any other person? Is there something inherent to a fully grown person that makes their murder more 'wrong'?

That's the question. Some would say consciousness or self-awareness is the key. If so, the gentlemen in the article above argue that we should be allowed to kill newborns, as it hasn't arisen in them yet. Is something else the key? What makes the taking of a newborn's life wrong?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The murder of a newborn is as egregious as that of a fully grown adult.

On what basis? Don't just give your answer. Show your work for extra credit.

On the basis that we as a society have decided that human life is valuable and taking it is an egregious act. There's no inherent value to anything, including human life, beyond that which we give it ourselves. Personally, I think this is a good thing because a society which values human life without any conditions seems to me to be a better society than one which does not and gives sub-human status to various members of the society based on their age, race, gender, mental status or anything else. If you're looking for an external, objective basis for the position, there's not one anymore than there's one for anything else which we value. We decided that they matter so they matter - that's pretty much the only reason that anything ever matters.

 

[Axulus]

I could just as easily ask you the same question though. Why wouldn't it be just as wrong to kill a baby as any other person? Is there something inherent to a fully grown person that makes their murder more 'wrong'?

That's the question. Some would say consciousness or self-awareness is the key. If so, the gentlemen in the article above argue that we should be allowed to kill newborns, as it hasn't arisen in them yet. Is something else the key? What makes the taking of a newborn's life wrong?

Why is any murder wrong? Why does consciousness or self-awareness matter?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

So what say you? Should it be considered murder to kill a newborn in his/her crib?

Yes. Murder is a legal construct and is a crime against society - not just a crime against the person murdered. That's why in a criminal trial it's "the people" or "the state" bringing the charges and not the victims (or survivors).

Yes.

A better question might be: should the murder of a newborn be treated as more egregious, less egregious, or the same as the murder of a fully grown adult?

I do think that is a better question which requires a more nuanced answer. I guess it depends on how we define 'egregiousness' which could be different for different people. My perspective is that regardless of the age of the murdered, it's the survivors who will remain impacted. It is probably as egregious for parents to lose a newborn as it is for children to lose a parent.

If you base it on the cognitive ability of the deceased you might argue that the newborn doesn't know any better, but then that could be balanced out if you base it on how much life they have left.

I guess I would say 'the same' level of egregiousness, but borne from different perspectives of tragedy.

aa

 

[PyramidHead]

On what basis? Don't just give your answer. Show your work for extra credit.

On the basis that we as a society have decided that human life is valuable and taking it is an egregious act. There's no inherent value to anything, including human life, beyond that which we give it ourselves. Personally, I think this is a good thing because a society which values human life without any conditions seems to me to be a better society than one which does not and gives sub-human status to various members of the society based on their age, race, gender, mental status or anything else. If you're looking for an external, objective basis for the position, there's not one anymore than there's one for anything else which we value. We decided that they matter so they matter - that's pretty much the only reason that anything ever matters.

So, if we were living in an era where we hadn't yet decided that they matter, it would be okay to murder them? Do you think it was wrong to murder blacks when we as a society had not yet decided that they were valuable? If so, why?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do think that is a better question which requires a more nuanced answer. I guess it depends on how we define 'egregiousness' which could be different for different people. My perspective is that regardless of the age of the murdered, it's the survivors who will remain impacted. It is probably as egregious for parents to lose a newborn as it is for children to lose a parent.

What if the newborn is an orphan who has no family? Does that make it more ok to kill since there are no survivors who will be impacted?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

On what basis? Don't just give your answer. Show your work for extra credit.

On the basis that we as a society have decided that human life is valuable and taking it is an egregious act. There's no inherent value to anything, including human life, beyond that which we give it ourselves. Personally, I think this is a good thing because a society which values human life without any conditions seems to me to be a better society than one which does not and gives sub-human status to various members of the society based on their age, race, gender, mental status or anything else. If you're looking for an external, objective basis for the position, there's not one anymore than there's one for anything else which we value. We decided that they matter so they matter - that's pretty much the only reason that anything ever matters.

Good point. Ultimately it may come down to nothing but irrational human empathy.

If we decide that we value "human life" for merely being "human life", then we get into the territory of the pro-life extremist "life begins at conception" stuff, don't we? I don't know about you, but I have zero empathy for a freshly fertilized egg cell. I have more instinctive empathy for a baby in a crib than for a fetus just before birth, even though they are pretty much the same thing. I have more empathy for a child suffering in front of me than for a village of children suffering out of my sight. This isn't rational, but maybe this stuff has nothing to do with what is rational?

