Question: Should Certain Vaccines Be Mandated for Children?

Thank you NEG. Extending my case... My value "Public Health" is the basis of this resolution; the resolution is questioning whether public health should be considered in mandating immunizations. Thus without the value "Public Health", there would be nothing to justify compulsory immunization. My VC also is essential; as my contentions have proven, the ultimate goal of compulsory immunization is to protect the welfare of society as a whole, aka public health. Without public health, there would be no fully functioning society, and thus nothing else can exist without it. My second contention first establishes the fact that government is created in order to protect the welfare of society as a whole and ensure its well-being. Thus, rights of the individual citizen must be given up when it is against the interests of other citizens in the same community. A government is obligated to choose and implement policies that are considered the best for society as a whole; if it does not accomplish this (in which negative is suggesting) then what would be the point in establishing a government in the first place? Alas, my second contention leads and proves my first contention which is critical to this debate; that vaccinations are effective in protecting the human population. Vaccines have been proven to protect the welfare of humans, and if required for all citizens, would protect the whole society. An individual might resist against the vaccine, but then he would be seen as a potential threat to society; that particular individual would have the risk of carrying the disease and infecting those around him. Under these circumstances, the individual must be required to be immunized so to protect other people; his individual rights cannot be considered. Now responding to my opponents case and rebuttal: My opponent's value is morality. What is morality based on? an individual's perspective, or society's perspective? my opponent's value is too vague, and thus cannot be considered. My opponent's criterion is human agency, defined as "the capacity of humans to make rational decisions." Obviously "rational" would be influenced by an individual's moral conscience, but what if this indivudal had corrupt or aboslutely no sense of moral righteousness. Then he is free to do whatever he may please, because he considers it to be rational. If this rationality was to be judged by other people in the same given society, then thus he would be restricted by others for his particular actions. In a sense my opponent's criterion is agreeing with the affirmative; if society considers this individual's rationality to be not justified, then it have the right to restrict it. In the same way as my case, an indivudal can not freely roam in this society; they give up some of their individual rights in exchange for protection and security as a whole. My opponent advocates that humans are always unpredictable and we would have to respect that. He criticizes that compulsory immunization would dennounce individualism; Yet compulsory immunziation does not take away all rights and identity of people; it only does so under the circumstance of public health. Also, there is no proof or direct link that a government would abuse its power and create "horrors such as slavery, eugenics, or holocaust." This arguement is extremely flawed, and I would like to point out my opponent does not give any sort of warrant or proof of this. Thus my opponent's criterion is invalid. His whole arguement, and case would thus not make any sense. Responding to my opponent's rebuttals, my case is built on protecting public health, because the resolution is asking whether compulsory immunization can be justified through public health; public health thus is the determining factor, not compulsory. For the given reasons, vote for affirmative. The main arguement is that government is established to insure the welfare of society, and when vaccines have been proven to benefit society, government has to mandate vaccinations so to ensure this beneficiary. thus, public health concerns justify immunization.

