The Pros And Cons Of Infanticide

Infanticide or the act of killing an infant outside the womb in limited scope eliminates pain and suffering for society. A limited scope is defined, in this sense, as terminal Illnesses or illnesses that permanently disfigure mental capacity or extreme physical dismemberment. If some forms of infanticide eliminates pain and suffering for society, then some forms of infanticide within the first month of life are morally permissible and promote maximum utility. Therefor, some forms of infanticide within the first month of birth are morally permissible and promote the maximum utility. In this paper I will develop my argument and then elaborate on a possible objection as well as refute said objection. As Infanticide in a limited capacity is

Infants who are eligible for infanticide must have truly terminal conditions and require constant care and surgeries. If the infant is truly terminal and requires constant medical care and surgeries, then infanticide would prevent enormous health care costs from being incurred by his or her caretakers. Infanticide would prevent enormous health care costs to their caretakers. While it depends on the tolerability of the parents and their financial situation, an infant with a critical terminal condition can be devistational (Williams 2012). But it is not just the parents and family who suffer the burden of a child with a severe mental and chronic physical disability. Societal resources are consumed with no motive of production in the case of terminally ill young children (Kuhse & Singer, 1985). If societal resources are consumed with no motive of production then terminally ill children do not promote the maximum utility. Thus terminally ill children do not promote the maximum utility. Finally, with regards to my first premise, property rights promote the maximum utility in a majority of scenarios. A child is the property of his or her parents until they reach 18 years of age. If property

One might say that my argument is only valid and sound if the audience is of a utilitarian background. Human rights theory does not seek to maximize overall utility as it runs into myriad faults such as the justice objection. Coming at it from a human rights theory enables a disconnect between the premise one and the conclusion because doing an act that minimizes pain and suffering does not imply that that act is morally permissible and thus ideal. A Human right must encompass the 8 characteristics of a human right (Nickels 2003). Reducing or even eliminating all pain and suffering, while noble, does not constitute as a human right. A human rights theorist would also state that connecting the elimination of pain and suffering from society entails that all people sacrifice something in order to obtain maximum utility which violates individuals’ human rights. From a human rights theorist’s perspective, a universal morally permissible action is one that does not infringe on the rights of another. If this argument is presented to a human rights theorist, then the second premise can be rejected. This argument could be presented to a human rights theorist. Therefor the second premise can be