When is killing a newborn acceptable?

Originally posted by neo96
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.

I thought I read about a new test out there that could do just that, pre crime determination.
healthland.time.com...

this isn't the study I was thinking about but it is where we are heading, Hitler would be proud,

My answer is never acceptable, obviously

reply to post by ButterCookie


In the highly philosophical sense evil is subjective, yes. We don't have to call Hitler evil. You can call him whatever you want. The fact remains though that when you murder innocent people wholesale you deserve the worst treatment possible. If some people could take Hitler to their basement and torture him for a month while having his screams lull them to sleep they probably would, and he would deserve such treatment. What would name-calling and evil this or evil that have to do with the situation I just described?

reply to post by Kali74

I'm anti-death penalty and pro-choice.

An abortion IS a death penalty to an innocent. The mental gymnastics some people do are ridiculous.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Why should an atheist such as yourself have any qualms about this at all?

98% of the answers I am seeing go something like this.

No because you can’t possibly know for certain, no test is a 100%, you can do something to change the child’s destiny.

All the answers given such as that are flawed. The question didn’t say the child might, could, or may become a murderer for the purpose of the Ops thread there wasn’t any question.

It is either take one life or do nothing which result in the loss of another life. Either way someone dies and you have the ability to choose who but you do not have the ability to save them both. Your hands will be dirty either way.



It is philosophical if you can’t answer without changing the entire premise then you are not answering the question at all.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Originally posted by SaturnFX
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?

Interesting paradox.

If adhered to, who would be left to perform the execution work?

only time I find it acceptable is when you are filming "A Serbian Film"

and you are looking to branch out into a new genre

then it's acceptable

Obviously when that newborn is
a ninja shape shifter out to steal your food.

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.

It could never happen - epigenetics. We are not meerly biology nor meerly upbringing. It's a blend of the two. Into that mix - is self determination. Nope could never happen.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
98% of the answers I am seeing go something like this.

No because you can’t possibly know for certain, no test is a 100%, you can do something to change the child’s destiny.

All the answers given such as that are flawed. The question didn’t say the child might, could, or may become a murderer for the purpose of the Ops thread there wasn’t any question.

It is either take one life or do nothing which result in the loss of another life. Either way someone dies and you have the ability to choose who but you do not have the ability to save them both. Your hands will be dirty either way.

It is philosophical if you can’t answer without changing the entire premise then you are not answering the question at all.

The entire premise is flawed in the first place if you apply simple logic.

The OP is asking when it is okay to murder an infant if there is a 100% chance that infant will kill someone in the future.

The flaw is obvious in that someone is going to murder the infant which makes them guilty of the crime which they are seeking to stop.

So OP will the infant be the one growing up to be responsible for murdering infants who fail the murderer test? Would it then be okay to murder the murderer of the infants to keep them from murdering more infants?

This is the most retarded thread I have read in a looooooonnnnnng time, why am I not surprised it was written by a transhumanism supporter?

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


OK so yet another person who can't answer.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Hope you get a zillion stars for that post. Couldn't agree more.

reply to post by Grimpachi


There is nothing to answer. You can't murder an infant, you can't project future crimes on someone. You can't know what they do. If you could, which no one could here and even Ets can only project possibilities not facts, on a 90%, 80%, 70%, likelihood for this possible timeline out of zillions of them (hypothetically the only group in the cosmos that could possibly), you still can't murder them when they're entering the school for the school is made for them and their tests. You can't murder anyone for any reason save they are attacking you in the moment with the means to kill. And even then some choose not to kill but try negotiations.

Originally posted by TDawgRex Everyone is capable of evil and Good. Sometimes at the same time even.

edit on 27-7-2013 by TDawgRex because: Went to far into the future with my date...forced to come back.

I see what you did there... nice!

Okay... well I think the only place where killing newborns is acceptable is some weird satanic rituals however I'm not well versed in that area... so don't quote me on it.

Maybe in film? I've skimmed through A Serbian Film www.imdb.com...
plot summary - "An aging porn star agrees to participate in an "art film" in order to make a clean break from the business, only to discover that he has been drafted into making a pedophilia and necrophilia themed snuff film."

