Killing Innocent Children: Yes or No?

_{Barry Arrington

June 7, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

To all of our materialist friends who say that morality is subjective and determined by society:

John Davidson brings this to our attention:

A post at Get Religion caught my eye yesterday with the title, “Should Amazon tribes be allowed to kill their young? Foreign Policy editors aren’t sure.” It linked to a story in Foreign Policy magazine from April 9 about a handful of indigenous tribes in Brazil that engage in the ritual killing of infants and children—namely, those with a disability, twins, and the children of single mothers, all of whom are considered to be a bad omen—and the legal efforts underway to end the practice.

Now, our subjectivist friends have argued repeatedly that morality is determined by society. These tribes have determined that killing innocent children is an affirmatively good thing. I assume you agree that — for these tribes at least — killing innocent children is indeed an affirmatively good thing. If that is not what you think, please explain why.

Comments

Here is the corrected version of the last part of my previous post. For some reason I wasn't allowed to edit it. You went on to say:
[women] knew that if their condition were discovered, they would be shamed, shunned and exiled by the so-called Christian communities in which they lived. Not the men, mind, just the women. If they weren’t able to get an abortion they could be hidden away in “homes”, forced to carry to term and then the baby could be taken away for adoption. And whatever happened, they would be forever after regarded as “fallen women”, their chances of happy and fulfilling life ruined.
Wherever that was true, such Christian communities were not living up to the teachings of Christ. The fix wasn’t to pretend murder was “legal” to avoid those problems. The fix was for Christians to love sinners as Christ loved them.
… why do you need a god to give you those rights or tell you what is right and wrong, moral and immoral? Can’t you work such things out for yourself?
Again, that isn’t a very original sin. If there is a divine authority above our own then we ought to live according to His revealed standards, not our own. If there is no divine authority, then everyone becomes an authority unto themselves, which is exactly the same as no authority whatsoever. Militant atheists have demonstrated that this approach wreaks havoc upon innocent humanity.harry_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Latemarch,
School has not been voluntary here in the US for more than a hundred years.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear on my point. I just meant that Catholic school was voluntary because parents can always choose to send their kids to the secular public schools. In Canada, the native children were forcibly removed from their families and community and placed in a residential school that was staffed by the church. They were punished if they spoke their native language and had christian teaching shoved down their throats. This also goes against church policy with regard to conversion, but they ignored it for these children.Allan Keith_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Seversky @ 51
The communist regimes were avowedly atheistic but they fought and committed their atrocities in the name of their political ideologies rather then their lack of faith.
They had a huge, irrational, blind faith in their own opinion about what was right and what was wrong. They were convinced that they had god-like knowledge of good and evil themselves (which is not a very original sin). Their self-confidence even extended to their deciding that it was "good" to kill their political opponents. Atheists are prone to this delusion because they do not believe in a divine authority higher than their own.
In the centuries before that, wars were fought between regimes that regarded themselves as religious. Witness the continual bloodletting between Catholic and Protestant following the Reformation, the Crusades against Islam and practically everyone persecuting the Jews at one time or another.
Modern history testifies to the fact that the murderous crimes of atheists in the last 100 years make the sum of the crimes of the religious over 2,000 years look like a petty misdemeanor. You are the naive victim of revisionist history.
Some atheists defend abortion, although I don’t, because they see the pro-life movement as not just about preventing the killing of the unborn but also about returning women to the state of subjugation that was their lot (and still is in some cases) at the hands of all the major faiths.
Nature has endowed many higher forms of animal life with an instinct to ferociously defend the young of their own kind. This instinct reached new heights in humanity. For a mother to deliberately and knowingly kill her own child is a violation of human nature, not freedom from subjugation. (I think most women who get abortions have been deceived by the most vicious lies and propaganda promulgated since that of the Nazi effort to dehumanize their victims in the minds of the public. There are some women who are completely aware of the humanity of the child in the womb, but most women who abort, I think, are to a large extent victims along with their child.)
Why do you think it was that, in past centuries, desperate girls and women who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy risked their lives in the seedy and dangerous world of back-street abortionists?
When the SCOTUS abruptly withdrew the protection of law from the child in the womb it just allowed back-alley abortionists to set up shop on main street. See Mark Crutcher's Lime 5 : Exploited by Choice. Here are some excerpts from its synopsis on Amazon:
This is Mark Crutcher's compelling 320-page expose' of the American abortion industry. ... It fully documents that women are being sexually assaulted, mutilated, and killed inside perfectly legal abortion clinics. It also shows how pro-choice groups have used raw political power to fight off regulation of the abortion clinic business. One chapter exposes a massive cover-up of abortion clinic disasters being carried out by an agency of the U.S. government. Other subjects include: the medical evidence of a connection between abortion and breast cancer; ... the barriers faced by women injured by abortion who seek compensation in the courts and suggestions for solving these problems.
You went on to say:
[women] knew that if their condition were discovered, they would be shamed, shunned and exiled by the so-called Christian communities in which they lived. Not the men, mind, just the women. If they weren’t able to get an abortion they could be hidden away in “homes”, forced to carry to term and then the baby could be taken away for adoption. And whatever happened, they would be forever after regarded as “fallen women”, their chances of happy and fulfilling life ruined.
Wherever that was true, such Christian communities were not living up to the teachings of Christ. The fix wasn't to pretend murder was "legal" to avoid those problems. The fix was for Christians to love sinners as Christ loved them.
... why do you need a god to give you those rights or tell you what is right and wrong, moral and immoral? Can’t you work such things out for yourself?
Again, that isn't a very original sin. If there is a divine authority above our own then we ought to live according to His revealed standards, not our own. If there is no divine authority, then everyone becomes an authority unto themselves, which is exactly the same as no authority whatsoever. Militant atheists have demonstrated that this approach wreaks havoc upon innocent humanity.
harry_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Bob @ 55. No, I won't play "me no speaka the English" with you. Everyone knew what the OP was asking. You are lying if you say you did not. I will not reward your lies.Barry Arrington_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Informed judgement includes intention. Bodily acts cannot be judged in isolation. IMHO this also goes for "killing innocent children". Because, how do we judge parents who choose to kill their children in order to spare them from the otherwise inevitable horrors of a death camp? "Torturing an infant for pleasure", as it is often phrased on this forum, is, on the other hand, completely clear, since here act and intention are given.Origenes_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 9 -
Bob answered “yes.” That means that he agrees that for these tribes at least killing innocent children is indeed an affirmatively good thing.
I was just following what you had written.
The question is not what the tribes think. As you said, what the tribes think was stated in the post. What would be the purpose of asking it?
Indeed. So it's puzzling why you asked it. My guess is that you phrased the question poorly, and you meant to ask something different. But I don't want to try to guess what you were trying to ask - I might get it wrong, and then it would be utterly confusing. Can you re-phrase the question, so it is not so ambiguous?Bob O'H_{June 8, 2018
June
06
Jun
8
08
2018
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

