# data[].attributes.body
1. I think that it means that the feelings have never been expressed, or that they suddenly stopped showing their emotions to the speaker.

2. Sobriquet: a nickname

3. A strumpet is a prostitute, or what we call today a hoe or Thot :)

4. The speaker wants them to say their name so that they can prove their innocence and their fidelity.

5. A sonnet is 14 lines and written in iambic pentameter, or a certain rhyme scheme, and is tightly structured.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Santería is a voodoo practice in the Mexican area.

2. Cinco de mayo marks the Victory over France in 1862.

3. It is the most stereotyped holiday.

# data[].attributes.body
Video game violence becomes excessive when there is little to no point in it. Many good games use violence as a vehicle through which to tell the story. Oftentimes however, video game violence is not used in a positive way. The most recent Call of Duty games have poor story modes in order to make way for multiplayer which involves pointless killing just for the fun of it. The franchise used to, at its genesis, be about answering the "call of duty" and portrayed military service as something honorable and it highlighted the horrors and negatives of war. I think it is up to the parents to decide whether or not their children should play certain games using the ESRB ratings as guidelines. Participating in video game violence is a choice and should only be used with the proper mindset. Our generation is in some ways becoming desensitized to violence, but video game violence is not the only contributing factor. If played by people with stable minds that understand the consequences and moral wrongness of real violence, it is perfectly safe.

# data[].attributes.body
I guess if you count abortion as infanticide, then that would be an acceptable situation. I mean that probably sounds awful but I think women should have a right to their own body and what they want to do with it. But in the case of actually killing an infant outside if the womb, I don't think there is ever a time that it would be acceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
Is there ever a situation in which infanticide is acceptable? What are other options besides infanticide for these families?

# data[].attributes.body
At what point does video game violence become excessive? Is it up to the parents or video game producers to monitor who plays these games? Is our generation becoming more and more desensitized to violence?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Rachel, this is Alex. I wanted to comment on your photo of the raw picture of the infanticide. I find this very upsetting and very real. I like how that one photo captures everything that your argument to stop this is truly about. It shows how saddening it is to see children lying on the ground dead. I find that this topic is a very hard one to discuss and I agree that these governments should do something to stop them from participating and letting this happen.

# data[].attributes.body
"Why punish women for the great emperors they give birth to" -guru Nanak

This quote is from an ancient Indian guru who claimed that men and women were created equal. Back in this time, infanticide was huge. People didn't want baby girls and this quote shows a good rebuttal against female infanticide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nanak was a Guru (teacher), and founded Sikhism during the 15th century. The fundamental beliefs of Sikhism, articulated in the sacred scripture Guru Granth Sahib, include faith and meditation on the name of the one creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice for the benefit and prosperity of all, and honest conduct and livelihood while living a householder's life.

# data[].attributes.body
This raw picture shows the true reality of infanticide. These murdered children are thrown out to rot and be scavenged by animals. If murder is illegal, why is this legal? It's very closely related, yet Chinese and Indian law do nothing to stop this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lou Xiaoying, a poor dying woman aged 88 residing in the eastern Zhejiang province of China, has so far saved more than 30 babies abandoned in garbages. She is a role model to the modern consumerist world.

# data[].attributes.body
I can agree with everyone because I sit on both sides of the fence. I can see from both sides about how ignorance is the problem, but it's not the only problem. I just feel that we must learn that we can please everyone because everyone wants something different.

# data[].attributes.body
A documentary of women AGAINST infanticide.

# data[].attributes.body
Though this article is biased through the roof, it offers some good points. Even though the only cons about infanticide are ethical cons, there's no real reason to call out infanticide for being bad- when that's all it is. Killing babies is unethical, and to many, morally wrong, but that's it. Of course In modern America and other urban countries, setting an unwanted child up for adoption is a much better choice than just killing the baby. The author also mentions how infanticide is legal In the Netherlands, though it's not really legal in India and China, it's just kind of an accepted practice.

WHO: Americans against infanticide

WHAT: they give reasons why infanticide is hurting society and these other countries

WHEN: present day

WHERE: United States and they mention some other counties

WHY: they want to encourage people that infanticide needs to be stopped because it's unethical

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ancient Romans used to expose unwanted babies on hillsides. Thankfully, we have come a long way since those bad old days. We would never countenance letting a baby die of exposure or get eaten by animals. No, today's infanticide promoters insist that babies be killed painlessly. After all, we aren't barbarians!