Wow, not much time left. Well, here goes my best shot at an opening statement.First, my thanks to PRO for clarifying that what is under debate is convincing the majority in developed nations. Thus, I will argue that MGM is not something the the majority of people in developed nations should vote to outlaw.I. Who Determines Harm?My first point is about the question who determines what constitutes a harm in a developed nation. The reason this point is important is because from the viewpoint of religions that practice circumcision, not to circumcise a male child would constitute a harm to the child. In Judaism:"circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man." [1]In Islam:"In the Sunnah, Muhammad stated that circumcision was a 'law for men'",and"The main reason given for the ritual is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying. It is important that no urine is left on the body. Muslims believe the removal of the foreskin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there."in addition:"For the majority of Muslims, circumcision is seen as an introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging." [2]In other words, circumcision is an essential aspect to at least two major religions that are currently being practiced by many people in developed nations. According to those religions, it would be a religious harm to boys not to be circumcised (i.e. it would be a violation of God's will). Boys who are not circumcised might consider themselves to be sinning against their god, or not be full members of their religious community.The reason this is important is because PRO has mentioned some harms, almost exclusively harms to sexual pleasure. But to elevate loss of sexual pleasure as a greater harm than being in violation of God's command (from the perspective of a given individual) seems like an illegitimate elevation of some harms over others.One of the important pillars of modern developed nations has been a freedom of conscience in religious questions. This means that the state or government does not legislate so as to elevate one religious viewpoint over another. An important aspect of religious views is what constitutes harm, and to fix by legislation that sexual pleasure trumps religious observance is overreaching the worldview neutrality that a democratic government is supposed to have.If there is some ultimate trumping view of harm that should dominate in a democracy than I think PRO needs to a) provide an account of this and b) give an argument why this is the right account.II. Religious LibertyThis point is similar to the first. For many years Islam and Judaism have been practiced in developed nations. As a matter of fact, whenever some religions became persecuted by the state, this has lead to great violence in the 20th century. However, at times, new religions have begun to take hold in developed nations, but these religions violated some of the fundamental values of the people already living in the country, and have as a result been greatly limited in their liberties. For example, Scientology is on a federal cult watch list in Germany, due to its subversive nature,"On December 7, 2007, German federal and state interior ministers expressed the opinion that the Scientology organization was continuing to pursue anti-constitutional goals, restricting "essential basic and human rights like the dignity of man or the right to equal treatment", and asked Germany's domestic intelligence agencies to collect and evaluate the information required for a possible judicial inquiry aimed at banning the organization." [3]Another example is the state of Utah, which was not allowed to join the United States until Mormonism had renounced its stance on polygamy. [4]I suspect that if a religion which endorsed FGM began to be practiced in a developed nation, it would and should find similar resistance. However, Islam and Judaism have for a long time been allowed to practice their tenants and commitments in developed nation. People of these religions settled in these countries under the understanding that they were guaranteed their religious freedom to practice their beliefs.A ban on MGM would constitute a government label on these religions saying: "This religion is a false religion." Here is why: According to these religions, God commanded them to circumcise. Presumably, everything that God commands is good. So if the government bans the practice, then this amounts to saying "Either God is bad, or your religion is false in its reporting of God's commands." This would clearly constitute a kind of dis-establishment of religion. And this, as much as anything else, is a violation of religious liberty.I want to emphasize here that there is a difference between not allowing a religion in to a country in the first place, because it fundamentally clashes with the values of that society, and deciding to declare a religion false after it has already been established and practiced there, and many citizens of the country have understood themselves as being free to practice their religion.III What are Legitimate Reasons to Change the Law? Finally, I want to re-iterate something I brought up in the 'acceptance and definition' part. We can talk about the medical benefits and sexual detriment of MGM all day long, but to jump from there to "we should ban it" is nothing but a non-sequitur. We need some principled understanding of what things should be banned and legislated, and what things should not be. I would like to emphasize the the burden of proof here lies with PRO. I am merely defending the legal status quo, so I do not need to give criteria or considerations for what it takes to change the law. PRO on the other hand is arguing for a change, so PRO will need to establish why the interesting medical considerations about MGM are in any way relevant to what should be the laws in a developed nation.Unless PRO can establish that his list of medical claims have important implications for changing the law, he cannot win this debate. I had hoped that PRO would have listed some of these considerations in the opening statement, so that I could have replied to it sooner. Just to motivate this point further, let me give some examples of what principles are obviously bad principles for changing the law:A. If it does harm, then it should be illegal- Marital infidelity, lying, and being rude at the grocery store all does harm, yet we are not having laws against these thingsB. If the majority of the people thinks it is wrong, then it should be illegal- The majority of the people think that Secular Humanism, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, and Baptists are wrong. But we obviously can't outlaw every worldview.PRO can't appeal to A or B to link his medical considerations to legality. What is the alternate principle at work here?IV ConclusionThus, PRO owes us an account of harm, an account of the limits of religious liberty, and an account of when to change the law.This is it for my opening statement. I will of course have an opportunity to rebut PRO's opening statement in the third round, but I thought this was the place to establish the case for keeping MGM legal for 'any' reason. I think my defense mainly applies to religious reasons, so if I cannot establish that it should stay legal for medical or aesthetic reasons, I still defended CON in the way intended in the debate announcement.I am out of characters once again, so I hope to get into more interesting discussion in the following rounds.-------------------------[1] http://www.jewfaq.org...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Unfortunatley, my opponent forfeited her round 3 and did not present her own arguments. My own arguments still stand without refutation. With this in mind, I strongly urge a CON vote.

I do not quite think my opponent understands my debate topic: vaccines do not cause autism. If this is my debate topic then the opposing simply has to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I did not ask whether high fevers in pregnant women cause autism but rather vaccines. definitions: cause: The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result. According to this exact definition by thefreedictionary, the opponent is required to prove that VACCINES are responsible for a result(autism) For the purpose of the argument below, assume that the opponent's argument is valid according to my debate topic: Common side effects of vaccines include: injection site reactions (pain, swelling and redness) mild fever. shivering. fatigue. headache. muscle and joint pain. Therefore, we can conclude that a more severe and rare side effect is a high fever. A pregnant woman would be required or strongly recommended to get these vaccines to protect her unborn child: Rubella, Hepatitis B, flu, and whooping cough. According to the opponent's source, high fevers were not listed as any of the side effects for any of these vaccines, but rather simply a fever. Because the fever was listed as a mild side effect, one can assume that it is a mild fever. The opponent's source does not claim that any fever in a pregnant woman is linked to autism, but rather a high fever. Source [1] states: Any medication can cause a severe allergic reaction. Such reactions from a vaccine are very rare, estimated at fewer than 1 in a million doses, and would happen within a few minutes to a few hours after the vaccination. Assume that a high fever is a severe allergic reaction. High fevers are said to be 103 F-104 F. If a pregnant woman goes against the odds and get's a high fever resulting from the vaccine and the baby gets autism, given the slim chance, the fever resulting from the vaccine CAUSED the autism, not the VACCINE itself. Since the source did not state that all cases of a high fever in a pregnant woman were due to the vaccine itself, it is safe assume that some of these cases are linked to influenza. According to the opponent's argument that the high fever resulting from the vaccine causes autism, would it also be safe to assume that high fever from the influenza virus is linked to autism as well? How about the fever as a result of a bacterial infection such as strep throat? Would that be linked to autism too? Conclusion: An accidental relationship is a correlation that exists without any causal relationship between variables. In this case, autism and vaccines are the two variables and there is an accidental relationship between these two. Does autism not occur in children at a very young age? About the same age that they receive vaccines? If so, it's entirely possible that these two variables have no real relationship and are simply coincidental that autism resulted after a vaccine. Below are credible, scientific studies that show that there is absolutely no relationship between vaccines and autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... http://cid.oxfordjournals.org... 1.http://www.cdc.gov... 2.http://www.cdc.gov...