AK@53 School has not been voluntary here in the US for more than a hundred years. Children have to go to some sort of school whether private or public. Ditto for the "Indian" children on the reservation. Due to the far flung nature of the reservation it was impossible to bus those children daily. That meant that many of those children were in boarding schools which, whether intended or not, resulted in alienation of the children from their families. The boarding schools still exist but are now run by the tribe. Still problems.Latemarch_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

The problem in Canada was not necessarily the church run schools. After all, we have pubkically funded catholic schools. The difference is that the residential schools were not voluntary. And, according to the church, they are all about family. But the residential schools did everything possible to alienate the native kids from their families.Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

AK@49
But in Canada, part of the problem was that the government gave the residential schools over to the church.
There were some church run schools but most of them preceded the government schools and were to the best of my knowledge voluntary not government enforced. The church schools did about as well as the government schools....not all that well. Think of it this way. It was an attempt to bring a stone age culture into the stream of western civilization. Not as easy as first imagined. Current government policies of welfare, support of corrupt tribal governments, and enforced lack of property rights continue to be particularly destructive to these people. Those that leave do much better (physically, socially and economically) than those that stay.Latemarch_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

harry @ 43
Atheism’s subjective “morality” has significant ramifications for society. In the last 100 years militantly atheistic, leftist regimes have murdered well over 100 million innocent, unarmed people (Lenin’s Bolsheviks seized control of Russia in 1917).
The communist regimes were avowedly atheistic but they fought and committed their atrocities in the name of their political ideologies rather then their lack of faith. And those atheist regimes only came to power in the twentieth century. In the centuries before that, wars were fought between regimes that regarded themselves as religious. Witness the continual bloodletting between Catholic and Protestant following the Reformation, the Crusades against Islam and practically everyone persecuting the Jews at one time or another.
The contemporary atheistic left ferociously defends the “legal” murder of babies who are older and more viable than babies routinely cared for in hospital newborn intensive care units.
Some atheists defend abortion, although I don't, because they see the pro-life movement as not just about preventing the killing of the unborn but also about returning women to the state of subjugation that was their lot (and still is in some cases) at the hands of all the major faiths.
They aggressively fight parental consent laws so they can exploit your frightened, desperate teenage daughter – even though she is a minor – convincing her that the only solution to her unplanned pregnancy is abortion – and that Mom and Dad never need to know about it.
Why do you think it was that, in past centuries, desperate girls and women who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy risked their lives in the seedy and dangerous world of back-street abortionists? It was because they knew that if their condition were discovered, they would be shamed, shunned and exiled by the so-called Christian communities in which they lived. Not the men, mind, just the women. If they weren't able to get an abortion they could be hidden away in "homes", forced to carry to term and then the baby could be taken away for adoption. And whatever happened, they would be forever after regarded as "fallen women", their chances of happy and fulfilling life ruined. And, as before, that was in the centuries before atheist regimes came to power.
For the atheist there are no inalienable, God-given rights, such as the right to life
Not "God-given", no. But why do you need a god to give you those rights or tell you what is right and wrong, moral and immoral? Can't you work such things out for yourself? How do you think your God decided them? Did He toss a coin or did He work them out rationally? If He worked them out rationally, why can't you do the same if you're made in His image?Seversky_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Latemarch,
Whether it did more harm than good is still debated.
I am not familiar with the US attempt. But in Canada, part of the problem was that the government gave the residential schools over to the church.Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

