Instigator / Con
7
1649
rating
57
debates
66.67%
won
Topic

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

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
0
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Undefeatable
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Pro
2
1454
rating
6
debates
8.33%
won
Description
~ 334 / 5,000

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

Information about one month new born babies: https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/baby-development-1-month#1

Kill: To end the life of

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

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

yet you can also argue that young children cannot make proper decisions (can't vote, can't drive, can't enlist in military, can't enact sexual consent), so what gives them the right to decide to euthanize themselves?

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

hmmmMMMMMMM

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Disabled children typically have person hood. Person hood is the ability to desire continued existence.

Killing a person is wrong because they desire continued existence. Infants younger than one month do not desire continued existence and are not persons

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Disabled children typically have person hood. Person hood is the ability to desire continued existence.

Killing a person is wrong because they desire continued existence. Infants younger than one month do not desire continued existence and are not persons

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

how does your case differ from pro-euthanizing disabled children?

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

I think you better reread that. Either that or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I don't recall being pro life or pro euthanasia or moving the goalposts. I said you can cross examine me as well, so feel free to ask me for clarification on anything in the comments

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

I'm impressed -- you moved the goal post from pro-life to pro euthanasia. the pro-life stance is arguably a bit easier to defeat as it is heavily illogical and riddled with problems.

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Thank you.

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

Hmmm.... very interesting argument

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

no promises. I'll be going to sleep for a few hours. You think there is no effort, but I'd argue the simplicity makes it nearly as strong as my anti-doping argument.

Added:
Contender

Please be up in a few hours, because my R2 will be up tonight. Normally I would require the entire 48 hours for research but you made no effort

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

No, you don't. You should have reread. You are complaining about your recent losses while simultaneously failing to make an effort to understand your opponent's arguments. I read your argument like 5 times, and kept reviewing them over and over to make sure my arguments worked against and with yours. You read mine once. Thaw average person only retains 20% of what they read after the initial reading. Not a good strategy

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

I know exactly what you did wrong after reading it only once. Is that a big surprise?

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Just concede if you are going to half ass your arguments and post rebuttals ten minutes after your opponent made his argument. I am frustrated with you for the quick response which didn't allow you to digest what I posted

Added:
Contender

I have off tomorrow and will be up several more hours. Hit me with as many questions as you want

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

the more specific the debate, the easier it is to win. (Ex. "Systemic racism is a problem in the US" vs "Incarceration rates are disproportionate for minorities in the US"). It's more difficult for men to make the decision since they aren't sure where to draw the line, and don't suffer the pain/restrictions themselves. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48262238]

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Why did you just put women in the title of the debate? Is it your opinion men have no place in the discussion as to whether a new born should be murdered or not? Seems kinda sexist to me.

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

I suppose that there are different circumstances, but under modern day and age, the significant cases of when the woman would do this is because they are deranged and delusional, hence my charging of manslaughter. If they cannot prove that they are insane, and intentionally murdered with a rational mind, then yes, I would charge them with homicide.

I generally believe that liberty is more important than life, in a way that slaves should be able to kill their oppressive masters when all other manners are exhausted (running away, protesting, negotiating). However, you must also prove that the unborn child is "murdered" rather than merely not born. Due to fertility and birth rates it becomes difficult to determine whether a life is actually lost or not.

Added:
Contender

Why manslaughter and not first degree murder? Manslaughter means that the killing is a foreseeable accident.

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Your argument in the debate is that killing a 4th trimester baby would make it easy to kill adults. Is liberty more important than life, is that why you claim that it is okay for a mother to murder the unborn child?

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

no, violating the mother's liberty to have her body's security. They should be charged for manslaughter.

Added:
Contender

What do you think should happen to a person who kills their baby after it is born as opposed to before hand. (If it is only like the day after it is born or something)?

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Violating the baby's liberty to not exist?

Added:
Instigator
--> @Bringerofrain

certainly. Violation of liberty -- or as US supreme court calls it, "violation of privacy" (I don't 100% buy that idea but it's pretty close), and right to decide what to do with your body.

Added:
Contender
--> @Undefeatable

Can I cross examine you in the comments please?

I would like to know why you agree that women should be allowed to abort their babies,prior to the fourth trimester?