In art and religion the obscure becomes accepted...... I'm sure these inhumane acts originate from a time when humanity was thin and not entirely understood, however, and people felt that the sacrifice of life might preserve much more life or the creation of it in some form of fashion due to so much loss of life, be it natural or unnatural.

Still to this day the Jewish have a ritual of Metzitzah B'Peh

[edit|edit source] The ancient method of performing metzitzah—metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction[21][22]—has become controversial. The process has the mohel suck blood from the circumcision wound on the baby's penis. Some opponents attempt to demonstrate that the practice poses a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant.[23][24] Proponents maintain that there is no conclusive evidence that links herpes to Metzitza,[25] and attempts to limit this practice infringes on religious freedom.[26][27] In the ultra-Orthodox communities, most notably Hassidic Jews and some communities in Israel, use the oral method. [28][29] The practice has become a controversy in both secular and Jewish medical ethics. The ritual of metzitzah is found in Mishnah Shabbat 19:2, which lists it as one of the four steps involved in the circumcision rite. Moses Sofer (1762–1839) observed that the Talmud states that the rationale for this part of the ritual was hygienic — i.e., to protect the health of the child. The Chasam Sofer permitted metzitzah with a sponge to be used instead of oral suction in a case presented to him for a ruling. His letter was published in Kochvei Yitzchok.[30] Moshe Shik (1807–1879), a student of Moses Sofer, states in his book of Responsa, She’eilos u’teshuvos Maharam Shik (Orach Chaim 152,)[further explanation needed] that Moses Sofer gave the ruling in that specific instance only and that it may not be applied elsewhere. He also states (Yoreh Deah 244) that the practice is possibly a Sinaitic tradition, i.e., Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. Chaim Hezekiah Medini claimed the practice to be Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and elaborates on what prompted Moses Sofer to give the above ruling.[31] He tells the story that a student of Moses Sofer, Lazar Horowitz, author of Yad Elazer and Chief Rabbi of Vienna at the time, needed the ruling because of a governmental attempt to ban circumcision completely if it included metztitzah b'peh. He therefore asked Sofer to give him permission to do brit milah without metzitzah b’peh. When he presented the defense in secular court, they erroneously recorded his testimony to mean that Sofer stated it as a general ruling.[32] According to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel[33] and the Edah HaChareidis[34] metzitzah b'peh should be performed. The practice of metzitzah b'peh was alleged to pose a serious risk in the transfer of herpes from mohelim to eight Israeli infants, one of whom suffered brain damage.[23][35] When three New York City infants contracted herpes after metzizah b'peh by one mohel and one of them died, New York authorities took out a restraining order against the mohel requiring use of a sterile glass tube, or pipette.[29][36] The mohel's attorney argued that the New York Department of Health had not supplied conclusive medical evidence linking his client with the disease.[36][37] In September 2005, the city withdrew the restraining order and turned the matter over to a rabbinical court.[38] Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City, wrote, "There exists no reasonable doubt that ‘metzitzah b'peh’ can and has caused neonatal herpes infection....The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh."[39] In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State, issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b'peh.[40] Dr. Antonia C. Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to "allow the practice of metzizah b'peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health's responsibility to protect the public health."[41] In three medical papers done in Israel, Canada, and the USA, oral suction following circumcision was suggested as a cause in 11 cases of neonatal herpes.[23][42][43] Researchers noted that prior to 1997, neonatal herpes reports in Israel were rare, and that the late incidences were correlated with the mothers not carrying the virus themselves.[23] Rabbi Doctor Mordechai Halperin implicates the "better hygiene and living conditions that prevail among the younger generation", which lowered the rate of young Israeli Chareidi mothers that carry the virus, to 60%. He explains that an "absence of antibodies in the mothers’ blood means that their newborn sons received no such antibodies through the placenta, and therefore are vulnerable to infection by HSV-1."[19]

The desecration of the infants is apart of history, unfortunately. And lives on to this day... and these ridiculous religions seem to still be accepted today.

reply to post by Unity_99


People are sent to their deaths every day. Generals sacrifice one squad to save another as the OP pointed out preemptive drone strikes are carried out frequently. Believe me I like that there are people as you in the world that have such an outlook on life however that outlook is a bit naive considering the reality.

