← Back to context

Comment by tomcam

2 years ago

In his book “Practical Ethics” he recommends infanticide up to 2 years old as a logical extension to abortion.

48 comments

tomcam

Reply
avgcorrection  2 years ago

The “cutoff” always comes up in abortion debates, and when someone argues for a very late term abortion, the other side is sure to bring up infanticide. Polite people/amateur philosophers leave it there. Professional philosophers pick up the slack and deal with the heinous leftover questions…

  • tomcam  2 years ago

    Legislators, and therefore voters must also deal with the heinous leftover questions.

basisword  2 years ago

If it’s in relation to abortion cutoff times it’s an important question to ask. I’ve never met someone with a rational answer to that question. It mostly boils down to what they personally feel comfortable with emotionally (and that’s fine, but not something you can apply in law for all people).

barry-cotter  2 years ago

Yes. Do you have a point to add to that? Do you feel there’s some reason he’s obviously wrong for example?

  • yossarian1408  2 years ago

    Relevant context. Singer has a lot of clout because people read some of his stuff in a first year philosophy class. For those who didn't get the memo that the man is a crazy misanthrope, him taking the idea of infanticide seriously is a pretty good indicator of what his specific grift actually is.

RobinL  2 years ago

Whether you agree with him or not, the argument is more nuanced.

I believe the relevant section is page 169 of this: https://www.stafforini.com/docs/Singer%20-%20Practical%20eth...

Some of the text is copied and pasted below, but it should be read and interpreted in context:

ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE

There remains one major objection to the argument I have

advanced in favour of abortion. We have already seen that the strength of the conservative position lies in the difficulty liberals have in pointing to a morally significant line of demarcation between an embryo and a newborn baby. The standard liberal position needs to be able to point to some such line, because liberals usually hold that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus but not a baby. I have argued that the life of a fetus (and even more plainly, of an embryo) is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person. Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel. and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week or a month old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.