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?

[WolfBear]

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":

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

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?

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Because we value human infants more than dogs and cats. Simple as.

 

[WolfBear]

Because we value human infants more than dogs and cats. Simple as.

You mean similar to how society used to value more than blacks before the Civil Rights Era, especially in the Southern US?

 

[AnimalNoodles]

You mean similar to how society used to value more than blacks before the Civil Rights Era, especially in the Southern US?

yes.

We value some things more than others. The only thing that gives you value is that enough people have the ability to force society to tell it you have value. We value infants more than dogs. And we should. Infants are our species. Dogs are not.

 

[TheRejectionist]

You can't continue the species with , while lovable, cutesy animals.

Infants can make a better world and are your own flesh and blood.

If you wanna get philosophical, it's your own immortality.

 

[Marduk]

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 infants are, at some point in the future, expected to support the whole idea of a society and legal system, without which the whole concept of legal status is irrelevant (the concept of edibility of other species, on the other hand, is still quite relevant without it).
If you can make the legal system function on cats, dogs and pigs instead, good luck with that.

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

The Christian argument would be that humans have souls and animals don't. Therefore humans, even infants, are inherently more important than animals.

 

[WolfBear]

Because infants are, at some point in the future, expected to support the whole idea of a society and legal system, without which the whole concept of legal status is irrelevant (the concept of edibility of other species, on the other hand, is still quite relevant without it).
If you can make the legal system function on cats, dogs and pigs instead, good luck with that.

Even with painless infanticide being legalized, though, there should still be plenty of human infants who will subsequently grow to become adults and thus continue the human race/species.

 

[Simonbob]

Even with painless infanticide being legalized, though, there should still be plenty of human infants who will subsequently grow to become adults and thus continue the human race/species.

Because babies could become something vastly more than any dog or cat.

Or, alternatively, because speciecism, and if you don't like it, get a cat as a lawyer to defend you in court.

 

[WolfBear]

Because babies could become something vastly more than any dog or cat.

Or, alternatively, because speciecism, and if you don't like it, get a cat as a lawyer to defend you in court.

I can't get a baby to defend me in court either for a good long time.

 

[Simonbob]

I can't get a baby to defend me in court either for a good long time.

But it's still possible. Or, a doctor, a builder, etc.

Dag's and cats cannot do any of that. They're fundamentaly less than a human.

 

[WolfBear]

But it's still possible. Or, a doctor, a builder, etc.

Dag's and cats cannot do any of that. They're fundamentaly less than a human.

Unless you edit their genes as embryos, perhaps!

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Dogs and cats are not sentient.

 

[Simonbob]

Unless you edit their genes as embryos, perhaps!

The tech does not exist, so the point is moot.

If, in the future, we can, then we can revist it. Until then, you're just being silly.


Much like gender reassignment surgery. Until we can actualy do it, it's just bullshit.

 

[WolfBear]

Dogs and cats are not sentient.

Elaborate, please. Also, what about pigs?

The tech does not exist, so the point is moot.

If, in the future, we can, then we can revist it. Until then, you're just being silly.


Much like gender reassignment surgery. Until we can actualy do it, it's just bullshit.

CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem

Three studies showing large DNA deletions and reshuffling heighten safety concerns about heritable genome editing.

www.nature.com

 

[Simonbob]

CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem

Three studies showing large DNA deletions and reshuffling heighten safety concerns about heritable genome editing.

www.nature.com

That tells us we can change genetics. That's nothing new, just wave something radioactive at somebody. The real secret is to control it.

The article itself tells you we can't do accurate, targeted changes. They thought they could, but the truth is, they can't do that right now.



So, no, we can't rewrite somebody's DNA into whatever we want.

 

[WolfBear]

So, no, we can't rewrite somebody's DNA into whatever we want.

I never said that we could, now did I? Not at this specific point in time, at least.

 

[Simonbob]

Unless you edit their genes as embryos, perhaps!

Look, I too dream of Hyper Intelligent dogs, but Mad Science has not yet managed it!


I think we need more Nazis.

 

[WolfBear]

Look, I too dream of Hyper Intelligent dogs, but Mad Science has not yet managed it!


I think we need more Nazis.

Why Nazis? 'Coz they were cool with dangerous experimentation like this?

 

[Simonbob]

Why Nazis? 'Coz they were cool with dangerous experimentation like this?

Because they were in movies.