Should Infanticide be a Crime?
This terrible case of a girl giving birth and stabbing her baby to death raises a very important point. Some, like Princeton's Peter Singer, believe that a newborn is not a person and so infanticide should not be a crime. A regular commenter here at Secondhand Smoke recently stated that there is a moral distinction to be made between a neo-nate, a baby in the first 24 hours, and later aged babies, and that a newborn is more akin to a fetus than a baby.
So, here is where the rubber meets the road: With regard to a case such as this--let's not prejudge this particular allegation since people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, there may be mental illness issues, etc.--should the intentional killing of a newborn baby who is not wanted be a crime?
I say a newborn infant is a human being with full moral status, and that infanticide is murder most foul--regardless of the physical condition of the child. But some say infanticide isn't murder because the baby isn't a person or it might not be wrong depending on the physical state of the child. What say you? Please comment here and take the poll below.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:47 AM
19 Comments
19 Comments:
you forgot a different category, not murder, but manslaugther, depending on the circumstances.
Valid point, Royale. I changed the headline to, should infanticide be a crime.
I think the question, though, would be whether it should be manslaughter in identical circumstances in which it would be murder were the victim older. That is, of course the killing of a newborn _can_ be manslaughter (e.g. if the child is abused without realization that the particular abuse is likely to kill and is killed accidentally), just as this could be true if you hit a guy in a big fight and killed him. But I understand Wesley to be meaning to outline a case where the killing is entirely deliberate and where no one would consider the same act manslaughter if it were done to an older person. In that case, to make it manslaughter in any degree *because of* the age of the child is to deny the child equal legal status to an older person.
I think this is important, because I worry that in the West we are considering slapping the term "manslaughter" on open and deliberate killings as a judgement on, in a sense, the moral licitness of the killings, where that licitness is highly controversial. Slipping in, for example, a lesser valuation of the life of the child by making its killing a lesser crime because it is a neonate. Similarly, I have read that in Germany there is a move to make so-called "honor killings"--hits carried out on women by their family members because the woman has supposedly been sexually indiscreet or immoral--"manslaughter," even though they are premeditated and entirely deliberate. That is an importation of the notion that it "isn't so bad" to hunt down and kill your sister for having a boyfriend, and it is a highly questionable use of the legal category of "manslaughter."
I'm not sure I find a poll like this very useful, since it can't help but reduce a complex and challenging question into a simplistic choice. While I'm probably more open to the idea that neonaticide might be permissible than most of you here, that doesn't mean I don't find it a very disturbing and troubling issue. In fact I don't have a well-formed opinion on it, certainly not one that fits neatly into any of your answers (I picked the third as the closest one).
I doubt you will find many people who think infanticide is just dandy, except maybe Peter Singer.
I'm more interested in understanding the sociological and psychological processes by which personhood is bestowed, than in making ethical judgements about it.
This from a reader: "Regarding some of the comments about your infanticide poll - let us hope that those who are reluctant to grant "personhood" to a newborn will never have their "personhood" taken away. After all, if you don't always have it, then well . . . maybe you won't always have it.
Would it be so awful to allow each human being "personhood"? The only people it inconveniences are those who want to allow a human life to be killed, ended, snuffed out, in one way or another. Is it so intolerant to not want to allow this small inconvenience? Deep sigh.
The redeeming fact of the matter is, your readers overwhelmingly support deeming infanticide always a crime. Good moral sense prevails!"
Your reader is one of those people who like to congratulate themselves for "good moral sense", while dodging the hard issues that are faced by real people. Having a newborn that has a serious genetic disease is hardly an "inconvenience". That doesn't mean it should be killed, but let's not dodge the real issue.
Of course the real battleground for personhood is not infanticide but abortion. Those who would redefine personhood to include early-stage embryos do more than "inconvenience" woman who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy -- they want to force them to bring the child to term and raise it to adulthood. They want to interfere with the personhood and agency of the mother in order ot protect what they see as the personhood of a small clump of cells without a nervous system.
Having a 20-year-old that has a serious genetic defect is hardly a mere inconvenience, either. So is the issue really infanticide or is it being permitted to kill people of any age with a serious genetic defect?
