When is killing a newborn acceptable?

i would only kill if i know it was born to kill, if it killed due to the way it grew up, then no.

born killer by nature = yes kill.

became killer by nurture = no kill.

Its similar to the whole your child is standing in the train tracks to the east, a bus full of kids are teetering on the edge of a bridge to the west..you can save only one...your child, or the bus full of kids...who do you save type moral dilemma question. regardless of how its answered, it is bad...

reply to post by SaturnFX


You are right on both scores: Yes, I know of what you speak....second, I understand where you are coming from, and as a mother, have considered, just this scenario that you describe so well.

It is the HARDEST question in my life to answer, simply put. I am being totally honest, here. It really is, and I have considered what you describe FULLY. Would I choose to save everyone else's children, or mine, put in that position.......for whatever parameters we can come up with to describe what would force that choice.

And I can imagine many other than what your original OP describes....Regardless, we still have that looming question, and now I understand and have forced your question, truly.....Understand, I do not judge you , either, for asking, entertaining the question, for in your OP it is a hard point to get at, one way or another....and to ask this of a mother, what would you do? And have you even considered the juxtasposition: Your child's life, or many others?

I may be rare in that I have actually encountered and considered that question more than you would think....


but what am I to do, SaturnFX, as a human woman, really? I love my children, my progeny, as biology,physiology and God designed me, as a mother, to no end, to defend them to my death, for that is the woman and mother I am....I cannot help that. It is biological, physiological, a learned and inherent response within me to defend MY child like that, no matter what.......

It's interesting: My daughter has asked me before if she committed murder, the ultimate sin, would I shelter, protect and lie for her considering authorties.....so we have even, as parent and child, hypothetically, spoken about such a subject. And I told her no: If you kill another, I will not protect you.

However, with certain caveats: should she kill another, as in a man raping her and threatening her life, yes, I would protect her to death of myself. If she took a certain stand for all of humanity, yes, I would, again, protect her. It is only in "cold blood," (ie you killed for pleasure, or circumstance because you were waiting to kill all your life just to know the feeling/power) I would not protect you. In other words, if your proved yourself to be a "Ted Bundy" or a BTK "Bind torture kill" murderer, and that seemed inherent in your nature toward other life, then , no, I would do nothing to protect, and even perhaps, aid the authorities in your capture and prosecution and incarceration to save others, understanding you "lacked" something essential, a certain empathy and compassion for other life forms on a very basic level, no matter, as a mother, how my raising you or genetics, may figure into that, is not my concern. My concern, then, would be, you are a true danger to your kin: the human race.


Now, if the metaphor is about and wedges my child just because of who she/he is, and someone/something is holding us all hostage to that information, then it is different, entirely, for then it is blackmail about our identities and not about her/his behavior........

Having described the scenarios to me now, I respect your question. I hope you understand and respect my response, for I have considered it fully and gave it much thought.
Respectfully,
Tetra50

Originally posted by tetra50
Having described the scenarios to me now, I respect your question. I hope you understand and respect my response, for I have considered it fully and gave it much thought.
Respectfully,
Tetra50

A mother protects her kids. Mom would protect me, you would protect yours, etc.
The schoolbus question only works if you don't have kids...otherwise, the answer is simple...save your kid..no dilemma in thinking, its yours, your blood, your connection. Sad about the bus, but oh well...rough world...but responsibility and connection is through blood in the end.

I msged you, you can feel free (if you want) to bring that in here. Basically, would you, as a mother, protect your child from a murderer...even if the only way to protect the child was to stop the murderer as a infant (time travel magically back for a few moments to stand over the crib of the future murderer...of your own child). I think the personal note is required here....

Back to the train tracks...if it was some random kid on the train tracks, and other random kids in the bus, you can go with simple math then and be principled...but principles fly out the window when its personal.

Then you go in reverse of that...what if it was your child on that bus and someone else had to make the decision to save their own kid off the tracks verses the bus full of kids (yours being one)...would you be angry at them for their selfishness in saving her one verses the many with yours inside.

doubtful...because its expected that people will save their own if put in such a situation.

sorry, can't grock what you are selling on this thread, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER< ON ANY DAY> You don't know I gave birth to Hitler or a Ted Bundy......If you do, then we should just take an FMRI at birth, by what you're proposing, and kill everyone who doesn't meet the societal quotient for "health."

