The very young offspring of adult human beings are babies. A formal and specialised synonym is infants. Their distinction starts and ends there. I think the universal fact that were are born altricial (born helpless requiring significant parental care, the term applies to young birds and other animals so it applies to human beings) gives us reason to think we should never be treated unfairly, cruelly, and badly, and this right isn’t reserved for one special, entitled class but to those members in society who require significant parental care. In the early stages of an infant’s development to a child, their parents will inevitably have treated their cries as ‘right answers’. In other words, it makes no sense to attribute as their mother or father no intent or reason to their weeping and shedding tears due to pain and emotion. They’re telling a story, whether you like it or not. We can pick up on these signals if we’re available, which we should be, and understand that they’re thirsty or hungry and they desire satisfaction (which is, for purposes of the debate, fulfilment of one’s wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from this). I believe this can shape those parents in society who are struggling with kids to make them more altruistic, therefore shaping the household in which they live.

In your final statement you told me that arguing that ethical absolutes about ‘never’ create more harm than they prevent. This presupposes that they prevent at least some harm. Would you not agree with that? Moreover, I want to add that I do not come from a deontological point of view at all and I use the term ‘never’ as it contrasts with the term ‘mistreated’, which I pointed out should not occur to anyone in society capable of desiring to continue as a subject with mental states such as experience. What solution do you propose to the problem you rhetorically phrased in your opening statement? Let’s also shift from a trivial semantic dispute to anchoring it in objective biological and developmental needs. Mistreatment of an infant is not a matter of opinion, it is defined by actions that demonstrably harm a baby's physical development, brain growth, or survival. Nothing in this explanation suffers from hostility toward women, men, mothers, or fathers. Adults can process and recover from minor social slights; infants cannot. Their brains are actively wiring themselves based on how they are treated. The standard of ‘never’ is completely fair for infants because their window for healthy brain development is fragile and time-sensitive. A parent accidentally dropping a toy or misunderstanding a cry is a mistake, not mistreatment. Mistreatment is the systemic failure to provide safety, nourishment, and core emotional security. Demanding that a baby ‘never be mistreated’ does not mean demanding parents be flawless robots. It means demanding a baseline of safety that protects the child from harm. Withholding basic care, safety, or emotional responsiveness directly damages a child's developing brain architecture. Because infants have zero agency to protect themselves, and because early developmental harm is often irreversible, 'never mistreated' is not an impossible standard: it is a baseline moral and biological necessity.

Putting a crying baby in a safe crib to take a five-minute breather is literally the standard medical advice given by pediatricians worldwide to prevent mistreatment. Stepping away for five minutes to prevent losing one's temper is active protection, not mistreatment at all. Mistreatment requires an action or omission that actively harms the child. Taking a breath to remain calm ensures the child's absolute safety. A sleep-deprived parent accidentally dropping a baby is a tragedy and a mistake that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which suggests to me you’re failing to give enough focused energy on mistreatment. Human error and stress are distinct from actual mistreatment using intent and context, even if they’re related in the slightest degree. Lowering the bar from never mistreated to good enough care is what actually creates danger. It creates a gray area where parents might think, ‘I'm just stressed, so it's okay if I snap or handle the baby roughly.’ We hold other high-stakes environments to absolute standards without issue. We maintain that commercial planes should never crash due to pilot negligence, yet we do not accuse the aviation industry of demanding 'impossible perfection' from tired pilots. Instead, we create strict rules and support systems to ensure that absolute standard is met. It is imperative that we understand why lowering the moral standard for infants to ‘good care instead of protection’ is what truly increases suffering. It creates a dangerous grey area that excuses harmful behaviour under the guise of stress. An absolute standard does not isolate parents; it forces society to provide the structural support, like parental leave and community resources, that parents need. Because a baby cannot survive or heal from systemic mistreatment, 'never' is the only morally defensible standard.