I will be debating on the side that vaccines do not cause autism. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that vaccines DO cause autism.

I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Only the immunocompromised would be exempt from compulsory vaccines. "compulsory (k!5;m-p$5;lR42;sor-ē) 1. Compelling action against one's will. 2. Required."[1] "vaccine [vak-sēn"] a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases." [2] "immunocompromised [imR43;u-no-kom"pro-mīzd] having the immune response attenuated by administration of immunosuppressive drugs, by irradiation, by malnutrition, or by certain disease processes such as the viral infection that produces the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)." medical-dictionary [3] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I affirm the resolution that: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. To clarify, I tender the following definitions and observations. Public health concerns: "matters relating to the overall health of a population in a general sense." (Interviews with public health professors and professionals, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, 5-10 October 2009.) Justify: to show to be just, right, or reasonable Merriam-Webster Dictionary Compulsory: Mandatory Merriam-Webster Dictionary Immunization: The process of inducing immunity through inoculation or vaccination. Web-MD Observation One: My advocacy The resolution does not specify an actor. It doesn't say who decides when immunization is mandatory. Rather than giving this power to individual, potentially corrupt, governments, I advocate that the decision should come down to the World Health Organization as it is the current leading entity in the global field of vaccination. Observation Two: Compulsory does not mean complete. Compulsory immunization does not necessarily mean that 100% of people will be vaccinated. It does not mean that exceptions cannot be made for those whose allergies or medical conditions would jeopardize their safety if they were vaccinated. Medical professionals still have the ability to withhold immunization in cases where it would do more harm than good, however, individuals can no longer exempt, i.e. the immunizations are still compulsory because they are mandatory. === The Value is morality, or the judgment of right and wrong, because the term 'justify' asks us the question of right and wrong. The Criterion is reduction of human suffering. This is the standard for 3 reasons. (1) One, this is implicit in the resolution. The goal of maintaining public health is to reduce human suffering. The purpose of immunization is to prevent disease, because disease causes suffering. Thus, both the terms 'public health concerns' and 'compulsory immunization' dictate that we are debating reduction of suffering. (2) Two, morality and increasing suffering are mutually exclusive. One can never simultaneously make both the claims that they are acting morally and they are allowing humans to suffer. (3) Three, Ends-based evaluation is the only accurate assessment of morality, because it is the only way to give humans equal protection of rights. There is no morally relevant distinction between persons because everyone is equally human, and thus equally deserving of protection. Martha Nussbaum contends: The accident of where one is born is just that, an accident. Recognizing this, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or even gender to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity wherever it occurs and give all equal respect. We should give our first allegiance to no mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the humanity of all human beings. One should always behave so as to treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being. Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994 http://www.soci.niu.edu...] Thus, the affirmative's burden is to prove that affirming the resolution would lead to less human suffering than negating. In so far as I meet this burden, I win the round. === Contention One: Compulsory immunization maintains the herd immunity threshold. According to the CDC, the herd immunity threshold, or HIT, is the proportion of individuals in the population above which a disease may no longer persist, and so long as we maintain an immunization rate above the HIT for a particular disease, it becomes virtually impossible for that disease to spread. The CDC has accurately determined the HIT for almost all of the most dangerous diseases. It varies by disease based on the virulence of that particular disease, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, the herd immunity threshold is 94% immunization for Measles and Pertussis, 86% for Polio, and 85% for Diphtheria and Smallpox. The Michigan Law Review argues: In the past decade, personal belief exemptions have increased [by 200%] nationally, This trend is troubling—even a small increase in the use of exemptions translates to a higher percentage of unvaccinated individuals, which threatens "herd immunity." Consequently, recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease throughout the country have been directly attributed to the use of personal belief exemptions. For example, according to the CDC, cases of measles have reached a ten-year high; with over half of the cases involving children whose parents refused to immunize their children. There is a strong public health argument in favor of strengthening existing measures to obtain the highest vaccination coverage rates to ensure community protection. Alexandra M. Stewart, Commentary, Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exceptions: Considering Legal Responses, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 105 (2009), http://www.michiganlawreview.org.... As long as we maintain appropriate levels of immunization, outbreaks of dangerous disease do not spread, because they are confined by the natural boundaries that heard immunity sets. When levels of immunization dip below the herd immunity threshold, there is no longer sufficient protection to stop the disease from spreading; this can turn minor outbreaks in small communities into cross-country pandemics. === Contention Two: Voluntary immunization ostracizes the poor. Harvard Professor and Chairman of the Department of Global Health and Population, David Bloom, explains: "The World Health Organization, for example, has estimated that polio eradication will save governments $1.5 billion per year in vaccine, treatment, and rehabilitation costs. Estimates are that the $100 million invested in eradicating [smallpox] in the ten years after 1967 "saved the world about $1.35 billion a year". And the US Institute of Medicine reports that for every dollar spent on the MMR vaccine, $21 is saved." Bloom, David (2004): "Eradication versus control: the economics of global infectious disease policies", Bulletin of the World Health Organization, September 2004; 82: 683–8. However, despite the clear economic benefit, these vaccines are not being implemented in the indigent, third world countries that need them most, because the citizens are too poor to afford the vaccinations themselves. This means that the governments and pharmaceutical companies foot the bill. Bloom continues: The profitability deficit for developing-world vaccines is huge. The developing-world vaccine market is estimated at just 10-15 per cent of the world total. The total volume of all vaccine doses acquired by UNICEF for distribution in the developing world is 100 times greater than the number of doses delivered in the US, but brings in less than half the revenue. Governments in poor countries are more concerned with cost. Products have therefore begun to diverge, even when they tackle the same illness, and the new vaccines that respond to developed-world demands are often too expensive for poor countries… Pharmaceutical companies have found it difficult to persuade shareholders of the value of continuing to develop vaccines for poor countries. The pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, for example, reported in 2001 that it was planning to allocate its freeze-drying capacity to the influenzae B vaccine rather than the less profitable meningitis A/C vaccine. Moreover, doses of the DTwP vaccine offered to UNICEF declined from 600 million in 1998 to 150 million two years later. In the Status quo, the poorest, most disease-ridden countries are being given the least protection. This only exacerbates the suffering in those who are already suffering most. ===

