The Instigator
EverlastingSummer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Athias
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abortion After Conception Should Be Illegal

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: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,742 times Debate No: 119728
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

EverlastingSummer

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
There are no rules besides one against trolling. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate, Good luck!
Athias

Con

I accept. The floor is yours.
Debate Round No. 1
EverlastingSummer

Pro

Moral Argument:

While people have certain rights that cannot be denied to them, I am here to assert that an unborn child has certain rights which protect them under the law. Citizens, Even our smallest ones, Have the right to life and should be assured that in and out of the womb. The embryo/fetus is unarguably alive. When the sperm and the egg meet and implant, That embryo will soon become a fetus which will soon become a baby. They will grow and become a living human that is alive like each of us. The question becomes:

Is it right and legal to kill a human requiring something or someone else to live?

Was the abortion an autonomous decision?


Is mercy killing morally ethical and legal?

Is the mother's autonomy compromised?


Let's answer the first question before we go on. A human requiring something or someone else to live has the right to live regardless of who or what they rely on. If you propose the opposite, Then I would like to ask you what we should do with people who are comatose. Should we pull the plug on them and assume they will never wake up? Is it humane to end the life of someone against their wishes, When they did not give consent before hand? It is not legal for doctors to kill a patient if he is in a coma. Is it right for patients under life support to be taken off? After all, They are requiring the machine to live. No, Of course not. Why, they will eventually be able to live on their own. The fetus will be able to live without its mother whenever it is born. It can be given up for adoption where it has the chance to find a loving home or at the very least grow up.

Onto the next question, autonomy is the ability to make choices for yourself that directly effect your life to improve or make it worse. The fetus in unable to make the decision of whether it wants to live or die. Since the fetus is a separate life from the mother, It needs to be able to make the choice of whether it wants to live or die. Therefore, Since the fetus cannot make the choice to live or die, It is morally unethical to terminate the life of an unborn child. A counter-argument to this point could be that the mother simply does not want to have a child. However, Murder under the grounds of convenience is unethical. Murdering a pregnant woman is a double homicide. A motive of convenience will get a murderer convicted for the murder of both the mother and her unborn baby. So, The same rule should apply here. Abortion is unethical to be done out of convenience. A life cannot be ended because one just wishes for it to happen.

Mercy killing is the notion that one should be "put out of their misery" by execution. This should not even be a contention of whether this should be a valid reason for an abortion. However, Many people view that a baby born into a rough life simply should not be born at all. Under that logic, Should any low income families should be terminated because they live in a rough environment? Of course, The answer is no. So, The same logic cannot be applied here.

The mother made the autonomous decision to have sex. She knew the risks that were involved with partaking in sexual intercourse. She knew that a child could result from the coitus which happened. However, She decided to have sexual intercourse knowing full well that a child could result from it. Therefore, The mother made an autonomous decision to protect the life of the child by acknowledging the risk of pregnancy through the method of sexual-intercourse and does not have the ethical grounds to end the life of another based on a decision she may or may not regret.


Overall, These points establish that the mother does not have the right to end a life that is not hers. The embryo/fetus is an entity that will grow and develop into a full-fledged adult. Therefore, the mother does not have the right to end a life of another human without their consent. If the opponent cannot accurately disprove these points, The moral argument is seceded to me.


Case One: Use as Birth Control
Many women who obtain an abortion see it as a form of birth control. This is harmful since they are unnecessarily killing a human life under the notion of convenience when it was totally unnecessary. Around 46% of women in the U. S. A. Who had an abortion received more than one. (2) This does not show multiple "mistakes", It shows a lack of responsibility. Innocent unborn children are dying because the mother is not using contraception correctly. This is immoral and unethical. Due to this, I assert abortion should not be allowed due to its potential use as unethical birth control.


Case Two: Female Health and Abortion:
Women suffer immensely when they choose to have an abortion. Women who obtain abortions suffer a wide-variety of mental and physical health complications. For instance, Women who obtain an abortion have an 81% increased risk for mental health issues. (3)Women having abortions had increased risks of depression, Anxiety, And suicidal behaviors. (4) Another study reported that women had increases in mental health disorders when an abortion was obtained in adolescence or adulthood. (5) Rates of breast cancer increase in women who have had abortions. (6) This study is a meta study with over sixty references. Abortion is shown to increase the rates of:

Ectopic Pregnancies: Which will jeopardize the life of both the mother and future pregnancies she may have after the abortion

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: "Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. "

Preterm Birth and Handicapped Newborns: Doubles the risk of occurrence.