 

[PyramidHead]

On what basis? Don't just give your answer. Show your work for extra credit.

I could just as easily ask you the same question though. Why wouldn't it be just as wrong to kill a baby as any other person? Is there something inherent to a fully grown person that makes their murder more 'wrong'?

Of course there is. The whole reason murder is wrong in the first place is because it takes something away that the victim wants to keep: their life, their future, the chance to grow old with their families, etc. Whatever can be said about a 1-week old infant, it cannot be plausibly claimed that it cares about its future or even understands on a basic level that the future happens after the present. I ramble on endlessly with animal comparisons, but unless you really want to claim that belonging to an arbitrarily defined twig of the tree of life makes more ethical difference than the ability to have actual preferences, you can't simultaneously oppose killing newborns while being okay with killing cows for food.

This is a political forum, and I think this question is better suited for Morals and Principles. Politics only muddies the water, it never clarifies things.

 

[PyramidHead]

On the basis that we as a society have decided that human life is valuable and taking it is an egregious act. There's no inherent value to anything, including human life, beyond that which we give it ourselves. Personally, I think this is a good thing because a society which values human life without any conditions seems to me to be a better society than one which does not and gives sub-human status to various members of the society based on their age, race, gender, mental status or anything else. If you're looking for an external, objective basis for the position, there's not one anymore than there's one for anything else which we value. We decided that they matter so they matter - that's pretty much the only reason that anything ever matters.

Good point. Ultimately it may come down to nothing but human irrational human empathy.

If we decide that we value "human life" for merely being "human life", then we get into the territory of the pro-life extremist "life begins at conception" stuff, don't we? I don't know about you, but I have zero empathy for a freshly fertilized egg cell. I have more instinctive empathy for a baby in a crib than for a fetus just before birth, even though they are pretty much the same thing. I have more empathy for a child suffering in front of me than for a village of children suffering out of my sight. This isn't rational, but maybe this stuff has nothing to do with what is rational?

We can keep going down this road until we arrive at what is essentially no more than a description of what we currently value. That doesn't help. We can run the same exercise at different points in history and in different continents, and get different answers. To make actual progress, eventually someone has to step back and ask, what SHOULD we value? And what does it mean to say we should or shouldn't value something?

 

[LordKiran]

On the basis that we as a society have decided that human life is valuable and taking it is an egregious act. There's no inherent value to anything, including human life, beyond that which we give it ourselves. Personally, I think this is a good thing because a society which values human life without any conditions seems to me to be a better society than one which does not and gives sub-human status to various members of the society based on their age, race, gender, mental status or anything else. If you're looking for an external, objective basis for the position, there's not one anymore than there's one for anything else which we value. We decided that they matter so they matter - that's pretty much the only reason that anything ever matters.

So, if we were living in an era where we hadn't yet decided that they matter, it would be okay to murder them? Do you think it was wrong to murder blacks when we as a society had not yet decided that they were valuable? If so, why?

What do you mean "Why"? because we as a society have collectively decided it isn't okay, which is why it doesn't happen en masse anymore. Certain individuals might not grant black lives such inherent value, but society is a collective endeavor where in the sense of value isn't dependent upon one or two individuals. The answer to your question is literally in your question!

- - - Updated - - -

I could just as easily ask you the same question though. Why wouldn't it be just as wrong to kill a baby as any other person? Is there something inherent to a fully grown person that makes their murder more 'wrong'?

Of course there is. The whole reason murder is wrong in the first place is because it takes something away that the victim wants to keep: their life, their future, the chance to grow old with their families, etc. Whatever can be said about a 1-week old infant, it cannot be plausibly claimed that it cares about its future or even understands on a basic level that the future happens after the present. I ramble on endlessly with animal comparisons, but unless you really want to claim that belonging to an arbitrarily defined twig of the tree of life makes more ethical difference than the ability to have actual preferences, you can't simultaneously oppose killing newborns while being okay with killing cows for food.

This is a political forum, and I think this question is better suited for Morals and Principles. Politics only muddies the water, it never clarifies things.

And you only come to this conclusion based on what you personally value. I could just as easily conclude that murder is wrong because it deprives us all of a person. The person you kill could have the skills or could one day have the skills needed to cure a disease. Do not treat your individualist philosophy as objective truth.

Also yes, this topic is more suited for morals and princibles. Report the original post citing that it should be moved there, as I have.