First, I am not sure if you are educated or if you were forced to be, But if you were, It obviously is not being implemented in your life, As evidenced by your atrocious spelling and grammar (this system even has spell check). Of course, If English is not your native language, This is forgivable. Second, What I inferred from your argument was that you feel that third world counties are not as well developed because they don't have compulsory education. This is patently false. Out of the top 5 third world counties according to HDI (nationsonline. Org): In Kenya " primary school is free and compulsory" (epdc. Org) In Sao Tome and Principe "primary school is mandatory. " (borgenproject. Org) Pakistan is dedicated to "provide free and compulsory education for a minimum period" (norric. Org) and "has passed a law on compulsory education (eight years of schooling). " (norric. Org) Bangladesh "recently announced that it will extend free and compulsory primary education to all students through grade 8" (worldbank. Org) This means that 4/5 of the top 3rd world countries provide some form of compulsory education. Their position as "back wards" as you said, Is based upon their cultures, As well as their history of political and military unrest. Third, You are correct in that people with more education are typically payed better, But also pay more taxes. (collegeboard. Org) Therefore it should be easy for people to CHOOSE to get educated, And not be forced into it. Fourth, I would argue that Welfare should be abolished as well, But that is a separate debate, So I will say that those who are forced to be educated now against their will are already prone to fail in seizing the initiative to succeed and will therefore end up on welfare anyway and take more taxpayer money by leaching off of the education system. Fifth, If educated people make more money, Why would blue collar employers not hire more uneducated people who are not in a position to demand more pay? If anything, This would increase their prospects of finding a job, Albeit a menial one. And finally, Me being or not being on drugs has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I am not, Incidentally, But this weak jab at my validity as a debater shows how little you care about building a sound logical (or, In this case, Psychoanalytical) foundation for your assertions.

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

Vaccines: A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease 2. Beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. 3. Humanity: The Human Race The invention of vaccination has greatly improved society and the general health of the world. Before times of vaccination, there were no ways of granting "total" immunity from the disease without direct exposure to it. Famous Scientist Eziekel J Emmanuel once said "Vaccines are the most cost-effective health care interventions there are. " The first practice of vaccines were brought to prominence in the 1770s, when doctors infected people with cowpox, which would then prevent chickenpox from spreading. Vaccination has come a long way since then, but still the concept is more or less similar. That shall be explained in latter arguments. Imagine a world without vaccines: imagine the Black Death and the Middle Ages, when rationalism was shadowed by theology. Before vaccinations, when a contagious disease struck, there would be no way for anyone to get out of harm's way when they come into contact with the contagious pathogen. The body's main defenses, although tough in name, would fall like cards in a strong gush of win. Many would be infected when coming into contact with a contagious and infected patient. That was a reason why the Black Death spread so rapidly in the world: because no one knew how to stop it. Fortunately, a Bubonic Plague Vaccine was invented in 1897, when the disease was limited to several endemics in parts of the world. Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future, partly because the need to provide humans with immunity from many harmful diseases. There are some downsides to vaccines, and there are many theories that attempt to attack some types of vaccine, but vaccination has saved billions of lives in the world, and they should continue to benefit society.


Question: Should Certain Vaccines be Mandated for Pediatric Immunization?

Vaccines help eradicate diseases and prevent their resurgence.