Infanticide? Today? Alas, yes. In fact, although technically illegal, baby killing already is being carried out in the Netherlands as a logical extension of that country's euthanasia license. A bureaucratic check list has even been published - including in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine - known as the Groningen Protocol, by which Dutch neonatologists determine which sick and disabled babies qualify to be euthanized. Indeed, according to two articles published in The Lancet, about 8% of all babies who die each year in the Netherlands (80-90) are killed by their own doctors.

But now, some advocates want to take the infanticide license beyond unhealthy and disabled babies, to include unwanted babies. A new article that has gotten much attention in the blogosphere, " After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?" published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, asserts that whatever reasons justify abortion - and in the USA that means anything and everything - also support the right of parents to have unwanted infants painlessly killed.

This is rank bootstrapping for expanding the killing license. Abortion wasn't legalized to grant a woman the "right" to a dead fetus. Rather, legislatures or courts - depending on the country - determined that a woman's right to control her own body should trump the fetal right to life. That being so, once the baby is born the entire issue of protecting female autonomy evaporates and the issue of abortion becomes factually irrelevant.

Or at least it should. To get around this impediment, the authors sophistically expand the concept of personal autonomy to a putative right not to be personally inconvenienced or burdened by the infant or the child she would later become. They write that an infant, by definition, has not yet developed desires or goals:

On the other hand, not only [personal] aims but also well-developed plans are concepts that certainly apply to those people (parents, siblings, society) who could be negatively or positively affected by the birth of that child. Therefore, the rights and interests of the actual people involved should represent the prevailing consideration in a decision about abortion and after-birth abortion.

In other words, babies are not people.

It is tempting to dwell on these shocking views and thereby miss the bigger picture. "After-Birth Abortion" is merely the latest example of bioethical argument wielded as the sharp point of the spear in an all-out philosophical war waged among the intelligentsia against Judeo/Christian morality based in human exceptionalism and adherence to universal human rights.

In place of intrinsic human dignity as the foundation for our culture and laws, advocates of the new bioethical order want moral value to be measured individual-by-individual - whether animal or human - and moment-by-moment. Under this view, we each must earn full moral status by currently possessing capacities sufficient to be deemed a "person." As the authors of "After-Birth Abortion" put it, "We take 'person' to mean an individual [not just a human] who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." In other words, if you can't value your own life, your life has less value.

In this view - which is rife within international and American bioethics - the unborn, infants (at least through the first few weeks) and those who have lost relevant capacities because of, for example, late-stage Alzheimer's or severe brain damage are not persons because they have either not yet attained or have lost the capacities of personhood. Some would even deprive such so-called human non-persons of the right to life. This means that you can be a person today but not tomorrow, and not be a person today and be killed before you become one tomorrow.

Even more radically, according to some personhood theorists, higher mammals - dogs, dolphins, chimps, pigs - are persons and hence have greater value than human non-persons. Princeton's notorious bioethicist Peter Singer is perhaps the world's most famous advocate of this view - arguing, for example, that patients in a persistent vegetative state should be used in medical experiments in place of animals with higher cognitive capacities.

Some might wave the threat away by claiming that personhood theory is merely the secular equivalent of debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But that is to whistle past the graveyard. Bioethics isn't about abstract argument. It uses discourse to transform philosophical views into societal action. And while personhood theory is certainly not the unanimous view, I think it is fair to say that it represents the consensus in the field - at least among the majority of bioethicists who don't have a modifier such as "conservative" or "Christian" in front of their title.

Now consider just one practical example of how personhood theory could soon deleteriously impact the well-being of you and your family. Obamacare has centralized control of health care into the federal bureaucracy, including by establishing a plethora of cost/benefit boards that will start operating within the next several years. Who do you think will be tapped to fill many of these powerful government positions that could ultimately decide what medical procedures will and won't be covered by insurance - perhaps even which patients will and won't receive them? Bingo! "Experts" trained in bioethics.

