Infanticide should be legal in the United States.

Once again, allow me to express my gratitude to sherlockmethod for agreeing to debate with me. Let me begin this round by summarizing his arguments to the best of my ability. My opponent argues that, "Infanticide should not be legal because the changes it necessitates in the law would remove protections from a select group arbitrarily." Further on, he contends that a law regarding infanticide is unnecessary and that under our current legal framework it simply cannot survive a simple cost/benefit analysis. Moreover, Con goes on to argue that such a law would have terrible legal ramifications and it should, therefore, be rejected. While I do not find these arguments to be compelling (or even rational), they certainly have to be met with a serious response. In this context, I will argue that we can navigate through issues regarding infanticide without having to endorse absurd legal or moral positions. Moreover, the objections my antagonist raises simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. Despite Con's claims, my position can be coherently reconciled with valid moral and legal standards. ===================> Why Infanticide Should Be Legal In The United States <=================== C1: Infanticide is justified in the case of infants with severe medical problems that will end up killing them painfully. To put this entire issue into perspective, it is worth pointing out that some countries (e.g. The Netherlands and Holland) have legalized infanticide. In particular, the Dutch government has a policy on infanticide that is quite sensible. According to The Brussels Journal, "The guideline accepted by the hospital in Groningen last year states that euthanasia is allowed when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best." [1] For all practical purposes, this seems to be a very good model. Moreover, these societies have not faced any of the "massive legal ramifications" Con has tried to pass off as legitimate. Additionally, the fact of the matter is that anencephalic infants are not the entire story in this issue. According to medical professionals and those that deal with these issues, "[there are some] babies that are so ill that their suffering is unbearable and hopeless and that do not die of their own accord". [1] Clearly, some conditions are far worse than anencephaly. Some infants are in such a bad condition that even tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing. Therefore, Con's suggestion that nature and doctors can always ensure that infants have a painless death is palpably false. Ironically, my opponent doesn't seem to have a moral issue with infanticide in the case of infants with terrible medical conditions. Indeed, in his first round he goes so far as to say that, "Pro makes a solid case concerning infants with horrid birth defects." Where we seem to differ, however, is on the legal implications of my proposal. Simply put, my opponent argues that infanticide is a door better left shut in the case of terminally ill infants because of the negative legal ramifications infanticide may bring about. So, if I can successfully show that his concerns about legal ramifications are wholly unsubstantiated, then I will have won this argument, and thus the debate. Curiously, my opponent argues that unless we define infants as persons, then psychopaths will be able to torture and kill infants without the reproach of the law. To humor my opponent, I will grant him the proposition that all infants should be considered "persons" in the eyes of the law. Would such a concession be fatal to my position? Not at all – for it is clearly possible for someone to be a person and to not posses a serious right to life. Consider, for example, a situation in which someone charged at you with a machete in an attempt to kill you. In such a situation, it would clearly be legal (and morally justifiable) to kill the other person in self-defense, even though they are a person. So, at this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about ethics – a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate. And as I have demonstrated earlier, there are valid moral reasons to make a legal exception for some cases of infanticide, in much the same way there are valid moral reasons to create legal differences between murder and killing someone in self defense. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Despite what my opponent may believe, the U.S. Constitution need not be changed in order for my current legal suggestion to be implemented. As I pointed out earlier, at no point in the U.S. Constitution does it specify the qualities that make someone a person. Ergo, the definition of what constitutes a person must be created with the help of practical ethics and legal considerations. Later on, my opponent seems to suggest that the guidelines I have given for infanticide are "arbitrary". But honestly, I fail to see the strength of this unsupported claim. There is absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about the distinction between entities that are conscious and entities that are not conscious. The difference between a rock (an unconscious thing) and a person (a conscious agent) is tremendously consequential, and could hardly be called "arbitrary," in either ethical or legal matters. Furthermore, my opponent says that I haven't given a formal definition for a person. As a matter of fact, I have. I stated that a person is a "rational, autonomous or self-conscious agent". If you want a more formal definition, then I can give you one. In her book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren - an American writer and philosophy professor that taught at San Francisco State University - details five psychological criteria for personhood. According to Warren, these qualities include consciousness and in particular sentience; the capacity to reason; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate messages; and lastly, the presence of self-concepts. [2] As a result, an infant doesn't have a moral right to life in all circumstances since it doesn't have these five capacities. Thus, even if for legal considerations we called all infants persons, this ethical standard makes a strong case that legal exceptions should be made for infanticide, at least in the case of terminally ill infants. ::Conclusion:: The decision of whether or not to implement laws regarding infanticide need not be weighed down by scare tactics or specious reasoning. Con's not so subtle argument that allowing infanticide would lead to the legal torture, kidnapping and indiscriminate killing of infants is no more substantiated than the fatuous rumors that the United States' recent health care bill would have "death panels". [3] These sorts of arguments may convince people without the facts, but they shouldn't convince anyone that cares to look seriously at what I am proposing. Obviously, there is a proper legal and moral distinction between painlessly euthanizing a terminally ill infant in extreme pain and indiscriminately killing infants in a neonatal care unit. Our current legal and ethical framework already provides us with the tools to make these distinctions. Consequently, my opponent's main argument has crumbled and, therefore, I have managed to successfully demonstrate why infanticide should be legal in the United States. Sources: 1. http://www.brusselsjournal.com... 2. Warren, Mary Anne. The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. 1973. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Vol. 57. La Salle, Illinois: The Monist, 1973. (pp. 97-105) 3. http://www.nytimes.com...