Is there any particular reason other than speciecism as to why exactly human infants should have a higher legal status than, say, cats or dogs?

to put bluntly it's partially survival instinct part personal value. There are some exceptions, but for the most part we don't get the same fulfillment Rasing animals as we do talking to another human or simply raising a baby. You can't share feelings and concerns to a cat ,dog, or even pig the same way you can a human being. The day we discover aliens and/or animal-human hybrid splicing, or if Artificial intelligence starts to match human intelligence, then our priorities will probably change, but for right now, the only thing humans have to relate to are other humans, so we have to look out for our own and propagate ourselves as much as possible.
 
Last edited:

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Elaborate, please. Also, what about pigs?

It really requires you to define sentience.

If all you require for sentience is that something is able to sense, then every creature is sentient.

However, my definition (and most I have spoken with) requires consciousness. "Well then, what is consciousness?"

Consciousness involves internal examination, review and planning in contemplating past, present and future.

1. Does an organism have the ability to examine past behavior, the consequences of said behavior, and a 'what if' ability to try and see how different responses would have garnered different results?
2. Does an organism display the ability to override instinctual actions, such as the avoidance of pain, in order to satisfy a less immediately necessary goal?
3. Does an organism display the ability to critically plan for long term goals that aren't necessary for its own survival or betterment.

Admittedly, there are some humans that don't seem capable of 1, 2 or 3, but, as a species, we are able to do these things.

An animal will learn from past behavior and the resultant stimuli, but we don't see the sort of analysis of the past and the actions that would result from said analysis. Nor do most animals exhibit non-instinctual behavior (some examples of the behavior of dolphins and certain chimps/apes may qualify them for this). I also haven't seen any sort of long-term goal setting and the execution of tasks to meet those goals in evidence in animals other than humans.

Now, what does this mean for your question?

Yes, a human is inherently more valuable than any animal. As such, no animal should have rights that trump a human's rights. Now, as part of building a sound society, we value that which makes our society thrive. That means we value children to carry on the society's traditions as well as provide a sense of continuity. This is above and beyond any emotional attachment we have to those children.

So, this means that we cannot kill children if we wish our society to thrive. Since animals are not the same as humans, it is OK to kill them. It is NOT OK to kill human children. Individual animals are not needed for our society to thrive.

And truly reduce all this to be on point for your question: We makes the laws. So we matters more in our laws.
 
Last edited:

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
It's spelled Mohel, and they are the specially trained practitioners of circumcision in the Jewish tradition.

Really, I should have said Rabi, as they would be the determiners of Kosherness. However, I use the Mohel whenever I can...for the silliness quotiant.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
There are a number of reasons why we treat infants better than dogs, but honestly I’m fine being motivated by speciesism.

Tell me, if Peter Singer or Michael Tooley were to come to this site and advocate in favor of infanticide, would they get banned from the site for this?
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Tell me, if Peter Singer or Michael Tooley were to come to this site and advocate in favor of infanticide, would they get banned from the site for this?
I don’t know, that is a better question for the moderators than me. If I were in charge of the site, I wouldn’t punish those guys for advocating legalizing infanticide. They could have their free speech here.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Is there any particular reason other than speciecism as to why exactly human infants should have a higher legal status than, say, cats or dogs? I was inspired to ask this question because a decade ago, a couple of pro-choice philosophers wrote a "thought analysis" essay wondering whether some pro-choice arguments could also be used to justify legalizing infanticide, aka "after-birth abortion":


Both cats and dogs are both viable and sentient, after all, and yet to my knowledge, one will NOT be charged with murder for killing either a cat or a dog like one will with a human infant, even though with cats and dogs there is also the option of transferring their care to someone else if they are unwanted by their current owners.

If one argues that sentience isn't enough for legal personhood and that one should also have a conscious desire to live, well, do human infants likewise meet this criteria or not? This is an anti-abortion talking point that I've sometimes seen; that if pro-choicers focus on the lack of personhood of the fetus rather than on bodily autonomy, then one would wonder whether or not human infants should actually be considered legal persons either.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on my original question here--as in, why exactly should human infants have a higher legal status than, say, cats or dogs? (I could have mentioned pigs here but pigs are eaten much more frequently in spite of their intelligence whereas very few people actually eat cats and dogs nowadays.) Also, what are your thoughts on that pro-choice "thought analysis" essay that I posted above here?

Because humans are imagers of God. We were made in God's image to carry out his will. Animals are not.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Well, would you treat a log and a car with no gas the same way? At that moment, they both go the same speed (zero) and maybe the log can go faster because you can roll it more easily. Nope, the log and the car are radically different even if at this particular moment, the log is at least as mobile as the car.

A human baby is much different than a dog, even if at this moment, the dog has more mental capacity than the infant. One reason is that the baby has the potential to become a fully sentient and sapient adult human, the dog does not.
 
Actually, spaghetti and meatballs is made in the image of God:



you know, change the noodles into tentacles and the meatballs into two massive giant brains and suddenly you have a very cool looking Lovecraftian goddess

Pastus: The Ancient Queen of the Cosmos.

Too bad the flying spaghetti monster is copyrighted
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top