When is killing a newborn acceptable?

reply to post by yourmaker


The scenario was 100% going to kill, there was no "loving them to change them". Stick to the thread.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I had to give ya a S&F as it is these types of subjects that make me think...hard and long. And I always still question myself and views.

At the moment, I don't think there will ever be a Pre-Cog type of enforcement, but there very well be forced sterilization in our future by profiling individuals, how they act, grades, IQ, social status, etc, etc.

I've even seen arguments for that right here on ATS.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I had to give ya a S&F as it is these types of subjects that make me think...hard and long. And I always still question myself and views.

At the moment, I don't think there will ever be a Pre-Cog type of enforcement, but there very well be forced sterilization in our future by profiling individuals, how they act, grades, IQ, social status, etc, etc.

I've even seen arguments for that right here on ATS.

...
Well, its not a bad idea. lol

But ya, different subject.
I don't imagine there will be such a contraption that can with certainty predict a persons path..well, without us being renamed from humans to time lords anyhow.

There is a King book out that deals with something similar. they can go back, kill someone (in this case, Oswald..killer of JFK) and see what happens..don't like it, just undo it..basically going back and forth and tweak time to your satisfaction.

Would I kill a killer? Actually, I honestly don't know..its a difficult question, isn't it. We incarcerate criminals because they are a threat to society..we let them out once that level if threat is decreased.
If someone is a eminent threat to the population...isn't it already our default demand they be removed from society, be it through imprisonment or death? So really its just the image of taking it one step further that freaks us out...we don't want to be victims, but at the same time, we don't want to resort to being perceived as a monster.

If I had a daughter, and it was decided she would murder (not kill, but murder) someone down the line, I would fight to keep her safe.
However
If I found out the killer of my daughter could have been stopped, but some pansys decided they didn't want guilt, I would be quite vengeful at those who had the power to stop but didn't....knowing that someone (in this scenario, my daughter) died because of their inability to do what was better for society.

Have cake / eat it

Never. You may not kill a newborn. You may give it very strong meds to stop pain which might make them unconscious as with intense cancer, but you do not get to kill them. Or anyone.


In addition to not killing you may not deprive anyone of food and substenance, and if they cannot take that, you have to ensure they get it, ie hospital situation.

If you see this happening anywhere, serve and protect! And stop it.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Never. You may not kill a newborn. You may give it very strong meds to stop pain which might make them unconscious as with intense cancer, but you do not get to kill them. Or anyone.

My brother got murdered when he was 19 years old.

Put me in a room with the newborn of his murderer.

...bet I can prove you wrong.

Actually, I wouldn't. but when it first happened, there wouldn't have been a second thought (because at the time, there was barely a 1st thought)

I think a lot of people are failing at the whole philosophy part of this exercise...many people whom would right out say hell no would quickly change their opinion if it effected them. Detatched people can stick to principles 100% of the time..its when it touches you that you suddenly see merit in philosophy.

As someone who had had a close relative murdered...I see the world isn't black and white in some areas.

reply to post by SaturnFX


If you harm a newborn, even if its the universes most horrendous murderous villians offspring, and harm that babe, you are a murderer and aside from any worldly punishment, your own HS will ensure you learn to not harm after you die. A person kills another and doesnt seem to realize that they're going to go through this, with full understanding and realize that other person is a sovereign being, counts very much, is not owned by another, they are themselves, and your brother/sister/mother/father on the other side, who you loved very much and would never harm, but you killed them. Shame is something that accompanies souls in the abyss. The Big Timeout.

I would never judge anyone in the heat of the moment, who would react to the murderer of their loved ones, but you are not to transfer the guilt to any other person other than that one who did the act.

And I don't endorse revenge in any capacity, for that is the beast, our reactions. That is the biblical beast, the body, the primitive instincts. We're to reach higher mind, yet life is hard, and its completely understandable how, say a parent kills the one who raped their child. I would never send them to prison, only counseling.

But, a parent who killed the child of their child's rapist is a psychopath who can't separate people and thinks of others as objects, something owned by the person. Someone who thinks a child is an object owned by their parent and a part of their parent. That is psychopathy.

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by Carreau
Or another way of asking the question is: If you were the doctor delivering the baby Adolf Hitler ( take your pick of evil humans: Dahmer, Gacy, Stalin, ect), would you let him live or kill the baby right then and there?

If you change the environment preceding each of their events would they ever become the killers they are?

Nothing can predict the future in such a manner due to those variables.
One act of kindness at the right moment is all it could take to change that.

Should one kill baby Hitler? Or love him?

Loving him would change the outcome.

Yes, like his parents.
Maybe they would even send him to art school

Anyhow, as posted in the ops, its 100% (incidentally, Hitler did attend art school...he was mediocre).
Also, it was requested not to dwell on the impossibility of such a thing..it just is. Its better to not participate in a game verses jump in and try to change the rules to suit your desires.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

If you harm a newborn, even if its the universes most horrendous murderous villians offspring, and harm that babe, you are a murderer and aside from any worldly punishment, your own HS will ensure you learn to not harm after you die. A person kills another and doesnt seem to realize that they're going to go through this, with full understanding and realize that other person is a sovereign being, counts very much, is not owned by another, they are themselves, and your brother/sister/mother/father on the other side, who you loved very much and would never harm, but you killed them. Shame is something that accompanies souls in the abyss. The Big Timeout.

