It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Infanticide - When is it justified, necessary?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:39 PM
For most of human history, infanticide has been a widely accepted form of population control while consciously and subconsciously making sure the most adaptable and desirable genes are passed down through our progeny. In fact, the practice is still taking place in the modern world in all types of societies.

Progressive and free democratic states like densely-populated Holland encourage infanticide in some cases - mainly as an act of mercy toward babies born deformed or ill. Super powers such as China definitely push for infanticide, as a means of population control. In the third world, this is done out of necessity.

Shouldn't we all look into the benefits of infanticide? Face it, the world would be much better off if a lot of children were not allowed to grow up. We're running out of resources, and there's no sense wasting them on individuals who are doomed to live a meaningless, miserable, short life and contribute nothing to society. Especially when it can be so expensive to take care of them.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:04 PM
Who decides? The state? the parents? While for some little ones it would be compassioante to not allow them too suffer, the potiential for abuse would be too great. What about downs syndrome, what about correctable heart defects etc.

Its way too much of a moral and ethical slippery slope IMHO.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:28 PM
I think you may be confusing Infanticide with Eugenics.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Wotan
I think you may be confusing Infanticide with Eugenics.

Yes but Im convinced that with one you get the other.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:39 PM
As for the question of who decides which babies live and which are put to sleep, I think it should ultimately be the parents' decision. So, first of all, the practice needs to be legalized (and sanitized) by the state governments. In the ideal situation, I think doctors should be instructed to notify new parents if their child has a potentially debilitating, quality-of-life detracting or expensive condition. Severe mental retardation, for example. If the parents decide to keep the child despite this news, they would immediately become ineligible for any state or federal medical benefits or financial assistance in raising the child and the child would not be allowed public schooling, etc. Therefore, the government will not be "forcing" parents to give up their doomed children, but it will be gently nudging them to do the right thing.

No one should have to live with these terrible conditions.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:46 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're pro-choice?

I am pro-choice and anti-infanticide. I am pro-choice, anti-infanticide and believe that euthanasia should be available on request. I have listed Dr. Kevorkian as my primary care provider before. I'm serious.

Maybe instead of infanticide would should enforce a mandatory euthanasia program for people who exhibit "suicidal" behaviours. Why stop at at a 72 hour suicide hold- just help a brother out and offer lethal injections at the free clinic.
Why stop there? Why not round up the drug addicts and alcoholics and people who eat McDonalds or think enough negative thoughts to give themselves cancer (NOT that all cancer patients are negative), and people drive too fast... we could could REALLY start thinning the population problem down to nothing.

I thiink we should give the new baby a chance and the minute that little sucker acts the least bit ungrateful BAM bye bye baby!

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:42 PM
I totally agree with this idea.
It is time that we here in the US adopt this practice.
It has to be very painful for parents of such a child whether it is at home or institututionalized.
This burden on society uses up resources that could be used on normal people.

As to who decides - I think the condition of the child speaks for itself.
If it cannot grow up and live a normal life euthanize it at birth.
Many of those "correctable" conditions likewise leave the child weakened and at a disadvantage all his life.

Shouldn't our reproductive goal be to create a society of strong, healthy, intelligent people?

Yes, infanticide is a necessary part of eugenics.
I wonder why it is that we have more consideration for our pets than we have for our people. We do not attempt to raise deformed puppies. Why children. This is cruel and incompassionate.

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:55 PM
It is 2008 and there is birth

No reason for infanticide. If population is that much of an issue, then people need to be shot with birth control.

Never in any circumstance is infanticide ok.

As for the ones that are seriously malformed or sick, are you really ready to tell a person that they can't have their baby.

No one should ever be allowed the capability of deciding who lives and who dies.

BUt nature.

If a child is that sick or malformed, then maybe if they cannot survive on tehir own, without life support, then let nature takes its course.

If we are all cavemen, that is how it happens.

This is such a gross display of lack of empathy and eliteism.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by nixie_nox]

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 05:55 PM

OP, how about we just become like the Spartans and throw the scrawny/deformed children off a cliff as soon as they are born.

top topics


log in