How would you characterize a civilization (of the past or future) in which infanticide is legal?

[Boojatta]

For example, you might use a one-word description such as "barbaric", but I would prefer something more elaborate because ultimately the word "barbaric" is merely an attempt to imitate the sound of some language or languages that were foreign to ancient Greek. It's not obvious that there's any moral issue involved in how the language or languages spoken in some civilization sounded or would sound to speakers of ancient Greek. Also, if your concept of "barbaric" is such that any civilization in which infanticide is legal is a barbaric civilization, then you are in a sense merely providing some information about how you use the word "barbaric." The words "good", "evil", "justice" and "injustice" (in contrast with "barbaric") seem to name basic concepts, just as true and false are basic. However, it's probably more interesting to explain why you consider a law against infanticide to be required if there is to be justice than for you to merely insist that such a law is required if there is to be justice.

Note that I'm not assuming that any and every kind of infanticide would be legal. For example, in the hypothetical civilization that I am considering, if at least one biological parent of the infant is alive, then infanticide by someone who isn't a biological parent might be in all cases illegal in that civilization. Also, direct killing of the infant via traumatic injury might be in all cases illegal, but abandoning the infant to hunger, cold, wild animals, etc would be in some cases legal. Finally, if the infant is over some specified age (such as one week) then infanticide might be in all cases illegal, but infanticide of infants who are under a week old would be in some cases legal.

Feel free to discuss the question of how infanticide came to be illegal here, and what role religious doctrines and religious institutions may have played.

[truedelphi]

1. Actually infanticide is not illegal here.

An abortion is very hard to obtain, in many areas of the nation.

But babies born with serious birth defects are often left to die, without any food or even water inside America's hspitals.

Back in the seventies, I had friends who had to go in and kidnap their newborn to save the baby from that plight.

They had been told that the baby would be better off being starved and dehydrated to death. (The baby was hydroenceopheletic, and there was no skin over the back portion of the head.)

There were legal appeals going on, but they didn't think thee appeals would be heard in time.

Anyway they smuggled the baby out of the hospital, and in the end the baby doid die of its berth defects, but the family was able to care for the child the way any family cares for anyoen who is dying.

I still have a photo somewhere of the little guy, being held by a parent, and offering his hand in the air like a blessing to the assembled family and friends at one breakfast table.

[jobycom]

2. Legal, customary, or justifiable?

For instance, during the Middle Ages the ancient practice of exposure was modified so that parents could abandon infants near monasteries and cathedrals with the expectation (but not requirement) that someone would find the child. There was no real legal authority that could enforce a written law in most of these regions, but there were lords who could punish or not, based upon their own ideas. The general custom seems to have been that if the child was abandoned before baptism, it was acceptable.

In other cases a person might be punished for it, if it was not seen as justifiable. If a poor family with too many kids did it, it was not the same as a rich family with the resources. Or, conversely, a nobleman (in the early Middle Ages) could expose an infant to prevent dynastic disputes, where a poor family might not be justified.

So are you asking about cases where there was something we could realistically call "legal," or just places where custom would allow it, or places where it was forbidden but concept of life was such that it could be justified for an infant under the right circumstances?

[dimbear]

6. Well said. A reminder that "Hansel and Gretel" is an trace of

the real social history of that period, which is unfortunately not well recorded. The first edition of the Brothers Grimm reappeared later heavily censored to avoid such topics.

[burnsei sensei]

3. The ancient Greeks, probably

from the Mycenaean through the Hellenistic Period, practiced infanticide.
I would characterize them as an impoverished society, and it was chiefly their poverty drove them to such conduct.
Aristotle called Greece "Poverty's sister."
We practice infanticide in the here and now.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned, America is also "Poverty's sister."
Particularly NOW.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. In most ancient Greek societies

it was considered undesirable to have more than one female child. So female infanticide was very common. In Sparta, where the desire was to breed many warriors, there was a recognition that females were a necessary part of warrior production, so female infanticide was not practiced, but male infants that looked unlikely to develop into fit warriors were eliminated.

I don't think it was a function of poverty but more a way of achieving a preferred demographic configuration.

There were lots of things that the ancient Greeks did that would be completely unacceptable and illegal according to modern American standards, not the least of which was older men taking young boys as lovers.

[burnsei sensei]

10. Poverty also explains the significant presence

of homosexuality in ancient Greece and even in the Hindu Kush.
If you favor the same-sex relationship, and do not favor children generally, there is a good manner of population to resource control. These things were not and are not statistically done, but I think there is the recognition that more children would put more stress on the society.

[rug]

4. Uncivilized.

[Iggo]

5. This. Is.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Most past civilizations practiced infanticide.

It was the only real means of family planning before the advent of birth control.

Even Europe, a few centuries ago, practiced a kind of stealth infanticide by turning babies over to foundling homes where the mortality rate was close to 100%. Sort of killing your baby while pretending not to.

I have a real problem with cultures that are still practicing infanticide. Unless they are living a stone age existence with no access to modern technology and alternatives, there is just no excuse at this point.

As far as making it legal in this country, that's just crazy talk. There's just no reason for it here. If you don't want your baby, there are lots and lots of people who do. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. A person born in this country (even one day ago) is an American citizen and is entitled to all the protections that go along with that citizenship. You can't just go around murdering American citizens.

[Jim__]

9. Singerian?

Peter Singer does address the issue of infanticide as a merciful option under certain conditions:

When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive - like the feelings of the parents - it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering. A more difficult problem arises - and the convergence between the two views ends - when we consider disabilities that make the child's life prospects significantly less promising than those of a normal child, but not so bleak as to make the child's life not worth living. Haemophilia is probably in this category. The haemophiliac lacks the element in normal blood that makes it clot and thus risks prolonged bleeding, especially internal bleeding, from the slightest injury. if allowed to continue, this bleeding leads to permanent crippling and eventually death. The bleeding is very painful and although improved treatments have eliminated the need for constant blood transfusions, haemophiliacs still have to spend a lot of time in hospital. They are unable to play most sports and live constantly on the edge of crisis. Nevertheless, haemophiliacs do not appear to spend their time wondering whether to end it all; most find life definitely worth living, despite the difficulties they face.

much more ...

[GliderGuider]

11. Sustainable

:evilgrin:

[Nihil]

12. Hmmm ...

:spank:










... but :toast: for making me smile in the middle of the day!