do mother have moral right to kill her newborn baby?

AnarchicSloth said:
Indirect > Direct.

RedRoseFring said:


I see. This sort of crap will kill the planet faster than climate change ever could.

AnarchicSloth said:
Care to explain how?

RedRoseFring said:


If you don't already know, it is already too late.

AnarchicSloth said:
I don't see how it could kill the planet. It could disturb how societies perform but other than that... :/

Also I don't really think indirect is exactly acceptable, it just seems more fair to the victim because there's still a chance to be saved. For example, if the baby is ditched, some other people may find it and take care of it. If the mother just directly killed it, it's dead.

RedRoseFring said:


It would cause mother Earth to spit us out and have new children that would give her chocolate for Mother's day.
Seriously though, I was joking.

Korrvo said:
It's like what my mother always used to tell me:

"I brought you into this world, and I can take you right back out of it."

JonyJC said:
No capitals no read.

Korrvo said:
It's like what my mother always used to tell me:

"I brought you into this world, and I can take you right back out of it."

midnightblade said:
I mean at what point does someone become enough of an individual that you think the mother no longer has a right to end the child's life?

GreyKitty said:


Wow, thats cruel...

Jaguer91 said:
And unless it's raping, the choice is not only hers, but the father's too.

DerpHole said:


That's ideally how it should work, but if the father doesn't want it and the mother does well... too fucking bad for dad.

Siscon2000 said:
If she is the one who created that life then she might have a right to destroy it as well.

Jaguer91 said:

That's my point, as long as one side wants it, they must keep it.

Life > Death obviously.

Jaguer91 said:

Life > Death obviously.

DerpHole said:

So if the father wants it, but the mother doesn't she must go through with her pregnancy?

I don't see that happening.

cabacc2 said:
what makes you say that?
explain

Jaguer91 said:
I stopped reading there, I can't take you seriously if you write a retarded sentence like that. First off she's not the only one who created that life, you need two persons to do it. And unless it's raping, the choice is not only hers, but the father's too.

Jaguer91 said:
Why would someone give up on his own child? That doesn't make sense at all.

Kagami_Hiiragi said:
Nope, that would make the mother a murderer. I don't care if hitler gave birth to a baby, you can't kill a newborn baby.

Jaguer91 said:

Logic.

Jaguer91 said:

I stopped reading there, I can't take you seriously if you write a retarded sentence like that. First off she's not the only one who created that life, you need two persons to do it. And unless it's raping, the choice is not only hers, but the father's too.

Siscon2000 said:


since when? since when anyone asks mens opinion before abortion?

womens body - womens right. your body or gtfo.

if men wants any rights to a children then he must become pregnant himself.

YumeKagami said:
You see I have always had a problem with this kind of thinking. I completely disagree with this statement and the mother should have no right to kill her own children. Or father, or anyone for that matter.

YumeKagami said:
Well I believe it's mainly because a child is a living being. Let's look at it in another perspective. If you create a product or service than you are able to discontinue or "destroy" that product or service since you created it.

But that is different from a mother killing her own children. I believe every life has an inherent value and potential. And if by chance a mother killed her own child she is killing a part of herself and eliminating that potential. So I suppose that's the long and short of it.

cabacc2 said:
following that logic, your mother could kill you anytime. Even when you are an adult. She gave you life, so she can take it away again.


there are multiple problems with this.

1. Your mother didnt "give you life", she didnt create life. You make it sound like its a conscious process, which is just wrong.
2. Your proposition, that she "owns" life because she created it, presupposes, that you can treat life (an abstract concept), exactly like simple material goods.
3. Even our laws concerning material goods are far from being absolute
4. If I was to accept your premise, we'd still have to consider the role of the father

and then, in addition to that, there is the role of the baby as well. I dont know if you ignore that factor on purpose, and I dont really care either.


In the end, rights arent something you "have" per se. Rights get assigned to you. Thats all there is to it.

If you want to argue about whether women should have the right to kill their babies, you should try to justify that right. List advantages and disadvantages for the woman, the baby, every other involved person, society as whole, future generations, economy etc. etc.
then you can come to a final conclusion.

"Under the premise that we want our rights to achieve the best possible outcome for society, the mother should/should not have the right to kill her baby, because.... (listed reasons)"
it should be pretty obvious in this case.

cabacc2 said:



You cannot deny the mans role in "creating" life. After all, he provides a part of the resources, that are needed to "produce" a baby.