The question he asked is answerable yet some will not be able to bring themselves to answer. The question mirrors reality more than most are willing to admit. Hey in the military medical triage is much different than in the civilian world it is based on the circumstances. Sometimes the ones who need the most help are put to the back while those with the most superficial wounds are treated so they can return to duty.

It is OK if you can't answer you are not alone but don't fool yourself it is answerable. The question wasn't asking if it was possible to predict or not, so not answering on that basis is simply a copout.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Unity_99

 

People are sent to their deaths every day. Generals sacrifice one squad to save another as the OP pointed out preemptive drone strikes are carried out frequently. Believe me I like that there are people as you in the world that have such an outlook on life however that outlook is a bit naive considering the reality.

The question he asked is answerable yet some will not be able to bring themselves to answer. The question mirrors reality more than most are willing to admit. Hey in the military medical triage is much different than in the civilian world it is based on the circumstances. Sometimes the ones who need the most help are put to the back while those with the most superficial wounds are treated so they can return to duty.

It is OK if you can't answer you are not alone but don't fool yourself it is answerable. The question wasn't asking if it was possible to predict or not, so not answering on that basis is simply a copout.

Your concept of philosophy is extremely naive in its failure to acknowledge that logic can be used to justify any action based upon an individual's point of view.

Morals develop as an altruistic system which defies logic in pursuit of an ideal.

In the example above provided by yourself it is rationalized that victory is more important than saving an individual's life and so those with minor wounds are treated first so they may return to battle while those with more serious injuries have treatment postponed because they cannot return to battle in a short time.

An infinite number of questions and postulations can arise from discussing the motives and benefits of the ideal being worked towards and its methodology but first those involved must agree on the premise, which in this case has many dissenters all dissenting based on the logic induced by their world view. No one is right or wrong except for those who claim they hold the altruistic truth of the matter.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli



That's all fine and dandy what you said there it didn't mean much of anything but that's OK. The examples I gave are real world truths you can disagree with them dissent if you must but it doesn't change the fact they are a reality.

You must be under the impression the exercise from the OP was about morals based on your speech about justification and morals.

Honestly though I didn't expect much of a response from you anyway when you couldn't give a straight answer to the hypothetical from the OP.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

That's all fine and dandy what you said there it didn't mean much of anything but that's OK. The examples I gave are real world truths you can disagree with them dissent if you must but it doesn't change the fact they are a reality.

You must be under the impression the exercise from the OP was about morals based on your speech about justification and morals.

Honestly though I didn't expect much of a response from you anyway when you couldn't give a straight answer to the hypothetical from the OP.

edit on 28-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

OP was seeking answers as when they would be justified in killing an infant. They used the word acceptable in their initial post however that word implies justification.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of ACCEPTED
: generally approved or used

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of APPROVE
transitive verb
1 obsolete : prove, attest
2 to have or express a favorable opinion of

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Hahaha I couldn't care less if you ever agree with me in fact I don't remember ever conversing with you on anything so I have no reason to hold your opinion in any type of esteem however if it makes you feel better you are more than welcome to think that if you wish. Ego much?


Anyway you finally gave a real answer to the OPs question even if you added a bunch of things to it you said it would never be acceptable. OK thanks for playing.

Some people obviously think its ok.
It depends on that persons status in reality.

Maybe "God" tells a Mom to drown her children in the bath tub?
Or maybe a deranged depressed Mother drowns her children in her car,
after jumping out saying she was car jacked?
(What's with Moms and drowning kids?)

Point is like it or not, it happens, but its incredibly rare
& almost always perpetrated by a deranged individual.
Who, at that time, believes it is necessary to kill a baby
for whatever reason. As awful as that sounds.

That's why I said it's okay to kill a newborn if that newborn
was a shape shifting Ninja out to steal your food, a few posts above.
Wasn't trying to be a smart ass. Just asking people to realize reality
is different in varying degrees to everyone on the planet.
It's complicated.