Instigator / Con

THBT We Should Allow Women to Kill Their Children Who Are Under One Month Old


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro

Mostly intended for bringer of rain. Anyone else insane enough to accept this may do so.

Information about one month new born babies:

Kill: To end the life of

Allow Women to Kill Their Children: Make it legal without consequence to terminate the life of their newborn

Round 1

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " 

Indeed, in what world would it be moral to take away someone's life? Much less your own family. What world would you want your mother able to kill you, so soon thereafter giving you birth? The cruelty and the negligence makes this action inexcusable. 

Now it is actually quite difficult to find a direct proof to counter the idea of killing an innocent. While humans are argued to hold inherent value in their life and ability to have happiness, on a case to case basis, this become much more blurry. That is why we have a general rule not to kill unless something extreme has happened. As Columbia University explains [], the case by contradiction proves that there must be a rule preventing killing. The whole entire of society would be paranoid and find it difficult to interact with others, as there is nothing stopping others from killing you. A single mistake could cost you your life, and for very little motivation. Hence, the society would suffer generalized anxiety, and it would be impossible to live under such a world. There is very little to lose in implementing the law that *prevents* you from killing an innocent. 

Pro might argue that those under one month old would not be aware enough to create such anxiety, but anxiety is rarely so localized to the one month old baby. Without justification beyond the young age rule, we may also justify killing senile old men, mentally handicapped people, and eventually even vulnerable minorities. What is the true difference or core reason for allowing the young to die? Remember how Hitler had tried to justify his rein by stating Jews were not acceptable, and mentally/physically inferior to the dominant race? Indeed, if we allow for women to kill their new born, it seems hard to justify rules preventing killing in general, and hence we are back to square one.

As you can see, killing innocents in general is counterproductive to society, hence, the law must consider it immoral without severe justification. By such logic, a woman killing her own one month baby would also be illogical and highly immoral.

Now onto Pro.

Con, has allowed me to cross examine him in the comment section of the debate. This extends the debate to the comment section. Voters are encouraged to read it. Please keep in mind that my con has also called women who perform neonaticide “deranged and delusional” as well as comparing them to Nazis. 


The bulk of the rebuttals are in R2, however;

Con’s arguments are a fallacy known as “slippery slope”.[1] Con says that if we allow post birth abortions it means we also may justify killing Jew on the same logic, or the handicapped or the old. The same type of slippery slope argument people have used to say that if we allow gay marriages people will soon be asking to marry children. Let’s dismiss con’s slippery slope arguments out of hand. 

Con’s slippery slope fallacy rests on the premise that, we will start devaluing human life if infanticide is allowed. However the statistics disagree. Some of the countries with the highest infanticide rates have the lowest murder rates and visa versa. America has low rates of infanticide for example, but murder is very common. [2][3] 


Con’s position is that abortion should be legal. I agree. He draws the line at birth. Some draw the line when the sperm fertilizes the egg. It’s all quite arbitrary. I draw the line at when personhood is achieved. The killing of sperm by the spermicide that coats some condoms is no more a murder than taking the morning after pill, Taking the pill is no more a murder than aborting a fetus in the first term of pregnancy….. etc. etc. ad nausea

We don’t care if sperm is killed because it is not a person. Individual sperms are merely a potential person. My opponent admits in his round that one month old babies do not share the same qualities as adults. He mentioned killing adults is wrong because they face anxiety over dying, and admits that babies do not feel this anxiety, but we shouldn’t kill them because others do and us killing the babies would make it seem morally permissible to kill adults. 

My opponent makes the same claim that many philosophers make, even if implicitly, The claim is that killing is wrong, because of a person’s desired continued existence. This desired continued existence gives somebody a right to life. Violating that right to life is wrong. However the problem with con’s implicit argument, is that one month old babies have no such desire for continued existence. They are essentially no different than a late term fetus in that respect. 

If you have no desire for continued existence you can't be considered a person. 1 month olds do not have dreams, goals fears of dying or even love for that matter. They are not person’s. 


