I think the only argument against it is: They're babies. We don't kill babies. Especially when we have the technology to cure most (if not all) issues that a newborn would come into contact with.
But like I said scientifically it makes sense, so I can't really argue against it. A strong gene pool creates a strong race
So it's just this one person (that is NOT me, to reiterate. I also do not support killing children). My school is seriously messed up…….well I'm glad we all agree killing babies is bad
But why? Why is it wrong?
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
I just can’t see how that’s considered reasonable… That’s like ending overpopulation by nuking random cities, or ending racism by killing off all but one race… Like, it’s a good cause I guess, but it’s not a good solution at all
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?
Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?
Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?
It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.
I stand by my point in this. Im neutral leaning towards no, with strict criteria.
But what's the difference here between killing this weak baby and killing an unborn child? (I know, I'm dragging back to the abortion debate. I'm just wondering what the logic here is, but I still don't want to jump back to all of the early debate's point. Logic only, not actually abortion debate.)
If it's not viable and unable to survive on it's own then it is a mercy to let go instead of force it to live a life full of pain and misfortune. That goes for all ages, not just babies.
I think the main problem is that humanity doesn't know what happens after death and they are scared of the prospect of there being nothing, or learning that their religion lied, etc.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?
Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?
It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.
^^You can't base morality on what people think or else morality can change with time.
Not all people consider life sacred. Many don't believe in sacred at all.
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?
Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?
It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.
^^You can't base morality on what people think or else morality can change with time.
Not all people consider life sacred. Many don't believe in sacred at all.
You have a point. It comes down to the fact that most humans don't want a young baby to be killed for having something minor wrong with them, before they have a chance to grow up and become part of society.
Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others
What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?
Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?
It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.
^^You can't base morality on what people think or else morality can change with time.
Not all people consider life sacred. Many don't believe in sacred at all.
You have a point. It comes down to the fact that most humans don't want a young baby to be killed for having something minor wrong with them, before they have a chance to grow up and become part of society.
That's why I said most. Not all. Most.
Okay, here's my take:
It's up to the parents.
(I love how in order to convincingly argue the other side you have to argue on the side of literal insanity…)
(I love how in order to convincingly argue the other side you have to argue on the side of literal insanity…)
(Insanity is kind of my thing. I should probably be on that side.)
(I love how in order to convincingly argue the other side you have to argue on the side of literal insanity…)
(Insanity is kind of my thing. I should probably be on that side.)
(Insanity is worth it)
Okay, here's my take:
It's up to the parents.
Deciding morality? No way! They are just people. I mean of course listen while you are too young to make your own moral decisions. And obviously listen to your parents. But they don't have monopoly on morality any more than anyone else.
That's why I said most. Not all. Most.
Explain how you are not counting on democracy to judge morality.
Okay, here's my take:
It's up to the parents.Deciding morality? No way! They are just people. I mean of course listen while you are too young to make your own moral decisions. And obviously listen to your parents. But they don't have monopoly on morality any more than anyone else.
I meant, if the child would live a life of misery and pain, it should be up to the parent to decide if they should die or not. It's like pulling the plug.
How is anyone supposed to see the future to decide that?
There are some genetic disorders that have been proven to be painful for people with them.