The Instigator
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Infanticide should be encouraged up to the age of 3

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,257 times Debate No: 4098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (9)

 

Paradigm_Lost

Con

On another debate, debate.org member Yraelz makes the pronouncement,

"Infanticide should be encouraged in all situations. Infants should not have the rights until 3 years of age."

Source: http://www.debate.org...

Provided (s)he accepts the debate, I would like for Yraelz to present the reason why this should be lawfully and morally encouraged in all situations, and why infants should not have rights until the age of three years of age.
Yraelz

Pro

Infanticide

1. the act of killing an infant.

Encourage:

2. to stimulate by assistance, approval, etc.: One of the chief duties of a teacher is to encourage students.

3. to promote, advance, or foster: Poverty often encourages crime.

=========
Let's begin with a framework.

In the status quo infanticide is not encouraged very much at all. In fact, quite normally it is frowned upon, unless one considers abortion infanticide, something I will not be doing in this debate.

Infanticide is normally seen as the same as killing another human being. Infants in contemporary society are considered to have the same rights as any other human (below the age of 18).

Thus I am going to be showing why infanticide ought to be encouraged, more than in the status quo, through showing that infants should not have any rights at all.

=========
An infant is born into this world without thought, without moderation. An infant follows one governing principle, the principle of the Id. The infant thereby is a byproduct of the pleasure principle. In other words an infant is the exact same as any other animal at this time of development. It does not engage in critical thought, it does not engage in anything outside of what it wants. The infant does not accept the idea of no, it simply wants and pursues those desires.

In other words an infant is no different from any other animal. It has the same senses as other mammals, it has the same basic desires, and it lacks the critical thought of the Ego and Super-Ego inherent in most children-adult humans.

Thus I stand in firm affirmation. Infanticide should be encouraged to the same level that killing any other animal is societally accepted. For example, we have stipulations in place against animal abuse and animal cruelty, thus these stipulations would carry over onto infanticide. However we do not have such stipulations on animal death for things such as food or in some instances fur (depending on if the species is going extinct, which we are not) thus infanticide should be societally accepted for use of food or fur.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Paradigm_Lost

Con

First I will start out with a semantic argument. Yraelz stated, "Infanticide should be encouraged in all situations. Infants should not have the rights until 3 years of age." Now, if infanticide was to be encouraged in ALL situations, the human population, including his own prospective progeny, would go extinct. Perhaps he meant it as a bit of hyperbole, but regardless, the idea is asinine, sick, and convoluted.

"The infant thereby is a by product of the pleasure principle. In other words an infant is the exact same as any other animal at this time of development. It does not engage in critical thought, it does not engage in anything outside of what it wants."

Supposing that your assertion was accurate, you would like to kill them because of it? As much as I would prefer not to belabor the obvious, it needs to be done here: Humans, pretty much all of them, regardless of age, are self-serving. In fact it usually takes some effort to not be constantly thinking about your own wants and desires, which is precisely what makes it so refreshing when somebody does do something thoughtful for someone else. I don't even need to know you personally in order to know that you have selfish tendencies that extend for beyond your philanthropic tendencies. But we don't want to kill you because of that.

You spoke about "critical thought," and how infants lack it. I'm curious to know what constitutes critical thought in your opinion? Obviously you think that infants are incapable of it, and I'd be very curious to hear what it is and why they lack it, as if it somehow justifies murder.

There are some adults well past the minimum age of legal adulthood who never achieve an intellect past that of a small child. There are those who are profoundly mentally retarded. Does their age spare them euthanisation under your proposal, or is it the fact that they are, I can only guess, stupid, that you would like to kill them?

"Infanticide should be encouraged to the same level that killing any other animal is societally accepted."

The societally accepted reasons for killing animals is primarily for human consumption. We hunt animals. We breed animals to later be slaughtered for their meat. Should we do the same for infants? Are we supposed to engage in cannibalism on top of murdering them for apparently no good reason? Because I can't understand why you would WANT to murder infants in the first place, that we should be encouraging it, other than the fact that you equivocate their intelligence to that of animals. This makes no sense to me, and I am confident that most of the readers will be profoundly disturbed by your rationale.