However, the issue of mandatory vaccinations for children is a complex one that intersects with human rights. While some argue for the necessity of vaccines to protect public health, others emphasize the right to choose whether to vaccinate oneself or one's children. The government's role in enforcing vaccinations, especially when potential risks are present, is a point of contention. This debate isn't solely about disease prevention but also about the influence of pharmaceutical companies and the continuous development of new vaccines.

Critics point out that vaccines are not a panacea, as diseases like polio were already in decline before the introduction of vaccines due to improved sanitation and hygiene. In fact, some diseases have been on a steady decline since the mid-19th century. Furthermore, European countries that did not mandate smallpox and polio vaccinations also saw the end of epidemics, similar to those countries that did enforce them.

Vaccines can be harmful due to the presence of toxins like mercury, which the CDC was aware of but chose to conceal. The efficacy of vaccines is also questioned, as some diseases like smallpox and flu have shown resistance to vaccines. People should have the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate, as this is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom in America.

Moreover, the economic stability of the world is declining, and spending on mandatory vaccinations that not everyone wants can be considered a waste of resources. If vaccines don't work as intended or if the side effects are worse than the disease itself, it raises serious concerns. For instance, receiving the chickenpox vaccine as an adult can result in severe illness, especially if pregnant, compared to the milder childhood version of the disease.

With the advancement of technology, sometimes simpler methods are better. Vaccines can be risky due to potential side effects. Since 1990, around 30,000 adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government, with 13% being serious, leading to permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death. Infants are particularly vulnerable to adverse medical events from vaccinations, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome.

So what do you ha e to say about people who take showers everyday and still get sick because they ddin't take vaccine. Hygiene has played a little role in our health because when we revive a vaccine our bodies knows how to fight it and then out next generation becomes even healthier and even stronger than we did in the 1090s and the 1800s. Vaccines helped us stay healthy for over 50 years. And now think what medical science can do for us in the future to our generations. www.health.ny.gov www.medicalhealth.org/vaccines/safety

Some parents may not be in the budget to pay for vaccination for there child. Parents may fear that their child will have bad side-effects as well as allergies. it is also not illegal or compulsory to vaccinate your child, Australia is a free country and she parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child.

I am mildly confused that you said nobody accepted because there was still almost a week on the clock before you joined. I am also mildly confused that you are citing an argument you made to your own comment which is contradicting what you are saying. Finally, I would like to apologize for accidentally sourcing one of my definitions in the first round. This was habitual and accidental. Anyways, I am pleased to start this debate and will motor right along to my refutation of my opponent's argument and then will present my own. Vaccinations cause autism:My opponent's only argument so far is that getting vaccinations cause autism, because the number of autistic children has increased in relation to the number of vaccinations. He stated no sources for this. To stop any further appearances of this blatantly incorrect argument, I will source a couple of reputable sites that disprove this myth.1. A meta-analysis spanning over 1.2 million children has confirmed that the MMR shot doesn't actually cause autism and may actually even decrease the risk. An epidemiologist parent of three children is cited in the document as saying that she approves of vaccinating your children. [1]2. A detailed study based on studying the effects of vaccination of 95,272 children with older siblings. Older siblings with and without autism were both studied. The results proved that there is no correlation between vaccination and autism. [2]3. Finally, even the US government CDC has decreed that vaccinations and autism have no association. They even verified that no ingredients in the government-approved vaccines (mainly the ingredient thimerosal) cause negative effects in clinically-approved amounts. [3]Herd Immunity:My first argument is on the concept of herd immunity. This is a general concept that means that when the few people who cannot receive vaccinations are not immune to the disease are protected by those who are. There is a specific amount of people who need to be vaccinated for each disease to work. Below is a graph that details the threshold (or percentage of people) needed for herd immunity to work. The R0 is the number of people one unvaccinanated person could infect in an unprotected population. The R0 goes up in relation to the threshold. This is important because you can see that for all these incredibly harmful diseases, a large percentage of children is needed to be vaccinated for the children who actually can't get the immunity that they need. [4]Vaccinations WorkNo matter what the radical and incorrect campaigners will tell you, vaccinations work and they save lives. To be precise, 5 million lives would've been taken every year from smallpox (which has now been eradicated) [5] A great example to prove this argument is the example of the California Disneyland Measles Outbreak. (This example also helps prove my first argument. ) One overseas foreign traveler accidentally carried measles to Disneyland, an amusement park in California. The disease spread rapidly, spanning from California to all over the rest of the US. About 668 people were documented as having the virus because of this one foreign traveler. [6] Parents are killing their children by not providing them with the necessary vaccinations, and killing the children around them whose parents are responsible enough to provide them with the correct protection and those who cannot receive the vaccination because of the allergic reactions they have to the chemicals. The margins for each of these diseases are big enough to fit in these minute percentages of children who legitimately cannot receive proper protection, but not those with neglectful parents. Well, this is what we'll start off the debate with. Sorry that the 5th link didn't register, you'll just have to copy/paste it if you want to see it. I would like to end this round with wishing the best of luck to my opponent. Sources:1: . https://www.autismspeaks.org...2: . http://jama.jamanetwork.com...3: . http://www.cdc.gov...4: . http://www.pbs.org...5: www. unicef. org/pon96/hevaccin. htm6: . http://www.cdc.gov...

