The Instigator
YaleMM
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
DrAcula
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Infanticide is morally permissable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,582 times Debate No: 247
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (18)

 

YaleMM

Pro

Right?

The argument from potentiality is silly and we locus rights in the concious mind, not in the body. With both of those down it just seems true. The brightline is wierder? But that's a legislative issue, not a moral one.

If morality is a question of rights, this statement is true. Presumably it could be untrue given like, a strict utilitarian calculus? And I have no idea why I didnt think of that before? But that still seems flimsy given 1) problems with utilitarianism, and 2) potential utility gained.
Most frameworks point this way. Intuition doesn't, and I guess I like intuition, but intuition is a thin framework to hange a pretty heavy statement of moral truth on.
DrAcula

Con

ABSOLUTELY NOT

That's pretty much murder. We're not talking about abortion here, there is no gray area with this topic! It's a horrible deed, no matter how you look at it.
Debate Round No. 1
YaleMM

Pro

So my argument is: "this kind of murder is morally permissible"
Then your argument runs: "but this is murder!"

And I know that, it is murder. The topic can be read as: "Murder is only bad when you are murdering something that has rights. Babies do not have rights. Therefore, murdering babies is ok."

The argument that I laid forward attacked the rights claims of infants based on them not being concious beings, not having a mind to make claim the right to life. I'm going to advance another argument here, mostly for the fun of it.

So my exact topic is that infanticide is morally permissible, which doesnt suggest that I think it should always be done, in fact I would suggest it should almost never be done because there will usually be a competing rights claim from the parents of the infant (property claims are still valid).
But if we look at it from this rare-occurence perspective and then impact that through a broader utility calculus involving the intuitions I mentioned in my opening statement, couldn't we justify the apparent immorality of the murder of the weakest kind of human being on the grounds that it provides us with a moral intuition, grounds us in the intuitions we have?
This argument is essentially an aesthetic one, proposing that the exemplar of an immoral category of acts is exempt from that immorality because it teaches us about the act and exposes us to our feelings about the act-category.

This is a silly argument, but I am now kind of fond of it.
DrAcula

Con

just because they don't have a conscious mind doesn't mean they aren't people. It doesn't mean they don't feel pain. Why do you think they cry? Because they are uncomfortable. Following your logic, it could seem that a mentally disabled person could be killed, because they have the brain of an infant. There is potential for life to be there, and it is tangible life right now. Babies aren't fetuses, they are living creatures outside of their mother's womb.
Debate Round No. 2
YaleMM

Pro

You made a few statements, Im going to go ahead and look at them.

- Babies are people.
- Babies feel pain.
- My logic indicates that killing mentally disabled people is ok.
- Something about potential? Or tangibility?
- Babies are people.

So. Yes. Babies are alive, they are people, they are greatn and stuff. No argument. I did and do contest that they are not concious and moreover that we only grant rights to things with concious minds.
Squirrels, right? They are just really hairless squirrles who, if you wait long enough, will be people. Squirrels feel pain, and could also be inaccurately compared to the mentally disabled if you wanted to.

The mentally disabled thing. So I would obviously say that generally speaking they still have a developed sense of self, and can speak, and so are excluded by the logical brightline I created. If you want to argue that they -don't- and that they can't? Fine. yes. Anything that falls below my line of concious thought? I am game for killing. Under my rights framework and aesthetic framework.

The argument from potentiality is dumb, if you wanted to make it, I would have rebutted it. The argument from tangibility, I am assuming, is that all things that are corporeal have the right to corporeality. See: squirrels.

My aesthetic argument, which I really think is clever and funny, justifies killing one of any, and probably every, thing just to enforce whatever intuition we have. It is untouched and I think carries the day. Somehow.
DrAcula

Con

I just don't think killing anything that has been born permissible. Even if they don't have moral rights; they are still there. They still breathe. There's not much else I can say.

thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RaymondPart 9 years ago
RaymondPart
I agree with all points made by DrAcula. Babies are human beings too. Because they are babies, they cannot consent to having their own life taken. I think this is morally wrong because the babies have no say in this.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
DrAcula should have actually made some arguments agaisnt your moral standpoint. this is a pretty weak argument, but it coulda worked somewhat. Like in your intro you state that you think that killing babies is alright b/c they dont have rights. so a way to turn that arg is by proving that killing babies will hurt those who do have rights, so first of all you can say that the ideology that we can just kill ppl as we feel, as shown when yale admits that killing the mental retarded at the point that they dont have feelings, and by his readiness to kill babies, is a very patriarchal mindset. then the mindset where one is justified to dominate and destroy leads to the oppression of many especially women, as well as the destitute and vulnerable. so then basically killing babies leads to killing others. or he coulda like actaully argued, that killing babies kills those that will soon have rights, even though its a weak arg he might have atleast had some arg on his side. or that like babies have right to life as they are conscious shown through how they learn things and have though proccesses. anyway, DrAcula, your funny so im gonna keep up with your debates
Posted by Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
How dare you speak of squirrels so heartlessly, YaleMM.

I kid, I kid.

I am curious about where people in persistent vegetative states would fall in DrAcula's argument, in YaleMM's, too, but DrAcula's in particular.
Posted by schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
Although I love the Mitch Hedberg reference, I'm not sure how DrAcula got the votes he did. I hardly saw any real arguing on his part. The mental retardation analogy was really the best he had, which Yale defended.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
RFD: Pro

Nice link between "killing mentally disabled people" and babies.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
Infanticide is hard to justify, but in terms of who won the debate, it's hands down YaleMM. Read the arguments, not just reject the position out of hand.
Posted by YaleMM 9 years ago
YaleMM
Oh I meant to say thanks for the debate, also. Thanks, it was fun.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Zaglossus 9 years ago
Zaglossus
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Static 9 years ago
Static
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RaymondPart 9 years ago
RaymondPart
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Meggion 9 years ago
Meggion
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
YaleMMDrAculaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30