Okay To Kill Newborns?

"It's early in the morning and I have to go to work. My day will be spent moving heavy furniture in the shitty weather for morons who believe themselves superior because they have a higher salary and maybe a company car. Their big salary doesn't buy them guns like mine and pretty soon their feel my guns squeezing down upon them and their heads will go bang and their eyes will pop and their salaries will be mine and their children's bean bag chairs will be sat on by me.." Quote from my recently made late friend and fellow colleague. T&£sh$lls are all the same, selfish fuckers.

 

Can a person do anything around here without be accused of being HWLFP?! Maybe it's just a right of passage for new members now. I'm also listed as an "Underwater demolition expert" on my profile but that doesn't mean anything either - it would however be the coolest job imaginable.

Yeah things are working out fine, things just got better over time as I hoped, but only because we were both willing to make the effort to sort things out.

 

And what does THAT have to do with this topic?

 

I would love a blowjob from your sweet juicy lips argathon, do you feel like sucking a big one?
I suppose not.

 

No thank you, you little dipshit. Why do not you go and look somewhere else? Because I am not gay and I really do not want to go search for your tiny winy short dick with a magnifying glass.

 

Yes. Perhaps the major distinction and the only way of being OK with such speciesism is that newborns (unlike animals) have potential of developing full conciousness and "personality". Anyway, I'd rather stop eating meat than accept that killing newborns is ethically justified.

 

That is a matter of opinion, that animals are incapable of developing full conciousness and personality.

I doubt these words can be scientifically defined and measured without begging the question, ie, full consciousness is human consciousness therefore only humans can have it.

Anyway, I'm almost positive that Muro was being facetious, by following the logic through to its absurd conclusion; of course it is unethical to kill babies.

Speaking for myself, I choose life because, you now, eighty years of suffering is nothing compared to eighty billion years of being dead, so we may as well let all who can possibly live, live while they can.

I gave up pre-med studies because of all the dead bodies and sacrificial animals and, sharing a house with someone who bred show mice, I found myself as the last refuge of all who were condemned to death.

Some interesting inmates of Yitzak the Black's Institute for Condemned and Criminally Insane Mice included:
Brain: This little fellah was born with a tiny body and an enormous forehead, almost anthropomorphic. Of course, he died of seizures when quite young.
Quasimodo: An hunchbacked lab mouse. I don't know what they did to him, but he was disfigured. He was snatched by a cat, but I gave him extra time.
Annakin: A huge mouse who earned his name by violently raping a mouse called Amidala. He would kill and eat any other mice he lived with. He died of heat exhaustion one summer.

They all died, they all suffered while alive, but I was damn sure I wasn't the one who chose to kill them.

 

The fact that a found logic leads to an absurd conclusion may indicate that the logic was flawed or incomplete. Then again, it may also mean that the logic was right while the absurdity of the final conclusion is but seeming.

Is anything objectively unethical, though?

Same could be said about human foetuses, embryos and zygotes. Even gametes in the long run. Therefore, if killing newborns is murder, is the ejaculative finale of male masturbation genocide?

 

http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscr ... stid=43866


Also, though I've only done my as-of-late-characteristic brief scan of the thread, I might be justified in saying that the 'kill babies cuz' argument seems a little like concluding that there is no such thing as a shark-fin, because there isn't really a sharply-defined division between it and the shark's body,

 

No, no such thing as objectively unethical, that's an oxymoron. Objectively, I think the human race ought to be extinguished as soon as possible.

Cannibalism is a cultural taboo. Objectively, I think it is selected against largely due to transmission of disease, just as incest is selected against due to expression of genetic load.

Anyway, when the mob is chasing you with pitchforks and torches, I'll give you sanctuary, Muro, because, subjectively, I wish everyone were more compassionate.

 

Does anybody here have a view or opinion that isn't clichéd to death and boringly trite, incidentally?

 

... Oh well, as Frankenstein's monster said, "If I cannot inspire love, then I will create fear."

Now I subjectively think the human race ought to be extinguished as soon as possible.

Disgusting fucking monkeys, running around in circles on your hind legs, waving your front legs in the air and making wa-wa noises with your mouths, trading tokens of invisible debt to fight your way up an invisible ladder for the privalege of a slightly bigger tomb in a slum-dense, poisonous desert built on the bones of a million species and a billion slaves, smugly chasing the carrot-on-a-stick as perfect little drones for an insane hive-mind grazing on blood and excreting into the air. Who cares to what depths the Oxford medical ethics board sinks? Having babies in the first place is supremely unethical.

Have a nice day!