Con wants to win with appeals to emotion. Primarily appeals to painting women who commit post birth abortions as he says in the comments “deranged or delusional”. He paints their actions in R1 as “cruel and negligent”. Only 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks and typically for very good medical reasons such as a fetus who would face more pain than happiness in life, if they even survived the birth and most aborted that late wouldn’t. 

The average woman who kills her infant is 24 years old, very poor, sane and surprisingly normal. [4] A woman does not just carry a baby to full term when abortion is available if they are a cold hearted monster who wants to murder a baby. This happens because something went wrong. Either the mother is in an area where having a girl will make the family broke (Indian dowry’s)[5]. Or they are a victim of China’s one child policy and having a girl means their family’s name dies. [6] These women are already punished enough in their cultures without us adding to it. The solution is not to ban infanticide but to fix the societal issues that cause it to happen. 

Con in the cross examination said he was pro choice because it was more important to protect a woman’s liberty than to protect a baby’s (non person’s) life. However the child a woman has just birthed may be severely handicapped and a burden on the family, harming the other children she has. Perhaps it is so badly handicapped that living past 1 year is impossible and she has decided a mercy killing is best. 

The women committing infanticide are not depraved monsters whose continued existence will cause another Hitler to rise up, like con claims. They are desperate people, who have a tough choice to face. Do I create a large tragedy now, or risk a possible far greater tragedy later? 

Round 2
Con's argument is extraordinarily problematic and his refutation comes down to three simple ideas:
1. That my argument is a mere slippery slope
2. That because infants cannot feel fear/awareness that they can be killed without consequence
3. That women would only kill in the most extreme of circumstances

Firstly, let's examine number 3, since his source explicitly counters this very argument. As the abstract explains, "Subsequent studies have supported the proposal that the motivations differ, but suggest that most infant homicides are due to a sudden loss of temper with the child 9 and not altruism." Thus, we already go into the morally ambiguous territory. What makes it completely unacceptable is that YOU are making the decision for the child whether you think their life is worth living or not. You think that their disability is so terrible that their life will be insufferable, yet Con offers no standard for "insufferable disability".

Steven Hawking was paralyzed later in his life but was one of the most significant scientists who ever lived. Would Con argue his life was so insufferable that his mother should be able to murder him in his sleep? "My life is my choice," I like to say. Indeed, as a disabled person realizes, "Not a single organisation of, or for, disabled people, or one representing people with long term health conditions has campaigned for assisted suicide to be legalised." [1] The basis for racism and sexism comes from Con's logic. You say that being paralyzed is horrible, that living with one arm is worse off, but it is near impossible to say that you would rather allow for the entire justice system to be eroded merely depending on parents' decisions. Con thinks that based on statistics, the allowance of infanticide would differ from the actual results, but he doesn't think far enough.  Con's advocacy is not only for murder of infants with worrying consequences for vulnerable people in general, Con also encourages doctors to simply give up. 

As my source further empowers, "Many of us, myself included, are alive now because of the skill of the medical profession, advances in drug treatments, and improved devices. We are immensely grateful. We want you to keep asking yourselves, “How can I improve this person’s health and quality of life?” " Now clearly, the full impact of allowing killing of disabled people is intensely problematic as a whole. If you would give up on these people because you *think* they cannot live on, even if they have the potential to become another Hawking, then you lose immense proportion of the potential work force, and you arbitrarily separate people with rights and people without rights. Con argues that the child should be judged and given the death penalty merely because they are a "burden on the family" and "severely handicapped". So would we give death penalty to all people who are in wheelchairs? Would we stop giving medicare to the elderly as their expenses grow higher and higher? Con answers none of these questions, merely stating this is a slippery slope fallacy, without telling me WHY Con's world wouldn't enact similar laws for all of the vulnerable population. By CON's logic, we MUST enact these very laws because it's unacceptable for people to remain handicapped and become a burden.

