The Instigator
MTGandP
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
Hunton711
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Infanticide up until one month of age is morally permissible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/27/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,164 times Debate No: 9061
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (6)

 

MTGandP

Pro

Hunton accepted a proposal to debate this topic, and it sounds like fun. An interesting challenge. ;]

Infanticide: The killing of an infant. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

========

Whence rights? Who deserves rights? Most human rights stem from the fundamental axiom that people's desires should be respected. For instance, murder is morally wrong because people have a deep desire to live, and that desire should be respected. Theft is wrong because people have a desire to retain their belongings. Even if they do not have a direct desire to retain certain belongings, there is still an indirect desire. If one's belongings are stolen, even if the belongings are not treasured, it is an infringement on personal privacy and wellbeing.

Infants up until one month of age are incapable of true desire. Sure, they may have wants, but they do not have a true understanding of their own position in the world and of their own being. In essence, they are not self-aware. Beings that are not self-aware do not truly have desire in the manner of which I am speaking, and so these beings do not deserve the same fundamental rights as people. Since infants are unable to truly and deeply desire anything, they have no true rights.

Sometimes, it is necessary for the good of the tribe to make sacrifices. For one reason or another, a mother may be unable to care for her child. Adoption may not be a viable option. The best thing to do is to sacrifice the young child for the protection and wellbeing of the entire community. It would be unjust to knowingly harm society for the sake of a being with no true desires.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Hunton711

Con

You are correct in your first paragraph. I beg to differ on the rest. Infants may not be totally sure on what they do or don't want in life but that does not rightly give someone an excuse to kill them. I don't care even if it's a painless injection. Infants have done nothing to anyone too deserve to die. Even if the parents can't or just don't want to raise the child he still deserves a life. He/she has done no crimes and deserves to live. Even if adoption is not an option which it usually is, foster homes are always accepting children. Please explain how it's OK to decease a infants innocent life.
Debate Round No. 1
MTGandP

Pro

My opponent has conceded that my first paragraph is a correct basis for morality. But all of my other paragraphs follow from this one: if the first paragraph is accepted, then the others must be as well.

"Infants have done nothing to anyone too deserve to die."
It is not so much a matter of deserving to die as it is a matter of not deserving to live. Infants have no inherent right to life. As my opponent has conceded, the right to life comes from self-aware and rational desires. Infants do not have this, and therefore do not have the right to life.

"He/she has done no crimes and deserves to live."
Crimes are irrelevant. This is about doing what is best for society. My opponent asserts that infants deserve to live, but has no supporting evidence.

"Please explain how it's OK to decease a infants innocent life."
That is exactly what I have already done. It is now up to my opponent to either refute my logic or offer conflicting evidence.
Hunton711

Con

It's a matter of not deserving to live?
I do not see how it's that case.
And how is it best for society?
The only bad thing they do is cry a lot. (Depending on the baby.)
Any mother/father would be shocked to hear that there new-born beautiful baby is to die.
There is NO benefit for killing a infant at all.
None!
If you think about saying it's a means of pop. control, your wrong.
It's actually decreasing.
Just clearing that up.
There really is not any evidence to prove my point except the infant has every right to live.
If anything, people love infants.
Let's say Jane Doe is walking her infant in the grocery store, and John Smith sees him/her and says "Aw, how cute? How old?"
See, people like infants, MOST people.
There is no supporting evidence on why infant mortality is acceptable.
Debate Round No. 2
MTGandP

Pro

"And how is it best for society?"
My point is that, under the circumstances in which infanticide is best for society, infanticide is justified.

"The only bad thing they do is cry a lot. (Depending on the baby.)"
This is an irrelevant point.

"There is NO benefit for killing a infant at all."
There is plenty of benefit. What if the family is too impoverished to feed another child? What if the parents don't want their child growing up in a hellish world?

"If you think about saying it's a means of pop. control, your wrong.
It's actually decreasing."
The population is not decreasing. Population is growing worldwide [1] at a rate of about 200,000 people per day [2].

"There really is not any evidence to prove my point except the infant has every right to live."
That is not evidence; that is an unsubstantiated claim.

"If anything, people love infants."
Which is exactly why they will not commit infanticide unless it is absolutely necessary.

"There is no supporting evidence on why infant mortality is acceptable."
I have provided plenty of evidence, which my opponent has avoided. (By the way, infant mortality refers to the rate of death in infants, not to infanticide.)

So far, my opponent has ignored and avoided my core arguments, and has not provided a substantial case of his own.

[1] http://www.nationmaster.com...
[2] http://www.worldbank.org...
Hunton711

Con

If the family is too poor to feed the baby, give him/her to a foster home!
Someone would call child services.
And if they don't want the child growing up in your so-called "hellish world" then why did they have the baby???!!!
Me- "If anything, people love infants."
You- "Which is exactly why they will not commit infanticide unless it is absolutely necessary."
Well it's not necessary, there is no positive influence on the murder or whatever you would like to call it on a infant.
The mother should have refrained from having sex if it's such a big deal. Even protected sex fails.
That's the parents fault and if taking a babies life in order to clear up a parents mistake of having a baby at a bad time is OK then I am very upset.
I thank MTGandP for this challenge yet I strongly urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 3
MTGandP

Pro

"If the family is too poor to feed the baby, give him/her to a foster home!"
Circumstances do not always allow for this. Besides, the mere existence of options does not necessitate that one particular option is morally wrong.

"And if they don't want the child growing up in your so-called "hellish world" then why did they have the baby???!!!"
Pointless speculation. This does not change what is right and wrong.

"The mother should have refrained from having sex if it's such a big deal. Even protected sex fails."
This does not change what is right and wrong.

========

Conclusion

My opponent has not made a substantial case and has failed to refute my own. I request that the voters judge impartially, despite any predisposed feelings on this issue. While we're judging impartially, vote PRO!
Hunton711

Con

Okay, by re quoting what I said and saying it's irrelevant is stupid.
I'm stating points that prove that infanticide is wrong and ways to prevent it.
You are just restating what I've said and saying it's incorrect or irrelevant.
Everything I've stated is solid and should prove that there is no excuse for the murder of an infant.
CON vote please!
=]
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by trivea 8 years ago
trivea
All the con really had to do was show that infants do have conscious desires. Correct me if I am wrong, but there must be a study somewhere or something.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
I will have to shower after this one. Pro took this debate because Con did not address the issue well. Our position before the debate has liitle to do with judging the argument. MTGandP won all rounds in all catagories. Hunton, review this debate and think harder as to why MT is wrong here. You have the winning position, but you must defend it and I recommend a grammar check before submission. All points Pro.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
Okay, who voted for Con?
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
Lifeisgood, you were the inspiration for this debate.
Posted by Lifeisgood 8 years ago
Lifeisgood
I wish I had seen this one before it was accepted. Oh well.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
Yeah.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Well, sort of may be a bit of an embellishment.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
"I absolutely detest the idea of infanticide"
Well . . . me too. I was just looking for a challenge. Sort of.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I absolutely detest the idea of infanticide; that thought aside...

Conduct: Tied
S/G: Pro
Arguments: Pro - Most of Con's 'arguments' were nothing more than questions directed towards Pro.
Sources: Pro - Pro is the only one that used any sources.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
RFD
Conduct: TIE
S&G: PRO
Arguments: PRO
Sources: PRO
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
MTGandPHunton711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 greatstuff479 8 years ago
greatstuff479
MTGandPHunton711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by abromwell 8 years ago
abromwell
MTGandPHunton711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
MTGandPHunton711Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
MTGandPHunton711Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
MTGandPHunton711Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60