Now consider what could happen if many or most of these board members adhere to the noxious view that "human non-persons" do not have a right to life: To say the least, the potential for "death panels" comes vividly into focus.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism, consults with the Patients Rights Council, and serves as a special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Latest infanticide push about more than killing babies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ancient Romans used to expose unwanted babies on hillsides. Thankfully, we have come a long way since those bad old days. We would never countenance letting a baby die of exposure or get eaten by animals. No, today's infanticide promoters insist that babies be killed painlessly. After all, we aren't barbarians!

# data[].attributes.body
This article addresses which religions condemn/support infanticide. As expected, most current religions condemn the practice. However, not all religions were against it in the past. I used this article as a con because it shows that the most common religions are against it. Infanticide is a big issue in India, yet Hinduism and Sikhism are strongly against infanticide. Also, many people think that Islam is very sexist, yet the Quran has many verses condemning the practice of infanticide. However, the true motive of infanticide can only be answered by the families who actually kill their child(ren).

WHO: religions and cultural groups that once practiced infanticide

WHAT: many cultures condemn the practice in modern days

WHEN: all through out history

WHERE: all over the world

WHY: baby girls aren't valued like boys are in some cultures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Female infanticide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Infanticide is the unlawful killing of very young children. It is found in both indigenous and sophisticated cultures around the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Abortion

https://www.questia.com/library/controversial-topics/abortion

Partial Birth Abortion

https://www.questia.com/library/controversial-topics/partial-birth-abortion

Pro choice

https://www.questia.com/library/controversial-topics/pro-choice-movement

Pro life

https://www.questia.com/library/controversial-topics/pro-life-movement

# data[].attributes.body
1. In the US, fetus's and new born children don't hold the same rights as adults, and aren't even really considered citizens.

2. In the US and other modern countries, these infants can be humanely euthanized.

3. In the Nederlands, the euthanasia of children is already LEGAL. If a child is born disabled, the family is legally allowed to ask the child to be euthanized.

*The debate is between two people, and I used Freeman's points because he for legal infanticide. All his information is really political and he explains the laws and parts of the constitution that would actually allow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am at a loss. Freeman's last round is one of stellar quality. Freeman has brought forth several great positions, but this round is a conclusion, not one for full argumentation. I have always been clear: I am not concerned with the points in judgment as much as I am with learning more from the debate itself. But I respect the position that any point I bring forward in this final round allows no response from my opponent. I generally put forth a statement that "my opponent presented arguments in his last round so I am well within DDO standards to respond." But Freeman's response requires more than that simple statement. My loss is that I must respond; Freeman deserves nothing less. I concede the conduct point by rebutting fully this round instead of concluding. His response is too well done as to deserve anything less; points be damned.

Pro's points on my lack of compelling arguments notwithstanding, I find them fully rational. And, as I expected, Pro never wrote the law I asked for in the previous round; so many seem to be unwilling to make their legal principle a law.

C1: I have tried for hours to access the article Pro linked but cannot read it as it keeps timing out so I must use other sources http://content.nejm.org...
(I do not mean Pro is being deceitful, just that I can't access the article for some reason and I really do want to read it).

Other countries: After reading and reviewing the legal procedures for these countries (above reference), I conclude that these laws have no bearing on the US Constitution, which is the point of my contention, so they are irrelevant to this debate. The legal ramifications I predict should not occur in countries without the US Constitution and US legal framework, to suggest otherwise is silly. I see no need to address this further.

Pro wrote, "[E]ven tons of medical assistance cannot meaningfully improve their wellbeing". I never said anything about improving their wellbeing. Allowing one to die with no pain is the best that can be offered sometimes; however, if one can be said to "suffer" which is different that just feeling pain then are they not worthy to be at least a "person" under the law meant to protect all US citizens?

"It is a matter of the greatest importance that more research be conducted to better determine what it is to live with conditions that cause serious suffering other than pain. In the absence of such research, physicians might succumb to the biases of the able-bodied, who tend to think disability is much worse than disabled people actually find it. That said, the fact remains that on rare occasions, a doctor can find herself in a situation in which she has good reason to believe that her obligation to prevent suffering outweighs her duty to protect her newborn patient's life." http://www.medscape.com...

Let us know when you figure it out, until then let doctors do what doctors do; provide the best care they can.