Vaccines: A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease 2. Beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. 3. Humanity: The Human Race The invention of vaccination has greatly improved society and the general health of the world. Before times of vaccination, there were no ways of granting "total" immunity from the disease without direct exposure to it. Famous Scientist Eziekel J Emmanuel once said "Vaccines are the most cost-effective health care interventions there are. " The first practice of vaccines were brought to prominence in the 1770s, when doctors infected people with cowpox, which would then prevent chickenpox from spreading. Vaccination has come a long way since then, but still the concept is more or less similar. That shall be explained in latter arguments. Imagine a world without vaccines: imagine the Black Death and the Middle Ages, when rationalism was shadowed by theology. Before vaccinations, when a contagious disease struck, there would be no way for anyone to get out of harm's way when they come into contact with the contagious pathogen. The body's main defenses, although tough in name, would fall like cards in a strong gush of win. Many would be infected when coming into contact with a contagious and infected patient. That was a reason why the Black Death spread so rapidly in the world: because no one knew how to stop it. Fortunately, a Bubonic Plague Vaccine was invented in 1897, when the disease was limited to several endemics in parts of the world. Vaccination is humanity's only hope of surviving in the future, partly because the need to provide humans with immunity from many harmful diseases. There are some downsides to vaccines, and there are many theories that attempt to attack some types of vaccine, but vaccination has saved billions of lives in the world, and they should continue to benefit society.

A. It is not morally wrong to teach a child ABOUT a certain religion. B. It is morally wrong to teach a child to ACCEPT a certain religion. 1. A child is pre-disposed to trust its parents in order to survive. 2. A child needs to be able to trust its parents when it is told do not touch the hot stove or do not play in the street. 3. That same trust can be used to manipulate a child into believing certain unknowable aspects of our existence. 4. I am strongly opposed to any manipulation of a child's pure trust in order to believe certain ways about currently unknowable things. C. The decision to follow a certain religion or religious leader is individualistic. 1. Young children cannot make this decision. 2. Because young children cannot make this decision, they should not have it made for them. D. It is important to teach a child about morality. 1. There are multiple ways to derive a personal morality. 2. Religion is one way. 3. Society is another way. 4. The different means of obtaining morality should be explained to children. E. It is detrimental to teach a child that morality should be unquestioned because of a creed or code. F. Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the personal pleasure of the parent. Thank you.