Endometritis: 2. 5 times more likely than women 20-29 who did not have an abortion which reduces fertility greatly.

AND. MORE. (7)

It is clear that abortions cause horrible damages to a woman's body and mind. With all of these damages claiming the female population which partakes in abortion, How could one even begin to assert that abortion could be a good choice for a woman? It is sad and reprehensible that such damage is being forced onto the women who have these abortions. Therefore, I assert that such a harmful act to both the unborn baby and woman should be illegal.


In conclusion:

It is unethical and immoral to kill what will become a full-fledged adult human

It is unethical to allow abortions to be used as a contraceptive

It is unethical to allow a woman and her fetus to be harmed by the side effects of abortion

Thank you!


Sources: in comments
Athias

Con

I will address your argument as it pertains to the questions you posed.

"A human requiring something or someone else to live has the right to live regardless of who or what they rely on. If you propose the opposite, Then I would like to ask you what we should do with people who are comatose. Should we pull the plug on them and assume they will never wake up? Is it humane to end the life of someone against their wishes, When they did not give consent before hand? It is not legal for doctors to kill a patient if he is in a coma. Is it right for patients under life support to be taken off? After all, They are requiring the machine to live. No, Of course not. Why, They will eventually be able to live on their own. The fetus will be able to live without its mother whenever it is born. It can be given up for adoption where it has the chance to find a loving home or at the very least grow up.

The problem with this argument is that it automatically infers that the utility a person or object provides in service to the survival of someone else takes priority rather than individual discretion. If that's the case, Might I make a modest proposal? I suggest that the government rounds up all healthy young individuals and forcibly extract one of their kidneys and harvest them for those with renal issues? If we are to operate on your premise, A person "has the right to live regardless of whom or what they rely on, " then coercion doesn't qualify the morality of the actions taken to bring about this end, Correct?

What if I'm a doctor and my daughter is a healthy individual with two kidneys? Do I force her to give up one of her kidneys because it would help someone else survive?

"The fetus in unable to make the decision of whether it wants to live or die. Since the fetus is a separate life from the mother, It needs to be able to make the choice of whether it wants to live or die. Therefore, Since the fetus cannot make the choice to live or die, It is morally unethical to terminate the life of an unborn child. A counter-argument to this point could be that the mother simply does not want to have a child. However, Murder under the grounds of convenience is unethical. Murdering a pregnant woman is a double homicide. A motive of convenience will get a murderer convicted for the murder of both the mother and her unborn baby. So, The same rule should apply here. Abortion is unethical to be done out of convenience. A life cannot be ended because one just wishes for it to happen. "

Wanting to live or die is not a choice. The fetus has no choice. The fetus lacks agency; therefore, It cannot render any decisions in service to its own survival. It is a being entirely dependent on its mother for basic functions and its own sustenance. And if the mother decides to withdraw the labor she puts into this sustenance before the fetus has viable prospects of surviving outside of her womb, The fetus will face certain death. This does not however establish "murder" as you put it, Since that would require "malice aforethought. " The fetus dies because its undeveloped physiology disallows it from surviving outside of its mother's womb. With that said, The method of abortion should be considered. And even I would concede that not all methods are moral.

"Mercy killing is the notion that one should be "put out of their misery" by execution. This should not even be a contention of whether this should be a valid reason for an abortion. However, Many people view that a baby born into a rough life simply should not be born at all. Under that logic, Should any low income families should be terminated because they live in a rough environment? Of course, The answer is no. So, The same logic cannot be applied here. "

This applies both ways. Just above, You qualified your argument by adding, "The fetus will be able to live without its mother whenever it is born. It can be given up for adoption where it has the chance to find a loving home or at the very least grow up. " If the consequences the fetus face once its born shouldn't matter if it were to have a "rough life, " then it shouldn't matter if the consequences are good, Too. You should be arguing the significance of the fetus' survival, Good or bad outcomes notwithstanding. I'm fine with dispensing with that rationale in its entirety.