AK@44, EDTA@46
“Take the Indian out of the Indian” was the goal.
This was the concept behind the Navajo Indian schools in New Mexico when I was growing up. They would have liked integrating them into the public schools (and they tried) but found it difficult because of the language barrier. Whether it did more harm than good is still debated. Many Navajo entered and flourished in western society...most did not and are mired in crime and welfare dependence.Latemarch_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Killing Innocent Children: Yes or No?
Killing anyone without sufficient cause is wrong but isn't this really more of a Prime Directive-type dilemma? At what point and under what circumstances - if any - is one state or culture justified in interfering in the affairs of another? For example, suppose the Nazis had begun rounding up Jews and implementing the "Final Solution" before the Second World War broke out. Would France or the US or the UK been justified in declaring war and invading Germany on those grounds alone to put a stop to it? Or, less obviously, would the British have been justified in intervening to prevent the Native American peoples being dispossessed of their lands and forced on to reservations against their will by the US government?Seversky_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

UD Editors: LarTanner refuses to participate in good faith and is in the moderation queue. LarTanner_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

AK @44, >“Take the Indian out of the Indian”... Shouldn't those be "Native Canadians"??EDTA_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

AK: Yes, the story you tell is very complicated. Offhand, I can think of at least a dozen preliminary questions, the answers to which would influence my judgment. However, my uninformed instincts prompt me to agree with you. Only the most compelling reasons would justify such governmental intrusion, unless some laws of been broken or some promises had not been kept.StephenB_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
This problem is more complicated than it sounds. Could you have reasonably been expected to know that the consequences would be bad, and if so, was your ignorance the result of neglect. If the answers to both questions is no, which is usually the case, then it is not an evil act, even though it might produce an evil effect,
I think that it is even more complicated. What if the neglect you mention was due to a deeply held belief? The example I have in mind is the residential school system in Canada. Just a brief background. Some indigenous people in parts of Canada were reluctant to assimilate into our society, as many thought they should. Add to this the very high infant mortality rates for many indigenous communities. Our government, thinking they were improving the lives of our indigenous people’s adopted a policy of removing children from their families and giving them to the church for their education and rearing. “Take the Indian out of the Indian” was the goal. In hindsight, we now know that we did more harm that good. But were the people who imposed these policies evil? Their decisions certainly were neglectful. But evil?Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Atheism's subjective “morality” has significant ramifications for society. In the last 100 years militantly atheistic, leftist regimes have murdered well over 100 million innocent, unarmed people (Lenin's Bolsheviks seized control of Russia in 1917). The contemporary atheistic left ferociously defends the “legal” murder of babies who are older and more viable than babies routinely cared for in hospital newborn intensive care units. They aggressively fight parental consent laws so they can exploit your frightened, desperate teenage daughter – even though she is a minor – convincing her that the only solution to her unplanned pregnancy is abortion – and that Mom and Dad never need to know about it. In other words, total strangers counsel your daughter to get an abortion, and often help arrange it for her, and it is just too bad for you if you consider that the murder of your grandchild. And if the abortion is botched, as sometimes happens, and your daughter loses her life, too, again – that is just too bad for you. The godless left thinks that they know best and that you are so incompetent that you are better off letting them run your life and the lives of your children. So, exactly why is the godless left so arrogant and murderous? Atheism provides no intellectual foundation for morality or for inalienable human rights. It's all about the survival of the fittest and the superior (which the godless left believes is them, of course) and nothing more. For the atheist there are no inalienable, God-given rights, such as the right to life. Atheism provides no moral restrictions on the left's behavior. The rest of us work within ethical boundaries in our pursuit of our political goals. There are no such boundaries for the atheistic left – which is exactly why they always murder their political opponents as soon as they think they can get away with it. Are America's godless, militantly atheistic leftists any different from the murderous left of the the last 100 years? Not really. Their ferocious defense of “legal” baby murder is proof of that, as is their desire to disarm the public. The 2nd Amendment is all that keeps them from doing what they ALWAYS do: murder their political opponents. It isn't murder to them, it's just aggressive eugenics.harry_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