Thank you for the invitation, Spotchman. I am glad you extended the invitation and I will do my best to argue for the side of con in this debate.Let me begin by making sure I properly understand what is under discussion. The proposition under debate is:"Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations" I suppose a term like "circumcision" would have been less loaded then "mutilation", but I don't think this will be much of a detriment to my argument. I think the abbreviation to MGM is appropriate, so I will use it as well. I. A Note on What Needs to be Shown by PROTwo things are currently true in developed nations: MGM is legal, and MGM is being practiced. PRO will need to establish that MGM should be made illegal in developed nations. I suppose this entails that MGM should not be practiced in developed nations either. If PRO does not wish to be committed to this claim, I would expect an argument to establish why not.I on the other hand may hold the position that MGM should be legal, even though it should not be practiced. There are many things that we consider to be ethically wrong, or that should not be practiced, yet we do not have laws against them, or have actually repealed laws against them. For example, we generally agree that lying, adultery, and insulting someone else should not be done in developed nations. However for a variety of reasons we do not think that these should be made illegal in all circumstances. I am not saying that I am indeed committed to the position that MGM should not be practiced but legal. I am merely pointing it out because pro will have to show not only that MGM should not be practiced, but that above and beyond, it should be made illegal. Additionally, I want to note that FGM is currently both illegal and not practiced in developed nations. By introducing both abbreviations, I suspect that PRO will be making an argument based on an analogy between the two. In a somewhat preemptive fashion, I would like to point out that this difference might be significant to an argument involving MGM and FGM. II. A Question about the Scope of the Debate Furthermore, I take it to be the case that "developed nations" are only those which have some form of democratic governance. I also take it to be the case that democracies out to generally enact laws in agreement with the view of the majority of the people. This leaves open one important question concerning the content of this debate:Is PRO arguing that MGM should be made illegal by virtue of convincing the majority of people in developed nations, but that the law should not be enacted until a clear majority consensus has been reached?orIs PRO arguing that MGM should be made illegal regardless of the majority view of people in developed nations, and that the law should be enacted with disregard to the majority view? I find myself in a similar position. Am I expected to argue that a majority of people should be against a ban on MGM, but that we should pass laws in accord with the majority, or that an MGM ban should be illegal, regardless of what the majority of the people believe?Since I accepted the challenge, I do feel committed to argue for either claim, but I would appreciate some clarification from PRO. I would, however, reject the terms of the debate if PRO is allowed to maintain that a ban should be enacted only if a majority is for it, but that CON must argue against a ban even in the face of the majority of the population.Please also note that, should we only be arguing for a view of letting the majority pass the law, this does not automatically end the debate or reduce it to a citing of surveys in various countries. The focus would then shift to arguing about what laws people in a democracy ought to want to enact. However, the arguments in this debate do shift somewhat depending on whether we are talking about legislating above people's heads or about convincing the majority. III. A Note about Ethics and PolicyIn the 5 points introduced by Pro, several ethical terms were introduced: Consent, pleasure, rights, pain, and some other related concepts. I do not believe that these terms trivially imply anything about policy. Rather, PRO will need to establish, or at least state, how and why these concepts have important implications for what the laws and policies should be. I am picking up on arguments making use of Kantian (or deontic) ethics, utilitarian/consequentialist considerations, and even some contractarian notions [1]. These three ethical systems are usually taken to be mutually exclusive, and they have a distinctly different understanding of what makes an action right or wrong, or what constitutes a harm, and what the resultant laws should be. It would be important for PRO to establish if his argument is supposed to bea) disjunctive - showing that there is a number of ethical systems acceptable for policy making in "developed nation," and under any of these systems MGM should be illegal, orb) based on one of the ethical theories. In this case, PRO would have to first establish that one of these theories is indeed the one and only view which should be used to generate laws in developed nations, and that under this view MGM should be made illegalWhat I do not take to be a legitimate move is to create an amalgamation of arguments from various theories without properly distinguishing between them. Although I suppose I must establish this by specifically showing how the various claims would undercut each other based on the underlying assumption, and then additionally provide considerations why some could be defeated on their own. I merely wish to point this out in anticipation of the argument on behalf of PRO.Here is the bottom line I want to get to: I do not think this argument should be predominantly about whether 1-5 are true. This argument should predominantly be about whether 1-5 are sufficient for passing a law against MGM. (I take this to exclude the 'and should therefore be made illegal' in 1. That is of course what is under discussion)IV. Definitions and some Granted Premises In other words, I am already granting that1*. Neonatal male genital mutilation permanently removes healthy, functional tissue without consent I agree to the totality of this statement as I take any removal of non-healthy non-functional tissue to be something that is not included in the definition of MGM. Actually, in order for this to work, I'd like to propose the following changes to the definition of MGM:Neonatal male genital mutilation (MGM): The removal, shortly after birth, of the healthy, functional male foreskin. Neonatal female genital mutilation (FGM): The removal, shortly after birth, of the healthy, functional female clitoris and clitoral hood.Now 1* is almost true by definition, except for the caveat about consent. 2*. That neonatal male genital mutilation can reduce sexual pleasure in later years.(I don't in fact know whether 2 is true, but I don't care to get involved in the details, except that the degree of reduced pleasure might be important later on. Also, note that I am only granting 2*. It seems hard to establish that MGM does in fact reduce sexual pleasure for everyone. In fact, this is necessarily false, as there may well be men that live entirely asexual celibate lives, in which case there would of course be no difference, even if their entire penis had been removed.)5. That neonatal male genital mutilation can cause numerous complications. (Again, the only interesting question here is one of prevalence and severity. But the fact that it can cause this, as any medical procedure seems trivially true) V. Let's Roll I'm out of characters ;). Depending on where PRO will place the emphasis, my opening statement will establish a more definitive position--------------------[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you, sherlockmethod, for taking time out to debate with me. We seem to disagree on some key issues, so I'm sure we will have plenty to argue about. For starters, the laws we create in society are a reflection of the moral standards we've adopted. And I'm arguing that the law "should" be a certain way. Words like "should" or "ought" imply ethical judgments. [1] As such, my opponent and I are arguing about the moral principles that underpin our laws, not the actual constitutional merit of the laws themselves. For example, a law can be constitutional and wrong (morally) or vice versa. Therefore, laws and constitutional standards cannot be used to justify their own validity; that would be circular reasoning. Not to disparage my antagonist in any way, but this is a basic point in logic. I'm not saying anything that isn't universally accepted by logicians. With that out of the way, lets get into the actual debate. =======================> Why Infanticide Can Be Morally Justified <========================= C1: Infanticide is justified in the case of infants with severe medical problems that will end up killing them painfully. My opponent argues that a child, once born, should have a right to life under the constitution, and thus infanticide is unacceptable. Later on, he suggests that my proposal is equivalent to advocating for "homicide". Unfortunately, he has yet to explain why this is the case. As such, my opponent seems to be appealing to moral principles, which, oddly enough, he has not mentioned at all in the course of his first round. Despite what my antagonist may believe, there are very strong and reasonable grounds to suppose that not every human born in the United Sates has a serious right to life. I will demonstrate this by putting his reasoning into a syllogism and then I will demonstrate why it is unsound. If his arguments were put into a syllogism, then they might take the following form: P1: It is wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has already been born. P2: A human infant is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has already been born. P3: Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human infant. (from 1 and 2) (Modus Ponens) C: Therefore, it is legally objectionable to kill an infant. (from 3) If my opponent's argument is constructed like this, strong objections can be raised against the first premise. For example, a devastating counterexample can be raised against the notion that it is always wrong to kill an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has been born. An adult human with complete upper brain death is an innocent member of the species Homo sapiens that has been born. However, an adult human with complete upper brain death does not possess a serious right to life; they are, for all intensive legal and moral purposes, already dead at that stage. [2] As Bernard Gert - the Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth College – points out, simply being alive does not have inherit value in itself. It is, rather, the capacity for conscious experience in a human that is important. [3] So, those who may wish to still believe all humans have a serious right to life should consider how ridiculous the anti-infanticide syllogism would appear in light of the counter example listed above. Clearly, the notion that all innocent members of the species Homo sapiens have a serious right to life if they are already born is deeply erroneous. Unlike an adult, a human infant is lacking attributes in several very important areas. The human infant does not posses the same mental faculties as a full-grown adult and therefore cannot be said to posses the same serious right to life that conscious persons do. As demonstrated earlier, this moral principle can be recognized in the way humans differentiate between fully conscious adults and those that have experienced a permanent loss of consciousness due to disease or some sort of traumatic accident. And it is in this ethical purview that it is possible to recognize that an infant does not have a strong right to life since, like a brain dead adult, it does not posses a significant mental life with thoughts and desires. This is why murdering grown adults is wrong whereas killing an infant is not (as least some of the time). Furthermore, I don't think my antagonist's attack on my first argument can withhold scrutiny. While trying to refute my central argument in this section, he claims that anencephalic infants will die without pain and, therefore, infanticide is unnecessary. However, according to my opponent's own source, "A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain." [4] The key word in that sentence is USUALLY. On some occasions, according to Con's source, anencephalic infants can feel pain. Therefore, risking immense suffering on these infants by letting them die naturally from cardiorespiratory arrest is simply unacceptable since some of them apparently can feel pain. C2: A human infant is not a person and thus cannot have a serious right to life. Before I continue, let me make a few things clear. I do not take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of infanticide. Moreover, I'm not in the mood to draw up a legal document, but I will say that I don't think infanticide should be allowed after the infant has been alive for one month. And lastly, I'm only advocating infanticide for disabled infants insofar as they are so disabled that they will surely die miserably from their conditions. Moving on… In attempting to demonstrate why my proposal is flawed, (Con) wrote the following: "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." Now, this argument simply begs the question. My opponent is essentially claiming that an infant has a moral right to be protected under the constitution without first establishing why constitutional protections should apply to beings that are not rational, autonomous or self-conscious agents. Con simply can't use existing laws to justify the morality of a legal standard; as was stated earlier, that would be circular reasoning. Secondly, at no point in the United States constitution does it specify what qualifies someone as a person. Moreover, even if the constitution explicitly rejected my proposal, that would not demonstrate why my proposal was flawed: it would only demonstrate that my arguments lacked constitutional merit. And since this debate has nothing to do with constitutional standards, this point would be irrelevant at any rate. C3: An entity's potentials cannot grant that entity rights. My opponent has chosen not to address this argument. That's fine with me. Unless he wishes to refute this in his second round, I will have won this specific argument. ::Conclusion:: In order to win this debate, all I need to do is successfully manage to defend my first argument regarding severely disabled infants with terminal ailments. Up until this point, I think it is quite clear that I have done this. As was shown earlier, infants with anencephaly can potentially suffer, and infanticide is, therefore, a valid way to ensure that those infants won't suffer horribly in their last moments on Earth. Additionally, I have also managed to successfully defend my second contention since my opponent hasn't managed to refute the criteria I have given for personhood. As such, the weight of the arguments leans heavily in my favor in the debate so far. Sources: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://spot.colorado.edu... (7.2 The Counterexample Objection) 3. Gert, Bernard. Common Morality: Deciding What to Do. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. (p. 30) 4. http://www.ninds.nih.gov... Best, Freeman