 

I explained my point of view in an earlier post but here is how it goes:
Sperm: a cell - most definitely not a being.
Zygote, embryo: no senses whatsoever - not a human being, no interests, no rights that should be protected or would need to be overruled by mother's rights.
Foetus: since capable of feeling pleasure/displeasure it has some interests that should be protected but it's still not a human being - only a potential one - it can be killed if its existence threatens mother's life or health (and also in cases of rape/incest etc.).
Newborn - still rather a potential human being than an actual human being but since it can no longer put anyone's life or health in danger society should protect its right to live.
Animal - well, why don't you state your own opinion? I humbly agree that

Killing a chimpanzee may be considered a murder, killing a roach is pest control - but where do we draw the line?

Do you have one or are you just being an ass? Or maybe sharing it is not amusing enough for you?

 

Killing a roach may also be considered murder, except that it's a legal term, and animals don't have lawyers. Telling language there, by the way. Killing a chimp 'may' be considered murder while killing a roach 'is' pest control. Hah!

Killing is killing. Personally I don't do pest control. Given that roaches around my place are native and breed in the diminished ti-tree forests around the housing development, I consider the humans to be the invasive pests. When I see the restaurant across the road getting an exterminator in, I cheer for the roaches and laugh, because it's a losing battle. Even when european mice were overtaking my cabin in the woods, I refused to evict them; everytime I went to try, there was a nest of babies, so I left them be.

In the end, it was easier to leave a bowl of food out for the mice so they didn't make too much noise searching for it, and try to work around the snakes which came looking for them. I solved the roach problem by letting spiders breed up to control them. Now my place is roach-resistant even though their population booms every summer. Similarly, if there's catapillars in my garden, I let wasps breed up around them. The problem sorts itself out and I don't kill anything.

And, just in case you're wondering, even snakes, spiders and wasps will be companiable neighbours towards a truly non-violent human.

 

I chose examples (and words) that I feel most people would intuitively agree with. I know that killing animals for food is morally problematic in a modern society which could probably easily survive without doing it. I confess that I've never given it much thought (even though I know Singer's book and I have some friends who are vegetarian for ethical reasons).

You let nature solve your problems. But where do you place humans and civilization in the big picture, as a part of nature and not as its contradiction?

 

I have expounded my opinion in earlier threads but here it is. The 'civilised' human is what biology calls a Darwinian Demon. We're apex predators and yet we are breeding exponentially. The maths of ecology is clear that we will self-destruct.

Smuel disagrees and thinks the only problem lies in giving everyone a western lifestyle while inventing solar-powered meat-vats, but even then the evolution of pathogens in an homogeneous, mobile monoculture of humans, vat-spam and wheat, points inevitably towards a global system collapse.

I could wax on about the ways in which destruction is assured, but in the end, the place of humans and civilisation in the big picture is nicely summed up by Lao Tze: Nature removes excess.

The only thing left to worry about, imo, is writing our obituary. I think it should be something like: "Sorry about the mess."

Have a nice day.

 

A nice idea, and the most popular ending to the myth of modern secular capitalism: Burn the planet fast enough and you can have another one.

This is a wonderful fairytale, but how can we terraform a hypothetical planet when we can't even keep the earth terraformed? Let alone develop the technology and the political will to throw a trillion dollars into deep space with no hope of profitable return for centuries.

Besides, does humanity deserve saving? If I were the green-lantern of this galaxy, for instance, I would be more concerned about preserving the countless species which actually make this planet habitable as well as beautiful, rather than the upstart ape who has done more damage than a direct meteorite strike.

Even if we were uploaded into turning-tested von-neumman machines with solar sails which spread out from sol over millennia and successfully inhabited the entire universe over eons, the survivors, if they did not actually envy the dead, would revile us in exactly the same way as we revile those who kill innocents for the hope of virgins in paradise or clubbed dodos to death for fun.

In conclusion: Doom! Doom, I say!

 

To me, being dead or never having existed sounds agreeably neutral, and neutral is better than suffering as suggested by your nameless survivors.
A newborn is about as neutral as a living human being is ever going to get. It's had few experiences, good or bad, and the experiences it has had probably are not retained for any appreciable length of time. Killing it at this point is not denying it anything it knows to miss.

How was that?

In infant does not know enough to want to live. It knows that being hungry sucks and that when it cries, somehow it stops feeling hungry. I don't remember being born and I don't remember being hungry as an infant. I think if at this point somebody had cashed my chips in for me, I wouldn't be upset about it. I wouldn't know what upset is. I would have just evaporated into the Æther and mingled with all the other cosmic energies of Xenu. Dead honey badger don't care.