I sort of see where your going with this...I think your sort of edging on progression of this (impossible) tech, right? like if society allowed such a thing today, then tomorrow it may be the rapists, then the drug dealers, then the people with serious issues, etc...eventually boiling down to only allowing perfect mind and body humans to live.
Fair enough..not the direction I was going with the thread, that's more brutal eugenics, but worthy of a discussion...not this discussion, but ya..I would participate in such a thread if you made it. would say no about infancy, but yes on a prevention / modification requirement at conception. Eugenics gets a bad rap due to primitive ways of trying to establish it.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Yes, true, but what I am truly saying here is, you REALLY don't know in infancy, who/what/where child will turn out. And I object to the idea and philosophy that we can truly know or think we know, as it is very dangerous and judgemental, for we cannot know, really, and above with fmri and emf (though I didn't mention that till now) and eugenics (which you introduced here, and is a whole other, very complicated discussion and as to whether it even is an arbiter of future behavior).....you see, that is my whole point.....we don't really possess the science to KNOW any of this extrapolation of what, who a child will become, for we are so manipulated now, an infant is totally at the blessings of the lord, for wont of a better way to put it, what they/he/she will become.....for it is anyone's guess, and there are many things, technologies, eugenics in play, in various layers to create this today, to create a judgement against a certain blood and a certain biollogical PSA, DNA derivative which really is not associative....but they are building a case for it, gradually....and everyone is going along, and it's terribly disturbing, bc while the piezoelectronic, and electromagnetic mind control facilities exist, a blood type can be purposefullly MADE to APPEAR to be something catastrophic in its perversity, when, really, it's a total con and subterfuge, via the layers of technology........
Hope you get my point, for this is truly where I am coming from.....

What you propose in light of technology that exists today that creates a certain appearance, MEANS, by definition and appearance, that we relegate JUNK DNA and such judgement taken from a philosophical created behavioral standpoint, and correlate it with something biological that is a total SHAM...

This, to me, is what the essence of the fourth Reich, the surviving, in play Nazi agenda: a master race, and a slave class, eugenically produced, or seeming to be so......to justify a complete political, socioeconomic and eugenic agenda......very dangerous, very scary.......and VERY REAL.

respectfully,
Tetra50

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by tetra50
Having described the scenarios to me now, I respect your question. I hope you understand and respect my response, for I have considered it fully and gave it much thought.
Respectfully,
Tetra50

A mother protects her kids. Mom would protect me, you would protect yours, etc.
The schoolbus question only works if you don't have kids...otherwise, the answer is simple...save your kid..no dilemma in thinking, its yours, your blood, your connection. Sad about the bus, but oh well...rough world...but responsibility and connection is through blood in the end.

I msged you, you can feel free (if you want) to bring that in here. Basically, would you, as a mother, protect your child from a murderer...even if the only way to protect the child was to stop the murderer as a infant (time travel magically back for a few moments to stand over the crib of the future murderer...of your own child). I think the personal note is required here....

Back to the train tracks...if it was some random kid on the train tracks, and other random kids in the bus, you can go with simple math then and be principled...but principles fly out the window when its personal.

Then you go in reverse of that...what if it was your child on that bus and someone else had to make the decision to save their own kid off the tracks verses the bus full of kids (yours being one)...would you be angry at them for their selfishness in saving her one verses the many with yours inside.

doubtful...because its expected that people will save their own if put in such a situation.

I know you messaged me, and surely appreciate you, and this thread, now, more than ever.


When I first read and considered your thought process and thread, I was horrified. Now I know where you are coming from, and it is a real, valid question, and worth consideration, particularly for the mothers of the world....

having said that, i am replying to you after I have written a response, i think it very important you read, for I have considered, now, what you propose in a different and elemental way.....and I have much to add and reflect upon the original assumption......