Argument 2 can be dismissed easily. Unconsciousness does not make killing legal. You are neither aware nor fearful in your sleep, yet at one point you will be awake, thus, you will still be able to feel paranoia at people being able to kill you without consequence. Con does not set a baseline for what exact level of handicap or burden would allow people to murder, hence, Argument 1 would be fulfilled completely and force con to admit that there is no clear line between killing a man who broke his arm and killing the baby. 

So, why is killing an infant wrong?
1. Not merely slippery slope, but rather absurd logic that allows you to kill any disabled people whatsoever
2. All humans inherently having a right to life when born, which is deserved and justified
3. The undermining of justice system overall due to allowing a position of authority having say on someone merely because of lack of awarness/knowledge


To be clear. I’m not arguing against euthanasia. Con is trying to turn this into a euthanasia debate. This also isn’t a debate on legalizing post birth abortions. It is a debate about whether we should allow women to make these tough decisions as opposed to allowing a disinterested cold government bureaucracy to make the decision for her. That is the alternative. Con’s position would require more changes to the law, because right now if you give birth to a baby without skin who has a life expectancy of 3 days, you are allowed to mercy kill him in most locations. Con’s alternative would force a loving mother watch that baby’s torture for 3 days.


In round 1, I showed how implicitly con supported the idea that murder was wrong based on his argument for why we shouldn’t allow the rights of the sick, elderly and handicapped to be encroached upon. He mentions death anxiety as a reason for not killing persons who are handicapped or elderly or who would otherwise want to live. 

Here is a formalized version of my argument that acknowledged con’s implicit belief that death anxiety gives persons the right to life. 

Premise 1- A person is defined as somebody who has a desire for continued existence

premise 2- A desire for continued existence, implies a right to life

conclusion 1- A person has the right to life

premise 3- A one month old baby does not qualify as a person as defined in premise 1

conclusion 2- A one month old baby does not have the right to life.

Con, has not challenged my definition of person. Con has not challenged my argument that only “Persons” have a right to life. This is a dropped argument and round 3 is too late to challenge it. 


 I want the voters to be aware that Con has offered new arguments here, when it would have been more important to focus on relevant rebuttals and expand on his initial arguments. Between this move and Con’s Nazi comments about women that perform post birth abortions, I think he should be docked conduct points.  

I should also receive source points, because while my opponent has cited a blog and a college kids irrelevant essay, I cited links providing actual data as opposed to opinion pieces, and included at least one study. 


I have been using the two above terms interchangeably to support my arguments. Neonaticide is when a mother kills her child anytime in the first 24 hours of birth. This is where the vast majority of deaths in the first year after child birth occur. The first year, and usually these go undiscovered unless a highschool janitor happens to follow a blood trail to a dumpster that a baby was hidden in, or some other unlikely scenario. 

Infanticide happens anytime after the first 24 hours of birth, but before the 12th month of life. Neither is a perfect term to describe what I am advocating for in this debate. When I cited the study it was to show the attributes of the average woman who commits neonaticide. Con says that my study did not support what I was saying, but he cites the portion about infanticide. The paper was comparing infanticide and neonaticide. Neonaticide is more relevant to this debate because the motivations of a mother in her first month prior to when she has formed emotional bonds with a child are better reflected in those. 


Con argues briefly that being asleep would not make killing you unethical, though you would not retain the desire to continue living, while asleep. I would argue that you don’t lose the desire to remain alive when you are asleep. Desire is just a thought in your head, whether conscious or unconscious. When you sleep, you don’t forget your middle name or your birthday. So some element of those thoughts must stay active while you are sleeping. The fact the desire is retained while you sleep, means you still retain your right to life when you are asleep. Even comatose patients may retain this desire at some level. A one month old has no concept of this. 


To mirror the 3 points con makes at the end of his round;

1. Almost every single disabled individual as well as the elderly can be described as a person according to the definition of person we have provided in this debate. As person’s they have the right to live. Allowing women to abort a baby after birthing it, does not threaten these rights, and in fact in societies where neonaticide is high, the murder rates are usually very very low.

2. The right to life is only something “person’s” have and does not ever exist in an infant’s first month of life. Con has not stated how to determine who has a right to life only he has decided birth should be the random location the right to life begins, with no justification for that bare assertion.

