The Instigator
Reasonableattemp
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dogfood653
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

when is it okay to use a woman's body against her will for the gain of others?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 67803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Reasonableattemp

Con

Not really looking for an intense back and forth, just the first objections that come to anyone's mind.

Con/Against - There is not point at which it is acceptable to use a woman's body for the gain others.
Pro/For - There is a point at which it becomes necessary to use a woman's body for the gain of others - when and why.

I wasn't really sure how to categorize this question, religion seemed too heavily loaded, I'm not a believer myself, but then I decided that didn't really make any difference, its just a world view, so it could have been philosophy. But my argument is born from the rights we agree in policy as a country, the right to life, the rights to our body, in protecting our speech, etc, so I decided politics.

My argument is that the choice to keep or abort a child, is solely in the hands of the woman carrying that child (presuming there is no reason to determine her medically unstable) regardless of morality or compassion.

If you would say that a woman lets herself get into the situation that precedes the creation of a child and should therefore have to deal with the consequences, then should she also have to deal with the consequences of a man raping her on the grounds that she had already permitted the act on a previous occasion. No, that would be a strange interpretation of what the woman had agreed to partake in, its the same for the previous. Just because a woman allows access to her body on one occasion does not allow another dominant rights over her body for the next 8, 9+ months.

The presumption held by the pro-life side, that there is a human life with rights to protect is loaded with religious and philosophical ideologies that the said woman may not hold, another choice protected in the right to freedom of religion. Therefore any choices that are made due to a lack of those beliefs, are hers to make unless they are impeding on the rights of another. Since she does not hold the belief that the foetus is an unborn human, there is no unborn humans rights to impede upon, although there is an obvious problem in that the pro-life side do see it as a violation of a persons right to life and so I understand the urgency in their argument (but still bizarre and damaging in my view, being a non believer).

But this is still made irrelevant next to the belief that if a child's mother chooses to create a child, then, the child should be safe to live out their life with control over the use of their body and if it used to support the life of another, rather than allowing forced occupation of their mother's body until they are born into a world where the same can be expected of them.

It is up to the Pro/For (There is a point at which it becomes necessary to use a woman's body for the gain of others) to decide exactly where the line is drawn on the use of a woman's body, how far along in the pregnancy the line is the cut off (why then?), what aren't you allowed to use it for? (why not?)
dogfood653

Pro

human rights!!
Debate Round No. 1
Reasonableattemp

Con

Reasonableattemp forfeited this round.
dogfood653

Pro

dogfood653 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Reasonableattemp

Con

Reasonableattemp forfeited this round.
dogfood653

Pro

dogfood653 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chuz-Life 2 years ago
Chuz-Life
I would very much like to argue some of the points being made but I wouldn't accept this debate with the challenge being worded the way that it is. The biggest point that needs to be made is that a child created by the woman's actions and the risks that she and her partner took is not "using her body against her will" when she (along with her partner) is the one who CREATED that situation and the relationship in which they live.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
If a group of people are stranded on an island and need to resort to cannibalism, and one of those people was a fat woman - then it'd be okay to use her body against her will for the gain of others - since the survival of the many outweighs the survival of the few.

That would be what I run against this, but then I saw that it's an abortion debate so now I have zero interest.

Best of luck to you and whomever accepts.
Posted by Reasonableattemp 2 years ago
Reasonableattemp
I wasn't really too fussed about an opponent, just the first objections or thoughts anyone had when they read it.
And my argument wasn't really Pro/Anti abortion, But to people who Already take the anti-abortion opinion, and believe abortion should not be allowed, except maybe if the mother's health is in immediate risk. Then how would you separate and draw line's as to who gets to use somebody Else's body for their own survival, should a father be able to take his daughter's bone marrow without consent because it is his only chance if survival? If you are anti-abortion and say no, why not? What is the difference? In both cases, a persons body must be used to save another person.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I kind of like this resolution, it provokes thought outside the one issue.
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Mike_10-4
Every Mother's Day, I thank my Mom for not killing me before I was born.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
What a weird way to verbalize a resolution. You'd be more likely to get an opponent if you made it "Abortion should be legal in all cases."
Posted by Reasonableattemp 2 years ago
Reasonableattemp
The child would be using the mother to survive, or maybe whoever needed a womb for there unborn embryo, when keeping in mind that in both situations you need a woman for the baby to survive, how do you distinguish?
Posted by Reasonableattemp 2 years ago
Reasonableattemp
That's partly my question, mainly I mean foetuses, but I'm asking if that's okay how to you separate that from a situation where say, a woman has one last from embryo but she has an accident leaving her incapable of carrying her own child, then should somebody be forced to have the child so that it can survive, but couldn't find a surrogate. That's an extreme example but in both cases a woman's body would have to be used against her will if you believe for example that life begins when the egg is fertilized. What I'm asking is if you take a pro-life anti-abortion view, how do you reconcile that with the unwanted use of the mother, and where are the lines drawn.

In regards to pregnancy my question is again, if you believe it is justifiable and necessary in pregnancy, then why would you say it was not in others and again, how do you decide?
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
who are these 'others'? is it foetuses? And who will be doing the 'using'?
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Is this only in regards to pregnancy?
No votes have been placed for this debate.