You have my respect, for sure, as if you have been in my mind as a mother, for I have considered these very things myself, and you will find my straightforward honesty in my relationship with my child, and thinking about these issues in my answer, for all we have both considered and asked on another.......

I am proud, only on the score, she and I discuss such things....and understand on a very basic level what you address, and how that applies to both of us, mother and daughter, and all the terms and conditions and behaviors and actions this may apply and what I would do......

My daughter, you see, is just as straightforward in considering these matters as I am: and we have discussed it on more than one occasion, which may be rather unusual, but I am survivor of domestic violence, always, as it happened, in front of her, as a child, and it informed our relationship in a very specific way.....

So, she knows, inherently, what it is to protect herself and her mother, the one that cared for her when she most needed it through thick and thin, with no question of morality: I bring this up, bc in light of nature vs. nurture, this is true nurtue in play, and I believe, that no matter the genetics, once a child has experienced this commitment beyond any other, beyond your own safety and health and welfare, and KNOWS on an elemental level there is a person in their life who will protect them to that degree, no matter the cost, that is an ESSENTIAL component of forming the empathetic bond toward humanity, in general and at large.

But, as you say, this is a matter for another thread, perhaps.....
Tetra50

Such a prediction would never be possible otherwise free will would be neglected, there can only be highest probability. So if that rises above 50,01% at some time then it might be something to discuss.

Otherwise it would have to be about suicide, which might actually become a public discussion one day based on suicide statistics and links to certain mental diseases, which might be linked to DNA which might be found very early in growth or even before conception.

Killing should never be viewed acceptable, nor leaving behind and everyone should strive for a society without killing, where even meat comes out of factories assembled by nanotechnology.

Here is a scenario. A known terrorist about to get droned but hes holding his young child. To drone or not to drone.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Anyway I am off to bed. I really like the thread and I think most here would as well however they just can’t accept the proposition without creating an out or changing it so they could wash their hands metaphorically of the implications.

Oh well.

Well, even demanding not to answer is in itself an answer (if they choose to see it). a inability to make a decision. This is something investigated in military...give a impossible set of choices and see who chooses..not what they choose, but just a decision to make a choice, knowing that all roads suck.

Oh yeah I know. I had a course in the military where we were faced with choices and no matter the choice it was wrong or #ty. Dwelling to long on it or not being able to make the choice was the only failing move for the course.

It seems there are some here that can’t see the forest through the trees so to speak. I am reading some responses that are walls of text which are full of nothing but emotion. Rational thought is devoid. My eyes sort of glaze over when reading and it sort of reads as blah,blah,blah, I am a mother, blah, blah, and so forth. Never addressing the problem put forth just trying to find ways to not answer.

I don’t know maybe those people just can’t understand this is merely a exercise without any real world application, philosophical only. They keep trying to add to equation or redefine it. It’s like watching the progression of a mental meltdown when reading their posts. Normally hat would be funny to me however I am not amused this time because I see it is truly causing some inner anguish and turmoil with a few they just can’t comprehend the exercise in philosophical terms at all, to them this has at least some degree of reality to it.

You framed a great question in your OP and even I have a hard time answering it within its original form without trying to get more details but it has amazed me how many do not even get the purpose of the question.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You know that in history is plenty of accounts where ancient societies will kill new born for either been males or females depending where the tribal rules were at the time, even here in the Americans was practice also for many other reasons as sacrifices, mostly the death of killing of new born due to them been born sick

So now with that put aside, I will say that in modern days a new born have more chances of survival that in any other times in history and killing the newborn will never become acceptable in modern societies.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
there is a way to 100% predict if a newborn will murder someone in their life...

This is not possible because of the equal nature of nature vs. nurture in determining behavior. Even if you know with 100% certainty of a biological predisposition for violent behavior, the nurture factor (behavior shaped by environment), means that there is no way to determine if that biological predisposition will come to fruition in a worst-case-scenario (i.e. murder, petty tyrant, genocide, whatever...)