Yes, we really are dodging the tough issues when we say killing newborn infants should always be a crime. The tough issues--like being allowed without legal penalty to kill people with something badly genetically wrong with them. That's a toughie. Not.
This stuff about wanting to "force women to raise children to adulthood" is such a lot of nonsense. I'm resisting the urge to use a stronger term. Please, Mr. Raven, spare us. You know perfectly well that pro-lifers have never proposed a single bill that would force a woman to raise a child to adulthood. Now I suppose I'll hear all about how it really _is_ forcing, because by golly once you give birth to a child you just emotionally can't _bear_ to give it up for adoption without _severe_ emotional pain, so by not allowing the mother to kill the child earlier, we really _are_ forcing her to raise it to adulthood. Blah, blah.
Logic. What do they teach them in these schools?
The "reader" responds to mtraven: "MTRaven, is unaware of what this correspondent has or hasn't experienced and shouldn't speculate. I will tell him that he may be surprised at how much compassion this correspondent has for those with sick babies - babies who will always be sick. No issues have been dodged. They have been distilled. It is in fact inconvenient to care for those who are profoundly disabled. It is at times heartbreaking, isolating, expensive, and overwhelming. But a "final solution" sees only one side of the situation. It fails to recognize that caring for those who need us most can be at distinct moments rewarding beyond compare, fulfilling, and beyond personal satisfaction, a real, objectively positive contribution to the world, to humanity.
Yes, abortion is the primary battleground for personhood, but the fight goes on at the end of life, at our moments of extreme vulnerability. Not many people want to admit to believing that some should not be here because they cost us much, interefere with us, our lives, our plans for dinner, our plans for life. Much easier to strip them of their personhood and call them "cells", or "vegetables".
And yet, again and again we see that our perspectives can change over time, even as little as weeks. Mothers resentful and hostile to the baby in the womb have been known to fall in love with the baby after birth. Those who would never have dreamed of hoping for a child with a syndrome find themselves adopting several. We may dread watching Dad slowly die, yet when the day comes be willing to offer anything for more time. Final solutions not only kill their subjects, but they also kill in us the amazing capacity to change, grow, love, hope, and trust. Cynics will never respond favorably to this view, but that should not give them license to kill."
I am told this will be the last response because the reader doesn't believe it is fair to comment anonymously and without an account.
Some crimes bear a striking family resemblence to abortion.
Whether abortion is legal or illegal, it is basically the same procedure albeit under different standards of sanitization and quality of care. Like feticide, legalized abortion kills unwanted fetuses. Why abortion and feticide could pass for twins! And abortion, neonaticide,and infanticide could be close cousins. Too close.
From my book "Abortion: A Mother's Plea for Maternity and the Unborn" (Liguori Publications), Chapter 15, "Cousins in Crime"
Marybeth T. Hagan
www.mothermayibeborn.com
This is a very crucial and important issue. Thank-you Mr. Smith for posting on it. How tragic this case is. She cared enough to carry the child to term. If only she would have taken the next step to adopt or drop the baby off at the local fire department. There are so many parents who are ready and willing to adopt unwanted children. Our society has failed when our children do not learn about the basic worth of all life – human life in particular. Humans are exceptional and worthy of our full protection throughout our entire life cycle. Who are we to pick and choose at which stage one is worthy and at what stage one is not worthy of our full protection? Each one of us at one time in our life was an embryo and a neonate. There is no distinction between a human being and a human person. Each one of us is intrinsically exceptional from conception. We are human beings and human persons through out our entire life cycle. There is no morally significant difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, newborn, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, or senior citizen. There are obviously differences with regards to Size, Level of development, Environment, or Degree of dependency but these differences are not morally significant or relevant to our humanness or our personhood. Therefore to allow or sanction or promote the killing of innocent human beings or innocent human persons at any stage of life is immoral and wrong. Clearly the precious, defenseless newly born are the most innocent of us all – and so worthy of our protection.
"Who are we to pick and choose at which stage one is worthy and at what stage one is not worthy of our full protection?"