Self Defense: My opponent, yet again, offered a legal argument in reference to self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense under US law (a state crime so I did not link 50 laws; the MPC will suffice in this matter). The attacker is no less human or a person and has as much of an expectation of life as anyone else. An affirmative defense such as self defense puts the protection of the potential victim's life in higher regard than one committing a crime. Disabled infants have committed no such crime. This analogy is one I do not recommend using again unless Pro is willing to prosecute infants for the crime of imperfection. At this point, my opponent and I are back to arguing about law - a topic he has skillfully managed to ignore in this debate.

C2: The US Constitution recognizes natural born citizens, and other citizens not born on our soil. A citizen cannot be anything other than a "person" under the law. So, yes, the US Constitution recognizes a person. Pro must remove this from the Constitution to satisfy his position. He has not even recognized the fact that he has to do so. Pro's claim against my stance of arbitrariness is a comparison of a rock to a person. Sadly for Pro, my point was a comparison between an infant that Pro found suitable and one he did not, both are alive; both are citizens. A terminal infant is more than a rock and constitutionally deserves better treatment than to be thrown away. Even animals far better than Pro's rock; as Justice Holmes said, "Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked". You made the comparison of a natural born citizen to a rock, I did not.

The learned professor of philosophy, which Pro offers, did not provide the definition with Constitutional restraints in mind, but you, Pro, presented this debate in such a manner. Her definition of personhood does not pass Constitutional muster, as well formulated as it may be. And this debate is about the law in the US. Her point, absent a corollary legal definition applied to citizen/person has no bearing here.

Death Panels: Unlike Sarah Palin, I did my research. She did not read the law, but I made it the focus of my position (as you made this debate a legal one). Sarah Palin could not name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v Wade, I can name over twenty. My argument is not one of a distant, unreasonable, slippery slope or ignorant misinterpretations of law from a journalism student who could not handle an interview with anyone other than Sean Hannity without embarrassing herself. Mine is one of the inabilities of proponents of "should" in applying their principles to a reasoned body of law under the US Constitution. Until you, Pro, can do so then your law should be rejected. You have not met your burden.

In closing, I have the privilege of loving a person everyday who deals with the infants that others hope to never see. Her job is one of joy and heartache and I admire her for what she does and I do not think I could do it myself. If you see a labor/delivery nurse or doctor out one day, buy them a beer or shake his hand. They all deserve it.

In closing, Pro has not met the burden required. No law has been presented and a proponent of a "should" statement needs to recognize and apply the offered principle to the legal framework in such a law is to be applied.

"There, but for the grace of God, goes Sherlock Holmes."

Very Truly Yours,
SherlockMethod.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Infanticide should be legal in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am at a loss. Freeman's last round is one of stellar quality. Freeman has brought forth several great positions, but this round is a conclusion, not one for full argumentation. I have always been clear: I am not concerned with the points in judgment as much as I am with learning more from the debate itself.

# data[].attributes.body
1. A poor family doesn't have to struggle even more with a child they not only want, but can't afford.

2. For south east Asia, many people cant afford a dowry so they kill the female child to escape that, and try again for boy so that he can help the family, do labor, and receive the dowry.

3. In poor countries, health care is very limited, and a disabled child is almost impossible to care for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Female infanticide is a bane on any society.All over the world specially in India,female infanticide is rampantly practiced.Males are thought to be superior. Though sex determination is illegal in India ,still it is carried out.This mindset can be changed by being proud of the women in your life, and by taking pride in yourself if you are a woman.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

This link explains the history, practice, religions, and abundance of infanticide all over the world.

WHO: All religions, countries, and societies. It is very in depth.

WHAT: the practice of infanticide and it's history.

WHEN: since the beginning of humanity, it has been portrayed through religion, cave drawings, and just a societal normality.

WHERE: it's world wide, though practiced in mostly third world countries, it is not absent in modern cities.

WHY: children with defects, mental incapabilities, or even just being a female, are unwanted by some families. The easiest way to get rid of this child is for them to kill it, so they don't have to spend money caring for an unwanted child or paying for a dowry.

# data[].attributes.body
Infanticide is the murder of children, at any age, and is generally common in third world countries. Such as in India or China, the infanticide is aimed towards baby girls. When a baby girl is born, they kill the child due to them not wanting a girl. In these cultures, a baby girl is a burden. Every family wants to have a son, and many families will kill every girl they give birth to until they have a son. And in these countries, this is completely legal.