"The mother made the autonomous decision to have sex. She knew the risks that were involved with partaking in sexual intercourse. She knew that a child could result from the coitus which happened. However, She decided to have sexual intercourse knowing full well that a child could result from it. Therefore, The mother made an autonomous decision to protect the life of the child by acknowledging the risk of pregnancy through the method of sexual-intercourse and does not have the ethical grounds to end the life of another based on a decision she may or may not regret. "

Having sex doesn't establish a contract to gestate a fetus. Having sex is having sex. Yes, Pregnancy is a risk, But the fetus is not a being with agency; therefore, Any "contract" to "protect" the fetus would be null and void. (Not to mention, The mother wasn't a party to this agreement. ) Risks of an action doesn't qualify the rights of the person taking the action. Case in point: say I were to leave my door open during the nights. By doing this, I risk invasion. Would this mean that I would be prohibited from fighting off and expelling any would-be invaders? Do I have to let them stay because I "knew the risks"? Is my home still not my home? What if one the invaders would condemn his children to certain death, If he did not raid my refrigerator for food? Would that justify the invasion? When a woman decides to have sex, Her womb is and always will be her womb, Regardless of who depends on it. She doesn't have the right to kill; she does however have the right to determine to which extent she submits her labor, If it all. If you acknowledge the fetus as a person, Then you must concede that it doesn't have the authority through itself or by proxy to consign its mother's labor, Against her will, In service to its own utility--even its survival. That's a rabbit hole I don't believe moral agents wish to enter.

"Case One: Use as Birth Control
Many women who obtain an abortion see it as a form of birth control. This is harmful since they are unnecessarily killing a human life under the notion of convenience when it was totally unnecessary. Around 46% of women in the U. S. A. Who had an abortion received more than one. (2) This does not show multiple "mistakes", It shows a lack of responsibility. Innocent unborn children are dying because the mother is not using contraception correctly. This is immoral and unethical. Due to this, I assert abortion should not be allowed due to its potential use as unethical birth control. "

If her womb is always her womb, Then why would she not exercise abortion as a means of birth control? Why would the "mistake" be qualified at all by its incidence? Isn't this redundant? You're arguing that abortion is murder; does it matter how many times it happens? Of course, I reject its classification as murder, But I've already state that, And I don't wish to be redundant.

As for case 2, I would say that a woman has discretion in risking her health given that the abortion exercised produced some utility to her. After all, We're not arguing what it does to her. We're arguing whether she has the right to do it.

"It is clear that abortions cause horrible damages to a woman's body and mind. With all of these damages claiming the female population which partakes in abortion, How could one even begin to assert that abortion could be a good choice for a woman? It is sad and reprehensible that such damage is being forced onto the women who have these abortions. Therefore, I assert that such a harmful act to both the unborn baby and woman should be illegal. "

How is the damage being "forced"? Are they not made aware of these risks? Do they not have the information available to them through either consultation or independent research? How do you know they're not risking these health issues in order to exercise an abortion?

"In conclusion:

It is unethical and immoral to kill what will become a full-fledged adult human

It is unethical to allow abortions to be used as a contraceptive

It is unethical to allow a woman and her fetus to be harmed by the side effects of abortion"

There's more to flesh out before we accept these conclusions. On to round three.
Debate Round No. 2
EverlastingSummer

Pro

It seems as if the negative did not wish to propose any points of his own. So, I suppose all I have to do is defend my own position.



Rebuttal One:

No, This is not what I'm saying. I am saying that the mother acknowledged the possibility of pregnancy when she had sexual intercourse. I did not infer that the mother is simply a utility to keep the fetus alive. I asserted that the mother autonomously chose to have sex, Knowing there was indeed a risk of pregnancy. I'm arguing on the premise of autonomy and responsibility. She needs to be responsible for the life she chose to create through sexual intercourse, Even if pregnancy was not the desired result. Of course people should not give up their kidneys against their choice to a random person. That would go against autonomy. If we go off of your analogy, it would be like someone agreed to be a kidney donor. It would make no sense for someone to be angry if their kidney was extracted when they signed the form and knew what could happen. Since your analogy does not hold up to critical thinking, It will be thrown out.

