Concluding this debate:
Summary of Cons Case:
Argument 1 - Breast
I have argued that a woman has inherent bodily rights. Con does not contest this saying such rights are “which is not in disagreement.” I have thus argued that Natural function does not supersede a women’s right to her own body. To concludes con has that an unborn child has a right because of natural function would be to endorse male rape of females for the purpose of natural reproduction. This is obviously morally false.
To this con responded “Here Con (I’m sure he meant pro) is conflating several issue in order to promote an erroneous conclusion. Is sexual intercourse a natural good? Of course. Likewise with the desire to have children and children themselves. These are all good and consistent with natural law. Is the unprovoked attack on the woman in keeping with natural law? Not at all. Thus there is no justification for rape under natural law.”
I provided the following:
P1: Breast are for nourishment to infants
P2: Women have breasts
C: A hungry infant has a right to a Women’s Breasts
P1: “the sole purpose of the woman's womb is for reproduction”
P2: Species need to reproduce to survive
C: A male has a right to a female body to reproduce.
To which Con said “Pro then throws in a syllogism on reproduction which is poorly formed as the conclusion does not flow from the premises. 'Nuff said.”
I agree with Con that both are poorly formed as the conclusions do not flow from the premise. This is why I included them. The first being a representation of Con’s line of thinking, the second being nearly identical. This shows the jump in logic. Of course a man does not have a right to a women’s body just because reproduction is a natural good. Likewise, a hungry infant does not have a right to a women’s body just because it is a natural good. This argument is negated.
Argument 2 - Natural Contract
Essentially Con is arguing that a women tacitly agrees to the fetus using her body by engaging in sexual intercourse. I argued that;
1. In the event that contraception is used tacit consent is not implied, in fact it is being explicitly withheld.
Con addresses this by saying “Contraception lessens your odds of getting pregnant it does not change the nature of the act.” Contraception does entirely changes the concept of a contract. By using contraception a women is expressly implying that a contract of pregnancy is to be null and void as it is now clearly without her consent. A contract cannot be entered into without consent.
2. Voluntarily deciding to go swimming is not a tacit agreement to the result of drowning. Tacit consent is not implied just because a certain result may be one of the result of an action taken.
Con says “This isn't a moral argument at all. Drowning is the natural result of an inability to maintain oneself above the surface of the water resulting in water instead of oxygen bearing air entering the lungs. It is cause and effect. Besides, returning to my original argument, pregnancy is a natural good to the woman. Drowning is a natural evil in that it kills
the individual. Not comparable at all.”
They are perfectly comparable. Both swimming and pregnancy can result in the loss of life. Yet no one assumes consent of drowning based on the consent to swim. Aside from this the core argument stands. Engaging in a voluntary action while knowing that certain results are possible does not imply that one has tacitly consented to that result.
3: Even if I agree that a woman has tacitly consented to the fetus use of her body, it does not imply that she has consented to such use for the entire nine months of pregnancy.
4: The moral right to one’s body is widely accepted to be unalienable. Meaning such a right cannot be taken or given away legitimately.
To this Con asks “Why are these rights widely accepted to be unalienable? How and why did they come to that conclusion?”
No contention whatsoever just a question. I have no need to go into detail as my opponent has already agreed that such is the case with rights concerning ones body. “which is not in disagreement.”
Con says “This would of course mean that a father could not donate part of his liver or kidney to his daughter because that would be violating his unalienable bodily rights. A doctor could not cut off a gangrenous leg to save a life without violating these rights. If it cannot be given away, it cannot be given away.”
Not at all. The Unalienable right is self-sovereignty of one’s body… the right of autonomy. Giving of your body functions is within your right, not giving of your body is also within your right. Giving up your right to refuse such an arrangement is not.
Recap of my arguments:
The violinist argument stands
The right to life does not equal the right to use another person’s body. No such right exists morally or otherwise.
It would seem absurd that the famous violinist would have a right to my body. Likewise, with a fetus. While abortion may not be a desired action, the right of a fetus to life does not take away the right of a women to her own body.
Does a woman have an absolute right to determine what happens in and to her body? Yes! She does. Con has not contended the existence of this right. It is moral to retain the right to your own body. Though short, I believe this case to be convincing.
Due to the moral right to determine what happens to one’s own body, I affirm the resolution that In spite of a fetus' right to life, Abortion is morally acceptable.
Thanks for reading,