But lets take your impossible given at face value; there are still a great many modifiers that convolute the whole issue. For example, the severity of this future-crime is a factor. Is it a crime of passion? Is it self-defense? Is it one person that they murder? Is this a serial killer? A genocidal maniac? From a purely ethical stand point if the child will commit one murder, the negative social ramifications of creating a precedent of killing an infant because of a future crime outweigh the negative social ramifications of that one murder. If the child has not committed a crime, killing the child is murder. To create that social precedent is to ensure (with 100% certainty) that people will commit murder, and socially sanctioned murder at that, which makes for a brutal society.

Regardless of the severity complication, human beings could not wield such authority responsibly. It would become a tool to frighten and subjugate the masses. The psychological impact is too great, and it will be used as a weapon to intimidate the population.

Besides, if you can predict with 100% certainty I would also predict (assuming that who ever determines this and acts upon it is being completely honest and going on the data alone), that this propensity would be rare. Create a facility to keep these future murderers away from society instead of creating a social travesty of killing infants.

For the record:

I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-gun, but killing infants for a future event would contribute to the creation of a very callous and sick society.

reply to post by redhorse


Well you stayed within the confines of the OP at least in you second paragraph. I had the same delima of wanting more information on the nature of the killer to say.

Keep in mind the OP was not saying anything about incorporating such a thing into a future crimes unit or anything in fact he was trying to stay away from that all together.

The term newborn is for a baby already born. So never.

The rest of this is stupid. It's like the game, "If I won the lottery". Why start a thread that will just do what every other abortion rights thread does.....instigate. Every one of those threads is philisophical too.

reply to post by SunnyDee


Maybe you just don't understand the exercise which is why it seems stupid to you.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Maybe it's been discussed to death here, on a weekly basis.

No. Too powerful a tool for those that would abuse it. I wouldn't kill baby Hitler either. I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

So tried,convicted, and executed before they ever do anything.

Precrime.

Never is it acceptable to kill a newborn a test could never determined that there are many factors,and external influences.

A few things I want to throw out there,

One, if the newborn can be determined as a genetically high risk to violence then it's a fair possibility that the indicative gene sequence could be replaced with a different one. This would be a similarly morally gray practice, because there would always be the case of a borderline dangerous child that probably won't murder but will get changed anyway.

The future of genetics is a very interesting one.

Second, I think environment and individual experiences always play a major role in violent outcomes. Killing off newborns with a violent gene is cutting a corner instead of fixing communities and early life childcare environments.

In Hitler's case, there's probably a pretty good chance that another would have been drawn to the role he ultimately filled. The situation in the world was pretty much asking for a Hitler, kill him and a new candidate might step forward. I don't think killing any one person born in the 19th century would eliminate the atrocious events of the early 20th.


I'd be against killing a newborn for any reason like this. It would stink of thinning the population of the poor while the rich would likely genetic engineer children to ensure an advantage.

Many newborns die, that is a sad fact of the world that we have to live with. But I think the principle that every parent should be able to do anything in their power to help their child survive is nonnegotiable.


Should we be hunting down bin Laden's kids around the world? There is probably a higher likelihood of them having a violent personality.

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?

Evil is subjective, no?

Whenever we have deemed someone as evil, it is because they have committed an act that goes against the grain of our particular society.

Examples:

A person from a different continent cold listen to the lyrics of Lil Wayne and deem him evil; but the buyers of his music consider him a genius artist

An abortion doctor is considered evil by people that are against abortion.

A citizen of Iraq considers American troops 'evil' ; in America, they are heroes.

So you see, since evil is subjective (in the eye of the beholder). who is to say that even Stalin or Hitler were evil? Surely they did not consider themselves evil, nor did many of their followers.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Art is subjective, evil is not. Just because SOME followers don't label a murderer evil does not make them benevolent. If you are too weak in the knees to call evil what it is then you live a sad existence and suffer from a lack of morals and convictions. .

reply to post by ButterCookie


Abortion issues, especially in the first trimester when this is not even a growing complete human, has nothing to do with very cut and dried issues of human beings who are BORN. Second and especially Third trimester is something else and they're just burying their heads in the and to pretend otherwise. All third trimester children can be born premature and the majority survive. They're babies.

For them, you put another dish on the table and LOVE LOVE LOVE.