Infanticide should be legal in the United States.

I am at a loss. Freeman's last round is one of stellar quality. Freeman has brought forth several great positions, but this round is a conclusion, not one for full argumentation. I have always been clear: I am not concerned with the points in judgment as much as I am with learning more from the debate itself. But I respect the position that any point I bring forward in this final round allows no response from my opponent. I generally put forth a statement that "my opponent presented arguments in his last round so I am well within DDO standards to respond." But Freeman's response requires more than that simple statement. My loss is that I must respond; Freeman deserves nothing less. I concede the conduct point by rebutting fully this round instead of concluding. His response is too well done as to deserve anything less; points be damned. Pro's points on my lack of compelling arguments notwithstanding, I find them fully rational. And, as I expected, Pro never wrote the law I asked for in the previous round; so many seem to be unwilling to make their legal principle a law. C1: I have tried for hours to access the article Pro linked but cannot read it as it keeps timing out so I must use other sources http://content.nejm.org... (I do not mean Pro is being deceitful, just that I can't access the article for some reason and I really do want to read it). Other countries: After reading and reviewing the legal procedures for these countries (above reference), I conclude that these laws have no bearing on the US Constitution, which is the point of my contention, so they are irrelevant to this debate. The legal ramifications I predict should not occur in countries without the US Constitution and US legal framework, to suggest otherwise is silly. I see no need to address this further. Pro wrote, "[E]ven tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing". I never said anything about improving their wellbeing. Allowing one to die with no pain is the best that can be offered sometimes; however, if one can be said to "suffer" which is different that just feeling pain then are they not worthy to be at least a "person" under the law meant to protect all US citizens? "It is a matter of the greatest importance that more research be conducted to better determine what it is to live with conditions that cause serious suffering other than pain. In the absence of such research, physicians might succumb to the biases of the able-bodied, who tend to think disability is much worse than disabled people actually find it. That said, the fact remains that on rare occasions, a doctor can find herself in a situation in which she has good reason to believe that her obligation to prevent suffering outweighs her duty to protect her newborn patient's life." http://www.medscape.com... Let us know when you figure it out, until then let doctors do what doctors do; provide the best care they can. Self Defense: My opponent, yet again, offered a legal argument in reference to self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense under US law (a state crime so I did not link 50 laws; the MPC will suffice in this matter). The attacker is no less human or a person and has as much of an expectation of life as anyone else. An affirmative defense such as self defense puts the protection of the potential victim's life in higher regard than one committing a crime. Disabled infants have committed no such crime. This analogy is one I do not recommend using again unless Pro is willing to prosecute infants for the crime of imperfection. At this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about law – a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate. C2: The US Constitution recognizes natural born citizens, and other citizens not born on our soil. A citizen cannot be anything other than a "person" under the law. So, yes, the US Constitution recognizes a person. Pro must remove this from the Constitution to satisfy his position. He has not even recognized the fact that he has to do so. Pro's claim against my stance of arbitrariness is a comparison of a rock to a person. Sadly for Pro, my point was a comparison between an infant that Pro found suitable and one he did not, both are alive; both are citizens. A terminal infant is more than a rock and constitutionally deserves better treatment than to be thrown away. Even animals far better than Pro's rock; as Justice Holmes said, "Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked". You made the comparison of a natural born citizen to a rock, I did not. The learned professor of philosophy, which Pro offers, did not provide the definition with Constitutional restraints in mind, but you, Pro, presented this debate in such a manner. Her definition of personhood does not pass Constitutional muster, as well formulated as it may be. And this debate is about the law in the US. Her point, absent a corollary legal definition applied to citizen/person has no bearing here. Death Panels: Unlike Sarah Palin, I did my research. She did not read the law, but I made it the focus of my position (as you made this debate a legal one). Sarah Palin could not name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v Wade, I can name over twenty. My argument is not one of a distant, unreasonable, slippery slope or ignorant misinterpretations of law from a journalism student who could not handle an interview with anyone other than Sean Hannity without embarrassing herself. Mine is one of the inabilities of proponents of "should" in applying their principles to a reasoned body of law under the US Constitution. Until you, Pro, can do so then your law should be rejected. You have not met your burden. In closing, I have the privilege of loving a person everyday who deals with the infants that others hope to never see. Her job is one of joy and heartache and I admire her for what she does and I do not think I could do it myself. If you see a labor/delivery nurse or doctor out one day, buy them a beer or shake his hand. They all deserve it. In closing, Pro has not met the burden required. No law has been presented and a proponent of a "should" statement needs to recognize and apply the offered principle to the legal framework in such a law is to be applied. "There, but for the grace of God, goes Sherlock Holmes." Very Truly Yours, SherlockMethod.