3. Mothers are in a unique position to know what is best for their family and to make the choice between a great tragedy now or an even greater one in the future that could effect multiple people. 

Round 3
While my general rule/law against killing is partially due to the paranoia generated by the lack of this law, the morality basis is still based on the value of human life in general and the damage sustained by allowing killing. Con is generalizing specific scenarios to generally allow legalizing of murder, *assuming* that they have made the right decision. This is absurd. How many children lose their face and suffer to die within three days? How many mothers are fully informed with the knowledge that absolutely nothing could prevent this suffering? And how many mothers know that the child would have admitted they would rather die than accept the handicap?

Con's crux is still the same as my article's note that the pro-euthanize argument claim some lives are less worth living than others. His claim is based on "desire", yet nearly no developed brain with rationality would reject the right to live. He rejects even giving the future where the child can make his own choice!

Con assumed that all men are rational and that they will only kill others when they are severely threatened, rather than out of impulse, or out of lack of knowledge of better ideals. He thinks that the authority level of "mother" gives them a unique say over the person's life. Yet the crucial difference is that abortion draws the line at personhood because birth is precisely what gives the essential right -- otherwise, late bloomers mentally wise could justify killing two-year-olds, three-year-olds, etc.

The logic of killing the infant in specific conditions allowing for generic conditions is a leap of faith and an absurd conclusion. You think that a disease is incurable; you decide to kill your kid because you think that they have no desire to live. But the irrevocable action of killing and the maximum prevention of someone's life's purposes and goals makes it so that it is impossible to justify killing your child in the vast majority of circumstances. 

Con thinks that the decision has to be made after birth, which is absurd. You were given nine months of pregnancy to figure this out. You were given until late-term abortion, which is already rare and can be justified based on a violation of liberty to the woman, not to mention the US's "right to privacy" protected for the woman. Yet you took the responsibility and decided based on your arbitrary judgment. You decided after birth and chose to kill this child. Indeed, Con raises the idea of preventing suffering, fully supporting abortion, yet also raises the alternative of killing the child after they are born. The woman has the responsibility to raise the child since they went through the entire process. It seems illogical that you would give yourself the moral responsibility and obligation to protect your children, and then go on to kill an innocent -- without their permission.

We must generate the greatest amount of happiness overall. By enforcing the right of people to live, we prevent the killing of others merely because we think they are mentally inferior or cannot understand the idea of having rights. 

Again I stress, what right does a parent have to decide for the child? How do they know your decisions, your wants, and your desires, not to mention your potential in the future? Once you have been born, the personhood is 100% certain -- it completely differs from abortion. Yet Con would use the same justification as abortion to justify killing babies. And so he dismisses all responsibilities from parents. Encourages them to get rid of their child due to arbitrary choice. All they have to do is add more disabilities and abuse so long as they can hide the evidence, and then they are allowed to kill their children. We MUST not allow this world to come to fruition. This is no different from Hitler's killing based upon genetics.

Even a pro euthanization article realizes: "In effect, the new law will permit children... to request euthanasia provided that they understand the consequences of their decision as verified and certified by a child psychiatrist or psychologist."

In other words, the child must have informed consent to allow for this assisted suicide. The young baby cannot have such consent/knowledge, and as such, their liberties and rights are lost, claimed by their parents.

A woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy supersedes an embryonic right to life (in the pro-choice viewpoint), but once a baby is born, neither her privacy nor her bodily autonomy is at play anymore. Hence abortion being legal and infanticide not.

Dropped arguments: 
  •  Hawking was paralyzed later in his life but was one of the most significant scientists who ever lived. Would Con argue his life was so insufferable that his mother should be able to murder him in his sleep? 
  • most infant homicides are due to a sudden loss of temper with the child 9 and not altruism
  • We should improve quality conditions and resolve the problem of severe sickness so that they are not insufferable to live in, rather than encouraging lower standards for medical care by outright killing disabled or elderly people (by Con's logic that if a person's life is insufferable, their parents should be able to kill them)