Rebuttal Two:

I addressed that the fetus cannot make a choice. Therefore, Since the fetus cannot make his/her own decision and is a separate human life, The mother cannot decide whether it wants to live or die. I argue that the mother acknowledged the risk of her having to nourish the child through the act of sexual intercourse. Therefore, She cannot go back on her autonomous decision because a human life is being directly effected. The fetus would die because the mother insisted the fetus be removed through medically assisted means which denotes premeditation and the drive to end a human life. I will address the definition you used.

Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (1)

Malice: desire to cause pain, Injury, Or distress to another (2)

Aforethought: previously in mind: premeditated, Deliberate (3)


A mother who gets an abortion shows malice through the desire to injure the fetus beyond recovery to extract it from her body to end its life. The mother shows aforethought since naturally, She would need to schedule the abortion and then go to the medical facility to obtain an abortion. Since this debate is about legality, We go on the premise why abortion should be illegal because I am affirmative and the burden of proof is on me. Therefore, Since a mother wishing to abort her child is showing malice and aforethought, Abortion is indeed murder. The fetus died because his/her mother made the conscious choice to disallow sustenance to be delivered to the fetus by means of early dejection and extraction from the womb.

"even I would concede that not all methods are moral. "

MY OPPONENT HAS CONCEEDED THAT SOME ABORTION METHODS ARE IMMORAL!



Rebuttal 3:

I do not see how this is an argument for the mercy killing of a fetus through mercy killing. However, I will address that it is up to the child if he likes or dislikes the living conditions he is born into. If he likes to live in rough parts of town where he can do devious things, That's what he likes. If he likes living in an affluent neighborhood with many different entertainment objects, That could be what he likes too.

What I am arguing here is that the baby should have the choice about what to do with the life is has been given. If it wishes to live with his adoptive family, He should have the right to do so. It's his choice, And his choice is autonomous. He has the right to decide if he wants to live at all wherever he is in life. The mother cannot make that decision for him.


Rebuttal 4:

Having sex does establish that the mother acknowledges that a living human can result from her choice to establish sexual contact. She has sex knowing the risk. This denotes responsibility, As once she is pregnant, She is no longer effecting her own life, But another's life as well. The mother was a party to the agreement by having sex. The fetus was conceived and is a human with its own DNA. Therefore, The mother agrees to protecting the fetus inside of her by having sexual intercourse and conceiving said child.

No, That would be someone invading private property with the intent of malice and illegal behavior. If someone broke into your house, You have the right to defend yourself and your belongings since the thief wishes to cause you and your property harm. The fetus seeks nourishment and the ability to live which spawned from the mother's conscious choice to have sexual intercourse with a man. The fetus does not wish to cause harm; nor does it wishes to "invade" her body as it was the mother's autonomous choice to let herself have sex with the man and have the possibility of his sperm coming into her body. Not to mention, A house is an inanimate object. So, Your example, Again, Does not hold up against critical thinking.

Her womb is her womb, But the fetus is a life which she took on the responsibility to care for when she made the autonomous decision to have sex. You cannot disagree that the woman knew that pregnancy was a risk. Therefore, Since she knew it was a risk, She knew that there was a chance that she would have to use her body to nourish and protect the life she created with a man. This life is separate and unique from her, Containing its own DNA and special chromosomes. Therefore, I argue on the notion of that autonomous choice and the notion of responsibility that she cannot end the life of a fetus because of convenience to the mother. As I said before, Murder for convenience is still murder.


Rebuttal 5:

As you said before, Some abortion methods are immoral.
Abortion for the use of contraception is immoral and unethical due to the mother ending the life of a fetus simply because she did have the responsibility to practice safe sex or abstinence. This denotes that the mother views abortion as a contraceptive, And not a last resort. This shows a complete disrespect for human life and is entirely unethical. Multiple homicides make the deaths more severe, Which shows why this should not be ignored. It is her womb, But the fetus is a life. You seem to acknowledge it is. Therefore, Killing multiple lives due to irresponsibility is unethical.

MY OPPONENT CONCEEDS THAT ABORTION CAN BE USED AS BIRTH CONTROL!

