Killing babies--when is it justified?

[_asbestosman]

This is a taboo topic, but I've been thinking about the worth of human life.

I don't believe that killing babies is justified just because God says so. Of course, I don't believe God would just say so. However, I do think there may be circumstances where it is necessary to kill a baby. I generally do not like the idea of killing anyone especially children. That said, I do think that sometimes war is necessary. I justify war when one needs to protect one's liberty, life, and sometimes property as property is often necessary for life (I don't justify killing someone who merely steals your big screen TV, but I might if the person is forciblly taking food from you and your kids need to eat).

So when would I justify killing babies? Not in any cases I'm aware of off hand. However, hypothetically I would justify it if someone were using a baby has a human shield and that person was threat to the lives or freedom of other people. I don't think I could justify killing a baby to save my own life, but I could justify it to save the lives of many others. I'm not sure I could actually do it--perhaps I am a just coward (anonymous and all). I would've course, prefer to bring the child to safety first and I would do so if possible. Indeed, I would prefer not to shoot the enemy if I believe I could stop him otherwise.

Then, now that I have made justificaiton for baby killing in an extreme circumstance, does that in fact make me no better than one who would be willing to engage in genocide if God commanded it?

[_The Dude]

, now that I have made justificaiton for baby killing in an extreme circumstance, does that in fact make me no better than one who would be willing to engage in genocide if God commanded it?

God never outright commands individual people to do certain things. If someone says he was commanded to kill by god, you can be sure he is a criminal lying to justify his actions, or else insane.

Now that aside, I do think there can be justification for killing a baby. It has to serve a real purpose that anybody can look at and say "yeah, I can understand that" and it can't have the most important data be personal feelings like "god told me to" bullcrap.

I would say, if you are in a survival situation, on the verge of starvation with nothing to eat, it would be justifiable to kill and eat a baby. That is, if it is certain the baby will die anyway once you starve. Anyone disagree with that?

[_guy sajer]

, now that I have made justificaiton for baby killing in an extreme circumstance, does that in fact make me no better than one who would be willing to engage in genocide if God commanded it?

God never outright commands individual people to do certain things. If someone says he was commanded to kill by god, you can be sure he is a criminal lying to justify his actions, or else insane.

Now that aside, I do think there can be justification for killing a baby. It has to serve a real purpose that anybody can look at and say "yeah, I can understand that" and it can't have the most important data be personal feelings like "god told me to" bullcrap.

I would say, if you are in a survival situation, on the verge of starvation with nothing to eat, it would be justifiable to kill and eat a baby. That is, if it is certain the baby will die anyway once you starve. Anyone disagree with that?

In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond writes about a small island civilization that appeared to have practiced some form of infanticide as a survival strategy to maintain the carrying capacity of the island--without it, one presumes, the society would have exhausted the limited resources of the island and the surround seas. by the way, I'm not endorsing this, simply recounting it.

Ab-Man, given your revulsion at killing babies, you must not think much of the God of the Old Testament, who not only killed millions of innocent children via the flood, but who also commanded his earthly rulers to kill innocent children (along with all the men, women, older children, and beasts).

Then there's the Jesus of the Book of Mormon who, prior to his visit in the Americas, laid waste to several towns via fire, flood, earthquake killing all the inhabitants, including innocent children (not saying that the adults weren't innocent, after all, what was their crime other than living their owns lives without paying heed to some nutcase who claimed he talked for God).

The God of the Old Testament and Book of Mormon is a murderous God, and he spares not the children from his murderous ways.

[_Dr. Shades]

I would say, if you are in a survival situation, on the verge of starvation with nothing to eat, it would be justifiable to kill and eat a baby. That is, if it is certain the baby will die anyway once you starve.

Didn't Josephus write that that exact thing happened during the siege of Jerusalem in (I believe) 72 A.D.?

[_asbestosman]

I would say, if you are in a survival situation, on the verge of starvation with nothing to eat, it would be justifiable to kill and eat a baby. That is, if it is certain the baby will die anyway once you starve. Anyone disagree with that?