Thank you for that enlightening argument. I will now attempt to rebut your points, and then move on to my next constructive speech. Now for my rebuttals. I would like to ask you how it is morally wrong to teach your child your religion? If a child is supposed to be a reflection of the adult then it should be the adult's choice to teach the child. I would like to ask that if the parent teaches the child why a religion states what it states then it would not teach the child to accept things without thinking about them. It teaches the child to always ask why. As long as religion is taught in a loving and kind way to inform the child, and the child responds to the teaching then it is fine. I would now like to move on to my constructive speech. I would like to first ask the question, Would you like to teach and parent a child that challenges the very core of your being and every word you say? No I would not. I would like to teach my child my religion, and take him to church with me. I would then have him/her critically examine everything within it and critically evaluate it. Religion is not hard and fast. Everyone should have their own reason why they have their religion and why they follow it. If religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, where you are taught certain morales and values ascribing to said religion. This means that religion is directly ascribed to morale values. Now I would like to again ask a rhetorical question, Would you like a child without the same morales as you? No I definitely would not. I would like my child to understand and follow my morales and values. All of these facts and reasons are why children should be only taught the religion of their parents, as it is the parents decision what to teach their children. I look forward to your concluding round.

Minor-Someone under the age of 18 I believe that minors should be required to get permission from their parents to receive an abortion. I believe this because minors are children, children are under the supervision of their parents. Children are not capable of making any decisions for themselves without the input of their parents. Abortion is no different. Parents have a right to know what is going on in the lives of their children. Since a minor is still being cared for by the parent; then parents have to right to either grant or not grant an abortion without input from their daughter.

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.