h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I just learned that some people out there...not a whole lot, but a group that grows larger with time...advocate infanticide for children born with serious physical or mental handicaps or birth defects.

I first heard that and my initial reaction was that it was crazy.

This conclusion is based on what seems to be a mindset that's growing in popularity with the kids today (by which I mean, wise and learned aging professors, philosophers, and doctors and the youngins that they teach). This mindset is as follows: morality should be governed based on what is best for the greatest number of people. As it can cost thousands and thousands of dollars to care for children who may possibly be miserable anyway, why not end it now and send a little cash to get food and medicine to starving families in other nations?

I still think it's crazy, but I understand his logic.

This, to me, is the next logical step in the continuous trend of transfering people to manageable numbers. Many people see the logic in trying to make the "happiness ratio" well balanced. While it's easy to side with this logic when talking about wealthy fatcats who own company coal mines that pay workers in credit at the company store, it doesn't make sense when it comes to the rich fellow who wants to keep his money in case his current plan to help people isn't as good as he thought it might be.

I think it was Asimov who wrote something like, "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing something that's right." While I don't often agree with Asimov's morals in his stories, this is one that I don't have a problem with. Judging ethics should always be a case-by-case basis, not as a single widespread equation to ensure that the status-quo ratio of quality of life is maintained.

Forgive me for using a second science fiction quote in my rantings, but Picard wasn't kidding when he said that "No law is just if it is an absolute law." There is ALWAYS an extenuating circumstance, there is ALWAYS a poorly worded law that stabs good people in the back based on the circumstances, and there is ALWAYS going to be some lowlife who finds the loophole in the system.

Forgive me if that's a little bleak, but I won't change it until we get a system that proves that statement wrong.

Anyway...this infanticide thing just seems so wrong to me...what is so royally messed up with our society that Death is rushed to with such great speed? Asimov's foundation series (Sci-Fi Reference #3, Asimove Reference #2) once showed a great amount of wisdom when a man was asked to choose which of three warring groups (I use the term "war" loosely) would win the day, knowing very well that each group represented a future that was very, very different than what he had known. His choice? He went with the only one of the two choices that would not end with a lot of death and destruction. His reasoning? He knew that if he made the wrong choice, the choice for life was the only one that he could change his mind about.

If we keep running to death, how long till infanticide extends to ending the "misery" of three year olds, or people who show the first signs of senility? How long until that extends to not having control over your own life unless you're between the ages of 21 and 65? How long until a panel can vote anyone to be "mentally ill" based solely on evidence, and end their "misery" then?

Logically, none of that will happen. Humans, while not smart in groups are generally able to find leaders who can point out the flaws in the arguments of others.

Heck, I think humans just before WWII were on this exact same "let's just kill people to make it easier for everyone" kick. History shows that that eventually settled down.

Important thoughts about moral and human ethics in my opinion.

I've read it. I have opinions and thoughts about the subject - but have a deadline. I will return.

What worries me is that if we were to allow infanticide, then what would be the next step?

This does, in a way, remind me of the filmlGattaca - after seeing it, I thought that if the world had looked like that when I was born, I wouldn't have been born at all. Not with all the allergies, extreme nearsightedness and other 'faults' that I am afflicted with.

Sure, they can be a bit of a handicap at times, in certain situations, but I'm having a perfectly good life nonetheless.

Who's to say just *how* mentally retarded or physically deformed you have to be not to be able to appreciate life and find it worth living?

Look forward to hearing your further thoughts, tar.

See, that's one of the things Titania (that *is* you, right Titania? Hard to tell with all the recent anagrams). I read an article on this yesterday (called the $65,000 Question. I'll try to find the link to it when I get home from the campus tonight), which pointed to cases where children were diagnosed with Cleft Pallette before birth, and this was enough to warrant an abortion.

I know that abortion's a hot issue and that this isn't the time for one of my normal choice/life rants, but doesn't Cleft Pallette seem like one of the worst possible reasons to have one? I mean, it's not as if we can't treat it these days.

The problem, though, is that this is a ridiculously logical frame of mind for people who build morals without a sense of family, tradition, history, tribe, faith, or hope to back them. Without some sort of higher purpose for the Universe, you *can* reduce it to a simple equation wherein, given the fact that we'll all die anyway, it only makes sense to try and spread out happiness at the expense of those that the "average person" may deem incapable of truly enjoying life.

The comparison to Gattaca is a good one, too. I'll have to watch that movie again...