Rebuttal 6:

I did not mean "forced" as misinformation. I meant forced as a way to emphasize the point that women who obtain an abortion can feel dramatic draw backs which could jeopardize their well-being mentally and physically

Certain things which pose a threat to the morals and health of our citizens in the U. S. A. Are illegal. For instance, Many illicit drugs are illegal because it hurts our people when they use them. Suicide is often discouraged, With police going far enough to try to talk people who jump off of buildings out of suicide and provide public mental health facilities for the insane. Prostitution is illegal because the prostitutes can often be exploited, Opens the gateway to illegal prostitution, And jeopardizes the morals of the country.

The point of this case is that abortion does not only harm the fetus, It harms the mother exponentially. Therefore, The country has a duty to disallow the behaviors which pose such practical and ethical problems.

MY OPPONENT HAS CONCEEDED THAT ABORTION CAN CAUSE SEVERE HEALTH PROBLEMS!

Since you have conceded this point, You cannot argue for the legality of something which causes so much physical harm and ethical problems. Issues which invoke actions which harm the populace and bring about moral dilemmas are illegal.

Therefore, Since you agree that some abortions can be immortal and that abortion can cause severe health problems, It should be made illegal due to the effects it has on the population


In Conclusion:

My opponent has conceded many vital points in my argument in favor of my case.

Abortion is murder and unethical.

Abortion should be illegal due to the effects it has on the population.

Thank you!

1. Https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/murder
2. Https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/malice
3. Https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/aforethought
Athias

Con

"It seems as if the negative did not wish to propose any points of his own. So, I suppose all I have to do is defend my own position. "

Since I'm the contender, My position or argument is naturally the negation of your own. (Referring to me as the negative makes that much clear. ) That is, I propose at the very least Abortion after conception should be legal. Nevertheless, I should, As you implied, Formally state my position, And expand upon it: Abortion after conception should be legal because a woman is an individual and moral agent who has a right to her person. Since her womb is a part of her person, The scope of her authority extends to her womb as well. The utility another may find in the use of her womb doesn't justify at all the subversion of her authority or right, Let alone the submission of part of her person for any period of time--extended or otherwise. If we are to acknowledge the fetus as a person, Then we must concede that forcing its mother to gestate against her will, Even for its own survival, Is a violation of her person, And thereby, Her right.

Rejoinder One

That is your inference. And I quoted you. You stated, Again, "A human requiring something or someone else to live has the right to live regardless of who or what they rely on. " In other words, The utility of a human's survival is more important than the utility of the person on whom they rely. If that's the case, Then coercion isn't an issue. And my analogy does hold up to critical thinking. You continue to assert that acknowledging the risks of pregnancy produces a tacit agreement to gestate, Without so much as providing a logical connection. You provide only more assertions and normative arguments. The analogy I formulated solicits your justification of that rationale in a different context.

Rejoinder Two

Once again, More assertions, No logical connection. How does she acknowledge "her having to nourish the child through act of sexual intercourse"? Having sex risks pregnancy. She may acknowledge that. However, That doesn't mean that she accepts it, Let alone a responsibility thrust upon her by some self-proclaimed proxy. The act of sex is the act of sex; risking pregnancy is risking pregnancy; you have yet to justify how this creates responsibility for another's life. The only statement to this effect you've proffered thus far is one which you've denied you made--that is, The utility of the fetus's survival takes priority over the mother's utility derived from preserving the integrity of her womb.

Your description of malice is a bit of a stretch since you're unable to differentiate between desire to merely end pregnancy and desire to cause harm to a fetus. Furthermore, The harm caused to the fetus can be distinguished as intentional and incidental, Informed by its weak constitution at that particular stage of its development.

Rejoinder Three

I'm not arguing in favor of "mercy killing"; I'm arguing in favor of dispensing with the rationale which serves the argument of mercy killing, Since it too would apply to "good outcomes. " And no, The fetus has no choices. It's entirely dependent on others after conception and years into its infancy. Autonomous choices are expressed by autonomous beings. And a fetus is not autonomous. You can't have it both ways: either the fetus is an autonomous being capable of expressing choices, Which would include violating its mother's right over her person, I. E. Her womb, Or the fetus is dependent, Relying on its mother for sustenance until such an age where it can sustain itself, Thereby submitting its proxy to someone else--usually its mother.

Rejoinder Four

And you've failed to connect logically how acknowledging the risks of pregnancy necessitate her carrying a pregnancy to term. You continue to assert that there's a responsibility created because the fetus is a life, Yet deny that the fetus' utility is taking precedence over its mother's. You assert that the act of sex is tacit agreement to an obligation of carrying the pregnancy to term, Yet the act of abortion at the very least would implicate the mother's rejection of this obligation. How can she agree if her actions reject?