Theoretically speaking of course since I cannot imagine a real situation where "baby food" is the only thing available:

Would eating the baby merely delay my inevitable death through starvation? If so, I don't think it could be justified. If not, then why would I need to eat a baby--couldn't I wait until help arrived? If eating the baby is necessary in order to live long enough for help to arrive, then it seems most likely that the baby would have to die before me anyhow.

But just to make this painful, what if I really did need to eat the baby that was going to die anyhow, but I had to kill it in order to eat it before I starved? Could I do it? I don't think so--I'd rather starve. Do I think it would be justifiable for someone else? Honestly, I have a hard time thinking about it. I want to find a logical reason to say no, but instead all I'm left with is my sensibility telling me that it's wrong even if both end up dying.

[_asbestosman]

Ab-Man, given your revulsion at killing babies, you must not think much of the God of the Old Testament, who not only killed millions of innocent children via the flood, but who also commanded his earthly rulers to kill innocent children (along with all the men, women, older children, and beasts).

Having God kill children through flood doesn't bother me so much as having God command me to kill innocent children. The latter bothers me enough that I doubt that God ever issued such commands even if the Old Testament says otherwise.

[_guy sajer]

Ab-Man, given your revulsion at killing babies, you must not think much of the God of the Old Testament, who not only killed millions of innocent children via the flood, but who also commanded his earthly rulers to kill innocent children (along with all the men, women, older children, and beasts).

Having God kill children through flood doesn't bother me so much as having God command me to kill innocent children. The latter bothers me enough that I doubt that God ever issued such commands even if the Old Testament says otherwise.

And why does the former not bother you as much as the latter?

[_antishock8]

What if God gave you a choice:

You would travel back in time to kill Hitler before he rose to power, but you would have to kill baby Hitler.

Save a 100 million, but kill one baby.

[_truth dancer]

I'll tell you when killing babies is NOT justified:

When you think God tells you to slaughter them to prove your faithfulness or to gain a reward in heaven.

:-(

~dancer~

[_Doctor Steuss]

I would say, if you are in a survival situation, on the verge of starvation with nothing to eat, it would be justifiable to kill and eat a baby. That is, if it is certain the baby will die anyway once you starve.

Didn't Josephus write that that exact thing happened during the siege of Jerusalem in (I believe) 72 A.D.?

Among the residents of the region beyond Jordan was a woman called Mary, daughter of Eleazar, of the village of Bethezuba (the name means "House of Hyssop"). She was well off, and of good family, and had fled to Jerusalem with her relatives, where she became involved with the siege. Most of the property she had packed up and brought with her from Peraea had been plundered by the tyrants [Simon and John, leaders of the Jewish war-effort], and the rest of her treasure, together with such foods as she had been able to procure, was being carried by their henchmen in their daily raids. In her bitter resentment the poor woman cursed and abused these extortioners, and this incensed them against her. However, no one put her to death either from exasperation or pity. She grew weary of trying to find food for her kinsfolk. In any case, it was by now impossible to get any, wherever you tried. Famine gnawed at her vitals, and the fire of rage was ever fiercer than famine. So, driven by fury and want, she committed a crime against nature. Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, "My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews." With these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place. But the rebels were on her at once, smelling roasted meat, and threatening to kill her instantly if she did not produce it. She assured them she had saved them a share, and revealed the remains of her child. Seized with horror and stupefaction, they stood paralyzed at the sight. But she said, "This is my own child, and my own handiwork. Eat, for I have eaten already. Do not show yourselves weaker than a woman, or more pitiful than a mother. But if you have pious scruples, and shrink away from human sacrifice, then what I have eaten can count as your share, and I will eat what is left as well." At that they slunk away, trembling, not daring to eat, although they were reluctant to yield even this food to the mother. The whole city soon rang with the abomination. When people heard of it, they shuddered, as though they had done it themselves.