So, you agree that the degree of evil, and whether it is evil, is dependent on circumstances. Killing someone to protect yourself and your family is terrible, but it is not evil.
Some acts are evil depending on the circumsttances, but other acts are intreinsically evil. In anyc case, self defesne, as you say, is not evil one s- as long as the force used does not exceed what is necessary to stop the aggressor. The one who is in the act of self defense should be given much lattitude on this point since it is extremely diffcult to make that calculation in a split second.
But if you will permit a follow-up. Is evil also dependent on intention? If I do something with all of the best intentions, but have terrible consequences, am I evil, or just misguided? Stupid?
This problem is more complicated than it sounds. Could you have reasonably been expected to know that the consequences would be bad, and if so, was your ignorance the result of neglect. If the answers to both questions is no, which is usually the case, then it is not an evil act, even though it might produce an evil effect,StephenB_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
And yes, the Nazi leaders were more evil than their followers because those in authority have a greater obligation to get it right.
Thank you for responding honestly and sincerely and not saying something stupid like ‘killing babies is mor evil than jay walkers’. So, you agree that the degree of evil, and whether it is evil, is dependent on circumstances. Killing someone to protect yourself and your family is terrible, but it is not evil. But if you will permit a follow-up. Is evil also dependent on intention? If I do something with all of the best intentions, but have terrible consequences, am I evil, or just misguided? Stupid?Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith:
Are there different levels of evil? Is it more evil to kill a baby than it is to kill an adult? Were the guards who held the guns in the camps more evil than the prisoners who escorted the children into the gas chambers? Were the senior Nazi officers who commanded at the camps more evil than the foot soldiers who manned the camp? Were Himmler and Hitler, who conceived of the plan and ordered that it be carried out more evil than the commandants?"
Because this seems like a sincere question, I will provide the answer for you. The moral issue is not simply about what one is doing. It's also about the why. When the abortionist kills a fetus on purpose, he does so because he (and someone else) wants that human being dead. That act is evil. When a doctor incidentally (not purposefully) kills a baby in the process of saving the mother's life, that act is not evil because the purpose of the act is not to kill. So apply the same principle to the Nazi's. Why were they killing their victims. The obvious answer is because they wanted the victims dead. Thus, the act was evil. To answer your other question, an abortion of an unborn child is no less evil than the murder of a member of a certain ethnic group. Does evil come in degrees? Of course. It is obvious to any rational person that it is more evil to plan a murder and carry it out than to kill in a fit of anger, Both are evil, but the former is more evil than the other. That is why the law makes the distinction between first degree murder and second degree murder. And yes, the Nazi leaders were more evil than their followers because those in authority have a greater obligation to get it right. The natural moral law makes all these points clear. Do you understand better now why the subjectivist position reflects such a deep level of intellectual poverty?StephenB_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith, to more easily visualize bb's question to you, here is a video that helps get his point across more clearly: Cruel Logic: (The Original Short Film) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noP4it-QLBE If you watched the video, is your answer to bb's question still yes?bornagain77_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

AK, What reason could that be?bb_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

B.B.,
This is purely hypothetical, so don’t take my question to mean that anyone here wishes it….but is there any acceptable reason, within any culture, for someone to kill you? As you are now. No hypothetical crimes or offenses imagined.
Yes.Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Barry,
Yes, there are different levels of evil. Murdering babies is more evil than jay walking.
What an absurd answer. I asked if there are levels of evil. Do you honestly believe that jay walking is evil? Why not stick with my example. With the issue of killing children, who is more evil, the German guard in the camp, the camp commander or Hitler? Or are they equally evil?Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Bob 'Oh, I ask you the same question that I asked Allan Keith @ 33.bb_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Allan Keith at 32: What an absurd question coming from someone who is fuzzy on whether murdering babies is evil. Yes, there are different levels of evil. Murdering babies is more evil than jay walking.Barry Arrington_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

AK,
Is it more evil to kill a baby than it is to kill an adult?
This is purely hypothetical, so don't take my question to mean that anyone here wishes it....but is there any acceptable reason, within any culture, for someone to kill you? As you are now. No hypothetical crimes or offenses imagined. editedbb_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Are there different levels of evil? Is it more evil to kill a baby than it is to kill an adult? Were the guards who held the guns in the camps more evil than the prisoners who escorted the children into the gas chambers? Were the senior Nazi officers who commanded at the camps more evil than the foot soldiers who manned the camp? Were Himmler and Hitler, who conceived of the plan and ordered that it be carried out more evil than the commandants?Allan Keith_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

CH, per Guttmacher figures used by UN, the global rate is about 1 million members of living posterity in the womb killed per week. A simple growth model with a conservative let-off, makes that 800+ millions in 40+ years. That is where we are. KFkairosfocus_{June 7, 2018
June
06
Jun
7
07
2018
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply