Infanticide should be legal in the United States.

The Resolution: As Pro and instigator, Freeman offered this debate in legal terms. He did not write infanticide should just be morally permissible; he made clear the act should be legal in the US; therefore, the Constitution of the United States applies. I negate. Infanticide: Without playing with the definition too much, I will accept the killing of a newborn. . http://research.lawyers.com... Several definitions are available, but this one is fine and appears to be on the subject Pro is addressing. C1: Pro makes a solid case concerning infants with horrid birth defects. Parents pretty much decide on operations after getting advice from the doctors. The state is not under obligation to provide certain life saving care over a parent's objection in cases of extreme birth defects and low likelihood of survival. . http://www.law.uconn.edu... In short, infanticide is already legal in the US, if one is willing to consider inaction (forgoing invasive medical treatment where results would be marginal) equivalent to overtly euthanizing the infant. But Pro wishes the law to go one step further and allow the overt act by, presumably, a doctor with a parent's permission. The problem here is that a child, once born, is an American citizen and arbitrarily denying a child the right to remain alive violates the 14th Amendment. In order to satisfy Pro's position, the Constitution must be removed wholesale for a specific group – disabled children. The fact that the child is not a rational agent is irrelevant in the eyes of the Constitution. Some rights are granted to children within limits, I agree, but a child is a citizen of the US and is protected under its laws. I submit that birth defects should not remove an American citizen from Constitutional protections. Secondly, Doctors operate under very important oaths, versions of the Hippocratic Oath in some cases, but not identical in all respects. They cannot change the horrid hands that nature deals people, but they must provide standard care in all cases to allow for what little life nature and modern medicine allow. If a child can live for one fleeting minute, then a doctor is under every obligation to allow for that minute. The assigned providers, parents, can prohibit the doctors from performing risky operations with marginal results, which falls well in line with respecting their wishes and the doctor's oath, but the doctor cannot take upon herself the overt act of killing while maintaining her obligations to the field. Death Penalty doctors are shunned for their practice of lethal injection. Compromising professional ethics for the crime of a major birth defect is not a positive path and is one we should avoid as much as possible to maintain the integrity of the medical field. Pro is offering homicide, plain and simple, for a group that does not live up to his standards. Pro listed several birth defects and I must add that intestines forming on the outside of the body is easily remedied now. The operation is not that big of a deal anymore. The death penalty is not needed for this atrocious crime. Pro's own source provides the same information. Here is a gentleman born with his heart on the outside of his chest. 34 years and counting. . http://abcnews.go.com... He has lived a good life and I see no need to deny such a life to another. Nor can I find it constitutionally permissible. Ryan, a baby born without skin covering all of his body also lived, and enjoys life and constitutionally he is allowed this much. . http://www.10news.com... Tri athlete? Not bad Ryan, not bad at all. Anencephaly is truly terrible. The babies are not aggressively resuscitated; they have no chance of life but they are still persons under the law and this debate is about legality. As much as an overt act of compassion seems appropriate, nature's cruel hand must be left alone for the few days of this infant's life. The lack of many portions of the brain suggests the patient feels no pain. . http://www.ninds.nih.gov... A painless death will come without the aide of a doctor and without opening a door, infanticide, better left shut. Baby K was a famous case of anencephaly, and issues of medical futility were at the heart of the case, not infanticide by overt acts. The latter was never considered by the doctors. . http://www.medscape.com... Lastly, Pro offered that infanticide should be legal within limits; since he offered this debate in legal terms, I ask that he write the law and present it in the second round. My request is fair. Those "technicalities" may be all that is needed to render this debate moot. C2: Infants are persons under the law and this debate is about legality so they can be said to be persons, Dr. Singer and utilitarianism aside. I ask that pro provide a legal, constitutionally permissible definition for person that can exclude those with birth defects of any sort from other infants and still provide for EQUAL protection of the law for all US citizens. Biology is not the proving ground here, rights granted under a legal document, the US Constitution, are the focus. Dr. Singer (in the source Pro provided) avoids full on discussion concerning adoption and admits that it complicates his position somewhat. Under the law, it appears to complicate it greatly. An infant is a US citizen and I agree with current laws allowing for a parent to decide, in cases of medical futility, on operations, but allowing for the overt act of euthanasia brings forth issues concerning the best interest of the disabled US citizen. Adoption renders euthanasia impermissible in light of the US citizen's legally granted rights as a legal person. C3: Dr. Singer's definition of human is not one that allows for Constitutional protections so it must be rejected in the sense of legality; therefore, I see no need to address the "potential" argument he focuses on so dearly. The Constitution is a legal document so the rights granted there must be our focus since the issue is legality. Conclusion: In light of the resolution, this debate's focus is legality, not morality. Pro must show how a naturally born disabled US citizen, natural born being a legal distinction so precious that a citizen must possess it in order to be president, should not be permitted the protection of the US Constitution offered everyone else. He has not done so.