I have two children of my own -- a 9 year old girl, and a 4 year old boy. Although my son has now apparently, and thankfully, reached the age of non-muderdom in your opinion, I remember quite vividly what he was like only one year ago. I can assure you that he was quite capable of feeling all the emotions that you and I have been bestowed. In fact, all infants are capable of that.

I sometimes meet young people who are themselves the very epitome of selfishness, and who make similar arguments as you are making. This is partly due to the fact that they themselves are young, inexperienced, and naive. It is difficult for them, as they transition between teenage a**hole to adulthood, to fully appreciate the more beautiful things in life -- such as the joy of childhood, and the joy a parent receives from watching their children growing and learning. For whatever specific reason, this is lost on many in the younger generation who swallow -- hook, line, and sinker -- these sadistic and unemotionally detached notions.

And just in case you forgot, there were other people who made similar arguments with you and justified them in the same way -- Nazi Germany.

In case you have forgotten what an infant looks like and acts like, perhaps you need to take another look at what you are actually suggesting.

This is apparently what you'd like to massacre because you think.... they're stupid and selfish.
Yraelz

Pro

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Paradigm_Lost

Con

I strongly suspect that my opponent has intentionally given up round 2 in order to place himself in the privaleged position of having the last word in round 3. I therefore will preemptively argue to counter this strategy.

It is also worth mentioning that Yraelz has not addressed my argument in round 2, and for the sake of the readers, I submit that he must do so.

Lets begin with round 3

As shocking as may seem to most people, I have heard some of the more hardcore proponents of abortion make a similar argument about euthanizing infants and toddlers.

Their rationale?

For them they see young children as not capable of sentience or cognizance, which of course is preposterous, since even fetuses as young as 12 weeks old have exhibited fear and distress during curettage and dilation.

The other argument is that an infant is not self-aware, meaning that (s)he is not capable of understanding they are their own being. My answer to that: So what? We all started out the exact same way, and in my estimation, words like blastocyst, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, and geriatric adult are merely words to convey gestation or developmental stages in humans. They are not dehumanizing terms used to erase the humanity of humans, which some people are apt to do.

Regardless, some people claim that an infant will not be aware of its impending doom and therefore it somehow alleviates the individuals committing the act of murdering the child. This argument fails miserably, however, since a grown adult sleeping in their bed would also not be aware that I snuck in their home and shot them in the head. Does the fact that they weren't aware of their impending death somehow exonerate me? Does it somehow remove the crime or the atrocity of it? No. And neither would the courts see it that way.

None of this, though, explains why anyone would WANT to euthanize children under 3 years old in the first place. Indeed my opponent made no discernible argument beyond, what I gathered, that they were stupid like animals...? That, of course, does nothing to explain why we should kill them at all (as if we just walked up to dogs and shot them on the basis of their animalness to begin with). My opponent has made no attempt to explain why we would even want to kill them, let alone why 3 years is the magic number the separates legal homicide from illegal homicide. Clarification on his part would be most appreciated.

So with that, I will provide reasons that I've heard some people give on why it should be societally acceptable to kill infants.

The next argument is that a mother has the right to do whatever the hell she wants with her own kids. Of course, this doesn't at all explain why a mother is instructed not to smoke or drink when she's pregnant, nor does it explain why she could be arrested for not providing adequate child restraints when traveling in a vehicle with her infant. (Go figure that both abortion laws and euthanasia laws fail in the rationality department)

As it stands now, if she wants to abort, even after the birth of child (aka; amorphous blob of molecules), a few deluded people feel that she should have that right. Of course, after the birth, the whole "my body, my choice" mantra goes right out the window. It then stands to reason that she would only do it to selfishly alleviate herself from any culpability or responsibility.

Furthermore, there is no need to euthanize an infant at all if the burden is just to much for the mother to handle. Adoption is always available, as there are countless couples who cannot conceive naturally. They desperately would love a child of their own, so why not make it a win/win/win situation. With euthanasia only the mother gets what she wants. With adoption the mother wins because she has washed her hands clean of her responsibility, the adopting parents win because now they have their little bundle of joy, and the child wins because... well... they're still ALIVE!

