Sunday, January 01, 2006
The History of Inconvenient Children


infanticide
Related: Customs
(Ĭnfăn´tesīd) [Lat.,=child murder], the putting to death of the newborn with the consent of the parent, family, or community. Infanticide often occurs among peoples whose food supply is insecure (e.g., the Chinese and the Eskimo). Female infanticide was common in some traditional patriarchal societies. In certain societies children who are deformed or are believed tainted by evil (e.g., twins) may be slain at birth. In Greece and ancient Rome a child was virtually its father's chattel—e.g., in Roman law, the Patria Potestas granted the father the right to dispose of his offspring as he saw fit. In Sparta the decision was made by a public official. Child sacrifice ocurs in many traditional societies for religious reasons, but human sacrificial victims were generally appreciated members of society, unlike victims of infanticide, who were devalued.
It's easy to look back on earlier societies and condemn them for their societal norms. Can you even imagine taking your newborn out to die in a snowbank? Despite our current abhorrence for this choice, infanticide has been an accepted practice throughout most of the history of humanity. Inconvenient or imperfect children left to die or killed more expeditiously. Shocking, isn't it?
Shouldn't people in those societies have condemned and put an end to this baby-killing? Fortunately for us, people eventually took that stand and infanticide became a crime. With some exceptions in the Muslim and undeveloped world, of course. I wonder why it took so long?
Ancient and modern societies each create their own ideas of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. We make those decisions every day in our lives, by quietly accepting the existing law of the land. I think we're much more like those ancient societies than most would care to admit. Must we acquiesce, just because our leaders have determined something to be okay?
I'm no moralist or religious believer. I don't purport to have a greater understanding of truth than the rest of the world, or a direct pipeline to the views of some deity. But I believe there is something wrong in a society when it's okay to kill babies. It may be convenient. It may be easier. It may be common practice. But it's not okay.
How will the future judge us?
Comments:
<< Home
I've often wondered how we can call ourselves a 'civilized' society when we still practice the barbaric medical procedure of pulling a child's body parts out of his or her mother's womb in order to terminate the pregnancy.
I hope that the future will be different, and we will be judged for this horrific practice.
I hope that the future will be different, and we will be judged for this horrific practice.
An exhcange between myself and a doctor who performs abortions as recorded in The Abortionist:
Todt pressed the pen onto the green surface of his desk blotter with both hands. “Mr. Stearns, if you are going to be hostile to me on this subject, I will refuse to help you further. Besides, I thought most members of the press were sympathetic to the cause of women’s rights in this country.”
Elliot sighed. “I‘m sorry. And you’re right, most journalists are very sympathetic to both women’s rights and abortion. But personally, I‘m not convinced they’re the same thing. I never understood how the issue of equal rights for women got so tangled up with abortion. What a strange litmus test. Somehow, women were actually convinced that the only way they could be equal is if they had the right to do away with their own children.”
“Then I take it you don‘t approve of what I do for a living, sir?” Todt‘s face wrinkled like an apple kept in the refrigerator too long.
“I didn’t say that. There’s a long tradition of taking newborns out into the woods and leaving them for the wolves, but sometimes I think that’s how we should do it. I think the way we do it now is too clean. It lets people act like it’s no big deal.”
In other words...I agree with your post.
Todt pressed the pen onto the green surface of his desk blotter with both hands. “Mr. Stearns, if you are going to be hostile to me on this subject, I will refuse to help you further. Besides, I thought most members of the press were sympathetic to the cause of women’s rights in this country.”
Elliot sighed. “I‘m sorry. And you’re right, most journalists are very sympathetic to both women’s rights and abortion. But personally, I‘m not convinced they’re the same thing. I never understood how the issue of equal rights for women got so tangled up with abortion. What a strange litmus test. Somehow, women were actually convinced that the only way they could be equal is if they had the right to do away with their own children.”
“Then I take it you don‘t approve of what I do for a living, sir?” Todt‘s face wrinkled like an apple kept in the refrigerator too long.
“I didn’t say that. There’s a long tradition of taking newborns out into the woods and leaving them for the wolves, but sometimes I think that’s how we should do it. I think the way we do it now is too clean. It lets people act like it’s no big deal.”
In other words...I agree with your post.
Elliot, I have a newfound admiration for you, despite our disagreement over the 2nd Amendment.
Ragnar, let me gently point out that it was the Jews and (later) the Christians who appropriately 'demonized' infanticide, both pre- and post-birth.
Orthodox Jews and (orthodox) Christians STILL view it the same way: reprehensible in the extreme.
Post a Comment
Ragnar, let me gently point out that it was the Jews and (later) the Christians who appropriately 'demonized' infanticide, both pre- and post-birth.
Orthodox Jews and (orthodox) Christians STILL view it the same way: reprehensible in the extreme.
<< Home