Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

foreignpolicy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#31

Post by jeffdavis »

AlexAltea wrote: post #25
cdoxsey wrote: post #17

The West does this with down syndrome. In the UK apparently 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-... for example)

Killing a child, or any conscious being willing to live, cannot be compared to terminating a pregnancy at a point where the embryo is just a blob of cells with no global survival instinct and consciousness whatsoever (just basic biochemistry-powered defensive reactions at cellular level). It's ridiculous making such mental gymnastics to stretch this article in order to blame " the West ".

At what point is a child imbued with consciousness and a will to live? Who should be responsible for that determination?

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#32

Post by Kenji »

cdoxsey wrote: post #17

The West does this with down syndrome. In the UK apparently 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-... for example)

You're just comparing abortion with burning a 12 year old boy alive. I think you might want to work on your anti-abortion point a bit before you are able to convince people.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#33

Post by Someone »

ajeet_dhaliwal wrote: post #16
dade_ wrote: post #13

Nevermind.

I disagree. Rather than have the Brazilian government use coercion and 'haul them out' it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out. It's clear many within that community don't agree with this already (like the parents who committed suicide rather than kill their children) and if they could know they could escape that would preferable than forcing…

”it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out.”

So, how are you going to let newborns with a disability know there is a way out before their society kills them?

If you think letting the parents know is sufficient, you’re at odds with much of modern thinking, which says it can be necessary to take children out of the care of their parents.

Also, suppose the would-be victim suspects what’s coming and wants to get out, but doesn’t manage to escape, would you punish the killers? If so, you’re interfering with another nation’s sovereignty.

As always when fundamental rights collide, there is no easy answer to this.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#34

Post by asdgionio »

cdoxsey wrote: post #17

The West does this with down syndrome. In the UK apparently 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-... for example)

I actually do see a parallel, but it's the opposite of the one you're talking about. Refusing to abort a fetus with Down syndrome comes from the same sort of squeamishness and relativism as refusing to condemn an indigenous culture. It is condemning people to suffer out of some misguided attempt to be understanding and compassionate. It is an overreaction to horrors of the past. It is combating arrogance and elitism with relativism. Refusing to say that people with Down syndrome shouldn't be born is similar to refusing to admit that some cultures should be destroyed.

Maybe that's a stretch.

But you actually bring up a good alternative: abortion. We can easily detect some of these situations (single mothers, twins, and certain disabilities) early in pregnancy. Maybe offering abortions would discourage killing children?

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#35

Post by mercutio2 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #31
AlexAltea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing a child, or any conscious being willing to live, cannot be compared to terminating a pregnancy at a point where the embryo is just a blob of cells with no global survival instinct and consciousness whatsoever (just basic biochemistry-powered defensive reactions at cellular level). It's ridiculous making such mental gymnastics to stretch this article in order to blame " the West ".

At what point is a child imbued with consciousness and a will to live? Who should be responsible for that determination?

The mother.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#36

Post by arkades »

jeffdavis wrote: post #31
AlexAltea wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing a child, or any conscious being willing to live, cannot be compared to terminating a pregnancy at a point where the embryo is just a blob of cells with no global survival instinct and consciousness whatsoever (just basic biochemistry-powered defensive reactions at cellular level). It's ridiculous making such mental gymnastics to stretch this article in order to blame " the West ".

At what point is a child imbued with consciousness and a will to live? Who should be responsible for that determination?

While the line drawing fallacy certainly comes into play here, one can with some confidence say that /before a single neuron is formed/ is most certainly a safe spot to point at and say “not yet.”

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#38

Post by [deleted] »

gkya wrote: post #30

This is human zoo. We see that culture, and our approach to certain instances of it is inherently oppressive. We had cultures similar to that of the indigenous peoples' back in the old world until relatively recently. But because we have a certain fascination with these exotic "species" of people, we negate them the modern life, way better than theirs in every objective measure. We entitle ourselves to the "preservat…

[deleted]

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#39

Post by amelius »

ajeet_dhaliwal wrote: post #16
dade_ wrote: post #13

Nevermind.

I disagree. Rather than have the Brazilian government use coercion and 'haul them out' it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out. It's clear many within that community don't agree with this already (like the parents who committed suicide rather than kill their children) and if they could know they could escape that would preferable than forcing…

But it would turn into some kind of "eugenics experiment" then, where you have a pool of genes that evolves naturally, except the bad genes are moved to an external population.

On the one hand, I'd like to see humans continue to evolve naturally, far into the future. But this approach seems a little weird.

Re: The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil

#40

Post by hrktb »

wodenokoto wrote: post #12
hrktb wrote: post #4

> That was the “introduction in the Suruwaha’s symbolic universe of a possible resolution to a problem, in their lives, by means other than those under their control by traditional practices.” There is the general point about how indegenous tribes are handled. As I understand from the article, they are set as communities that are independant from national and international laws, can keep their traditions and set thei…

It's very easy to reconcile the child/adult treatment: If they wish to continue to follow traditional rules that lie outside what modern society accepts, they cannot be part of modern society. If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world, they must reconcile their traditions with things like human rights. You might argue that China is not following human rights and they are a major…

> If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world

From what I get, they don't want that.

In a sense I am fine with their reclusion, what's bugging me is the enforcement of a status quo in regard to their tradition.

Even without external influence, it should evolve, and rules should naturally adapt to their environment. I mean, even their current tradition didn't fall fully formed from the sky, and some of the reasoning behind it is explained clearly (for instance population control). They must have started from a pragmatic point of view to build these traditions, and it seems the thinking process behind these just vanished or got "vanished" by people with an agenda going beyond preserving culture.

I am thinking about the mormons, who aren't as secluse, but also think by themselves about what they want to ingest and what they won't embrace. Nobody's there saying "you don't have the right to go see mormons and tell them things, it would disturb them".

Post reply on HN