The next argument, and by far the most prevalent among people using the euthanasia argument, is overpopulation. A pervasive myth shaping the minds of many is the notion that the earth is spiraling out of control due to overpopulation. The belief is that earth cannot provide enough resources any longer to sustain the influx, which will inevitably lead to all sorts of perils. Much like the topic of anthropogenic global warming, this Malthusian hysteria is a similar "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" excuse to perpetrate and justify the most sinister acts of eugenics.

Its no wonder human life is considered meaningless when people, such as Jacques Cousteau, state that, "In order to stabilize the world population we must eliminate 350,000 people per day," and Ted Turner, "...the root of the problem is Christianity which posits that people are more important than sea otters." Or perhaps this comment, made by Charles Wurster of the Environment Defense Fund: "People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of THEM; we need to get rid of some of THEM." I find this terribly ironic being that Charles is himself, a human being. Perhaps he should heed some of his own convoluted advice and LEAD US BY EXAMPLE!

People often look at cities that are exploding in population like Sao Paolo, Beijing, Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Calcutta, and the like, as a model in the presumption that the earth is like this everywhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that people are boxing themselves in. All the best jobs with the highest market value and the strongest economy are in major cities. People flock to these places only to turn around and complain about how bad the traffic is. Take the United States for example. The US population is the third highest in the world, at just over 280 million residents. Wow, that sounds like a lot. Well, it is a lot, but then again, so is the mileage of this nation. Models have been made showing that every single American can live in the state of Texas, each family with 2 acres of land!

But really, does any of that matter? Lets suppose the earth really is becoming overpopulated to the point where natural resources could be completely stripped, thus hurling the human race in to extinction -- never mind the UN estimate which claimed that the world could comfortably sustain 9 billion people. Besides, one would think that mandatory vasectomies or tubal ligations would come before murdering children, provided things were that bad. Does it somehow justify murdering little babies? Because make no mistake, we are indeed talking about little babies here who have every conceivable right to exist in the same privileged manner we do. Every society has gone out of its way to protect the progeny. Thankfully there are few monsters who have assassinated their own conscience to the point where even an innocent child is potential threat to them and THEIR comfort.

My last argument has to do with the straw man of claiming that showing pictures of infants is itself a straw man. For starters, I gave a detailed thesis on why it is deluded. No one can deny the emotive argument here. And why try? It is instilled in us for a reason, no matter how much someone may wish it away. Killing innocent children for no discernible reason, or reasons that seem justified to us so we can enact our own selfishness, is immoral on a level that most people identify with irrespective of country of origin, religion, age, or culture. There is this innate desire to protect the progeny.

In closing, there is no earthly reason to ever agree with the assertion given to us by my opponent. I have demonstrated, by systematically removing all possible justifications, that there is no viable reason to unilaterally murder infants at will. Their arguments are vacuous and specious.

And for ALL of these reasons, I implore you to vote CON!
Yraelz

Pro

Like I mentioned in the comment section I am forfeiting this debate round because I found myself incapable of responding to round two. This had something to do with a massive amount of vomiting........

I wish my opponent congratulations on his win and hope to debate this again with him sometime in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I'm rather sorry Paradigm_Lost, at some point last night I became food poisoned and have spent the entire day vomiting in my bathroom up until about an hour ago.

I actually feel I had a decent rebuttal to what you had to say so I would be very interested in doing this debate with you again sometime in the future.

Until then, thanks for what debate we did here.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't have many knee-jerk reactions against infanticide as such. But I await the evidence from Yraelz that rationality sprouts forth universally and instantly from the head of Zeus at precisely the age of 3.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Take em both. (25 characters)
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I hope not, I think this debate is actually going to be good. I'm struggling with which position to take though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
On second thought, disregard that last comment.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Appeal to emotion:

I wonder if people will automatically vote CON after watching that vid rather than read the eniter debate. =/
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
A side note on the debate: I enjoyed your response a great deal paradigm, thank you.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Correction: "Quick make another account...."
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
As a side note it should be noted that SillyCow is in favor of killing off any old woman who might have dementia or Alzheimers. Watch out!
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
OH NOEZ! You've dropped my win ratio 2 percentage points. Quick make another count, maybe you'll be able to drop it 2 more! You beast!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 InkSlinger4 8 years ago
InkSlinger4
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 ghegeman 8 years ago
ghegeman
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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 Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Paradigm_LostYraelzTied
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