YumeKagami said:
Well I believe it's mainly because a child is a living being. Let's look at it in another perspective. If you create a product or service than you are able to discontinue or "destroy" that product or service since you created it.

But that is different from a mother killing her own children. I believe every life has an inherent value and potential. And if by chance a mother killed her own child she is killing a part of herself and eliminating that potential. So I suppose that's the long and short of it.

YumeKitsune said:
What the fuck.
So you're saying that if I were to have a child and as soon as they were handed to me I decided I didn't actually want it, I should have the right to kill it right then and there? Seriously?

YumeKitsune said:

First of all, what kind of mother would do something like that to her own baby in the first place?
She'd have to be mentally unstable.

YumeKitsune said:

The baby itself did not choose to be conceived. So why should they have to pay the price?

YumeKitsune said:
Sisicon, if your mother decided she didn't like you anymore, would you object to her murdering you?

Siscon2000 said:



mans part in this job - 1%

womens part in this job - 99%

YumeKagami said:
Although a child may belong to the mother they also belong to the father as well.

Siscon2000 said:

mans part in this job - 1%

womens part in this job - 99%

Siscon2000 said:


but I m already independant from her in almost every way, so its technically a but too late I guess.

but yes. if she wants to kill me I m more or less fine with it. but THANKS GADS she don't want to kill me for whatever reason. I m lucky bastard I guess...

YumeKagami said:



I suppose it's also because we as humans are not wholly independent. We are connected to each other even if we live across the world. When something happens in one country, or to one person, we pay attention and learn about how it affects us and those we care about.

cabacc2 said:
50% of the choice - 50% of the choice
In addition to that, we also have an emotional attachment on both the father- and motherside, which also isnt an insignificant factor. We are talking about what is morally wrong and right here after all. Right?
Besides, the "actual" job, what your original argument is also based on, follows after childbirth. Killing the infant to avoid negative consequences after childbirth (financially, emotional, psychological, physical..). Here, the roles and percentages are completely open again.

The relation of work required during pregnancy doesnt justify to exclude the man completely (due to the reasons I mentioned).

Siscon2000 said:
we are not talking about "what kind of mother would do that" stuff, we are talking about her right to decide if she wants to do it or not. we are talking about womens rights here not what decisions would they theorically make.

Siscon2000 said:
thats the problem. "it" dont pay any price for womens suffering, thats why women (should) have right to cancel it at any time. if they would pay for bringing them into this world then it would be different story.

sargos7 said:

But why the fuck should anyone ever have the right to kill an innocent baby?

sargos7 said:

Why is it different from an abortion? Because after birth, a baby is no longer dependent on it's mother.

Siscon2000 said:


but I m already independant from her in almost every way, so its technically a but too late I guess.

but yes. if she wants to kill me I m more or less fine with it. but THANKS GADS she don't want to kill me for whatever reason. I m lucky bastard I guess...

YumeKitsune said:

Liar. If a crazy bitch came at you with a knife I doubt you would just stand there and let her chop your fucking head off. ^^

Siscon2000 said:


sounds like:

"I m giving you this one brick. and you building the whole house. and 50% of that house gonna be mine as well".

YumeKagami said:
Well I suppose my usage of inherent value wasn't the correct way to describe it. The correction is appreciated.

In terms of potential yes you are correct, even inanimate things can have potential. But in order to build a house with that stone someone has to use it. In this case the stone's potential is tied to a carpenter or builder. But if that carpenter or builder is killed that house won't be built and that stone unused.

True, the mother should be allowed to decide what happens to their children. But death or self-injury is not one of the things they can't decide for themselves. Although a child may belong to the mother they also belong to the father as well. And some might even say, the child belongs to the entire family, grandparents, uncles, aunts and all.

A lot of people may think, "it's my life, I can and should be able to do whatever I want with it". Now that might work for people most of the time, but in this case it doesn't. Killing someone not only affects you but also the people around you as well, not just family members.

I suppose it's also because we as humans are not wholly independent. We are connected to each other even if we live across the world. When something happens in one country, or to one person, we pay attention and learn about how it affects us and those we care about.

Yes, thank you cabacc! This has been quite eventful for my first day and I conclude it will only get better as time goes on :)