Ya...and so if you seen someone pull a knife and was about to stab some unsuspecting victim in the throat, and you were the -only- one that could stop it...but it would result in you killing them...would you?

This is the same question...would you stop a murderer by killing them before they acted...

Same exact scenario...would you wait for the knife to hit the throat of the person? or when they pulled it out? when they tucked it in their pocket and murmered it was going to go down...or when they were stocking them for a week, or etc...

When does killing someone to stop their monsterous acts become acceptable in your mind? what is the difference between killing them at that moment verses 10 seconds before? and 10 before that, etc.

if elephants could fly and trample towns, we should hunt them to put a stop to it.

let us not dwell on the fact that this statement is preposterous, but rather answer it with reasoned responses.

......

there is a time and place for what if scenarios, but they are only effective if they're grounded in reality.

would i stop someone from murdering another? yes. even if the only option was killing the would-be murderer? yes, but this scenario is plausible. it hasn't happened to me, but it could happen.

reply to post by SaturnFX


How is that person with the knife related to a newborn? Hmmm....

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

How is that person with the knife related to a newborn? Hmmm....

The newborn is the person with the knife...just a bit before it happened...
Would you kill someone before they committed a crime to safeguard the innocent.

Timing is the only questionable thing it seems.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
yes. even if the only option was killing the would-be murderer? yes,

Thank you for answering the question. even if you did pad it in disclaimers. You got there in the end.

Originally posted by Pistoche
reply to post by queenofswords

 

I completely agree with you, but for argument's sake suppose that you go back in time and are presented with an opportunity to kill baby Hitler, would you take it or let the infant be? Assume that you know for certain he will carry out the same terrifying deeds of our world from the 1930s and 40s.

well if you could go back in time you could avoid killing baby adolf. if you knew that he was going to come to power, you could go back to the time just before his rise to power instead of going back to when he was a baby, thus not becoming a baby killer and still stopping his atrocities.

I hate to pull a Bill Clinton, but it depends upon your definition of "kill".

If you're talking about a healthy baby, I agree with most posters that the answer is NEVER!

-but-

If you're talking about severe birth defects and maladies that result in a lifetime of institutionalized care - it already happens all the time. That's why the definition if "kill" is important. If your definition includes "letting them die naturally" or "removing life support" then I submit that the question becomes ponderable for parents, doctors and health care facilities. In some instances, there may be some pharmaceutical intervention required - I leave those instances to the parents and doctors and their moral values.

That's all I have to say on this subject.

ganjoa

Originally posted by SaturnFX
-points to the philosophy forum-
Meant to ponder and consider this, so try not to gut react to the topic alone but actually consider this:


Lets say in 100 years, there is a way to 100% predict if a newborn will murder someone in their life. Do you execute the infant right then and there? imprison for life, or simply let it go about life with absolute certainty that people will die (unknown, might be one, might be millions, but they will maliciously kill, that is the only certainty. Maybe when they are 10 years old, maybe 100..who knows.)


Thoughts?

...and try not to get too bogged down in "The Minority Report" side discussion..although that is similar in concept, this academic consideration is about a infant, not full grown people a hour before they do whatever it is they are going to do.
Also, I know the concept is impossible technically speaking, well, as far as we know...but just roll with it anyhow.

I am trying to roll with this but it is hard given the paradox of knowing anything with 100% certainty.
I guess if this was the case and i knew without a doubt that the baby would be a killer, then terminating it would only make me a killer.
I think i would just let the baby grow up. If i knew anything for certainty regarding the future then i would seriously have to consider that life is a script and if it cant be changed so my decision would be the right one regardless.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Thank you for answering the question. even if you did pad it in disclaimers. You got there in the end.

i understand your point, don't take my "disclaimers" as hostile. i merely consider it a poor exercise.

if you present a question grounded in reality, i have no trouble answering, however asking "if you could know what a baby would become, would you kill them" simply isn't possible. it is a pointless question because no facets of it are applicable to reality.

the guilty should be punished, and i would kill in self defense or the defense of another, but relating this to "would you kill a baby that will do something" isn't applicable.

Weird thread...not sure I found myself ever pondering this topic, however, it might be considered fruitful discussion if one is talking about eugenics, or like topics.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes I would kill baby Stalin, Hitler, Dahmer, or antichrist.

Yes I am for the death penalty although the way it is implemented now I disagree with.

Without the death penalty there are far more murders occurring in prisons than those prisons in states that do not have that penalty so for inmates that already have life without parole there is nothing to dissuade them from killing other inmates or guards.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Killing to stop a killer. Hypocrisy. I would hope someone would also go back in time and kill the newborn who kills newborns.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Killing to stop a killer. Hypocrisy. I would hope someone would also go back in time and kill the newborn who kills newborns.

This made me think of the movie "Looper". Eventually the killer would go back and kill himself as a baby closing the loop. Oh man now my head hurts lol