I would agree, but....the choice is inevitable. Just look to the line of conception where zygotes get protection, but ova and sperm do not. Any rationale to justify that distinction is no more than "picking and choosing."
here is no morally significant difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, neonate, newborn, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, or senior citizen.
This is obviously untrue. As I've pointed out here repeatedly, even the most extreme pro-lifers don't treat zygotes as persons, or they'd have to do something about the huge holocaust of unimplanted zygotes that get flushed down the toilet every month. If 50% of infants or senior citizens were dying, we'd be noticing it.
The Catholic Church used to believe that "ensoulment" happened some months into a pregnancy. That seems like a far more defensible position than their current stance.
"even the most extreme pro-lifers don't treat zygotes as persons, or they'd have to do something about the huge holocaust of unimplanted zygotes that get flushed down the toilet every month. If 50% of infants or senior citizens were dying, we'd be noticing it."
There are people doing something - its called embyro adoption. See http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm. One third of our future generations are terminated before they even take a breath and not enough people are noticing it!
I was not referring to IVF embryos, but the 60-80% of fertilized zygotes that fail to implant in the uterus and are flushed away without anybody noticing. You better do something about this terrible holocaust -- perhaps you need to outlaw menstruation, or ensure that it only happens in medical facilities that can monitor the flow to see if there's an embryo there.
mtraven: Re zygote deaths: You could just as easily say that there is a 100% mortality rate for born people. Better do something about that holocaust. Sarcasm is not an argument, which applies double to non clever and non original sarcasm.
mtraven: "The Catholic Church used to believe that "ensoulment" happened some months into a pregnancy."
My understanding is that in fact the Catholic Church has never made an official pronouncement as to when ensoulment occurs. In the past, some figures followed Aristotle and suggested 40 days after fertilization; others went with the idea of quickening (which after all is the only detectable sign of fetal life in a pre-scientific society). Now it leans more toward the moment of conception. However, it is crucial to note that regardless of what particular idea was prominent, destruction of the fetus before birth was always considered morally wrong.
Royale: "Just look to the line of conception where zygotes get protection, but ova and sperm do not. Any rationale to justify that distinction is no more than "picking and choosing.""
How so? Ova and sperm are not individual organisms, simply potential building blocks of one.
Wesley: we already do something about the holocaust of death in adults and children, it's called "medicine". But we don't do anything for unimplanted zygotes, which indicates that they are not persons for all practical legal, moral, and psychological purposes. What I wrote was not "sarcasm", but a reductio ad absurdum of the position that personhood begins at conception. As it turns out, nobody really believes that even though they claim to, because they don't act as if they do.
bernhardt: I'm hardly an expert on Catholic doctrine, so you may be right. I personally don't see how anything worthy of the name "soul" could be supported by an organism without a nervous system.
TO MTRAVEN: Simply because 60-80% of zygotes do not implant, as you claim, and end up dissolving or being flushed away does in no way affect the moral status of the zygote. Nor does it make it absurd to believe personhood begins at conception just because you say so or because nothing is done to prevent the death of these unimplanted zygotes. What is more absurd and potentially malevolent is to pick some relativistic point in our life cycle and say it is ok to destroy life before this point but not after this point. We should be seeking the greatest and highest good for mankind. Not the “convenient to my own personal lifestyle” good. When you say the position that personhood begins at conception is absurd because nothing is done to prevent unimplanted zygotes from being destroyed, you are not considering the major moral differentiation between a deliberate act and an act that happens without knowledge or participation or an act that one is helpless to prevent. Abortion and embryonic stem cell research are deliberate acts that take the life of a human being, a human person. These deliberate acts are clearly not on the same moral plane as the unintentional or accidental flushing away or disposal of a zygote whose existence is unknown and thus whose destruction can not be prevented.
Phos, you are missing my point. I'm not arguing that letting zygotes get flushed is moral or immoral. I'm saying that, in real life, people do not treat zygotes as persons. It's not a matter of intention or not. If a 1 year old child dies due to some kind of natural disaster, we mourn him or her. If a zygote dies, we don't. Persons are mourned, zygotes are not. If there was some mechanism that revealed the presence of a fertilized zygote and its fate, we still wouldn't mourn the ones that didn't implant, because there are simply too many of them.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home