As for my analogy, The objects don't matter. The logic does. By leaving my door open at night, I risk and therefore accept any invasion of my home, According to your rationale. And if one of the would-be invaders decides to stay, I would be responsible for that invader because it's a human life and dependent on its plunder for survival. And this logic relates well to pregnancy, Because there are many health risks--which I can cite upon request--that are associated with pregnancy, Some which can result in the mother's death. Now I'm not using the aforestated to justify abortion since the mother's right to her person alone is enough justification. It serves only as a contradiction and refutation to the statement "the fetus does not [wish to] cause harm. " And if we operate on the logic that the fetus has agency and autonomy, Then it is risking its mother's health with intent. What obligation does the fetus bear in causing its mother no harm?

No matter how we argue this, It will always reduce to the mother's utility and the fetus's utility. I've argued that the mother's utility takes precedence because she has authority over womb by right since it's a part of her person. You've argued, In a roundabout way, That the utility of the fetus takes precedence because it needs its mother's womb and labor to survive. All these assertions of responsibility, Obligation, And tacit agreements are at best pretexts with no logical bases.

An interesting thought experiment: if the fetus is autonomous, And capable of choice, Should its mother die upon giving birth to it, Is the the baby responsible for the death? That is, Can the baby be charged with murder, Or at the very least, Manslaughter?

Rejoinder Five

Yes, But each successive "murder" doesn't worsen each individual murder. You're arguing quantity not quality. One or 10 murders doesn't make her any less a murderer according to your rationale. Once again, I reject this characterization of her act. If her womb is her womb, Then it wouldn't matter that she expelled the fetus as a form of birth control. Also, It wouldn't matter how many times she does it because her womb is always her womb. That is reason I take no issue conceding that abortion can be used as birth control.

Rejoinder Six

I would contend that getting pregnant risks a mother's health. Should that, Too, Be made illegal? What about alcohol? Prescription drugs? Cosmetics (including elective cosmetic surgery? ) Processed meats? Water with low PH? Hospitalization? The argument Person X risks consequences Y by performing action Z, And therefore action Z should be prohibited, Won't allow you to stop at just action Z. If the same is true for Actions A-X, Then you'd have to prohibit those actions as well using your rationale consistently. We do not prohibit actions A-X & Z because we allow for individual discretion. And this line of reasoning is contradictory. You've argued that the mother incurs a risk and therefore shoulders the responsibility of pregnancy, Yet she is not assigned the same duty as it pertains to her health? Should sex, Too, Be made illegal?

Once again, This argument no matter how one analyzes it will reduce to utility. The concepts on which you base your arguments are far too broad and unspecific, Where a simple reductio ad absurdum suffices in rebuttal.

Summary

1. My opponent denies taking the utility of the fetus with precedence despite having it quoted to him.

2. My opponent asserts that an obligation/responsibility is created when one has sex, Where its mere statement is its justification. My opponent fails to establish how this obligation is created outside of the utility the mother serves in the fetus's survival--the utility he denies. He also asserts the decision to have sex is tacit agreement to carrying a pregnancy to term despite the mother's action (abortion) implicating otherwise.

3. My opponent has claimed that the fetus is an autonomous being, Capable of choice, Ignoring the fact that the fetus is entirely dependent on its mother even for its basic functions.

4. I've conveyed through analogy and reductio ad absurdum the logic employed by my opponent, I. E. Acknowledging risk is a tacit acceptance of submitting to infringement of one's person or property and ceding authority to the consequences.

5. I've also been able to convey that this argument essentially reduces to opposing utilities, I. E. The fetus's survival and the mother's right to her person.

6. My opponent concedes that a mother's womb is her womb. That is, It belongs to her; therefore, Her utility in the use of her womb takes precedence. Because she has a right to her person, Her womb, Is obligated to no one else. She cannot alienate this authority unless traded or established through contract. The fetus is incapable of decision since it's not autonomous, And therefore cannot be a party to this contract; the mother's act of abortion, As I pointed out in my argument, Implicates her being an unwilling party. Thus, The contract or "obligation, " as my opponent puts it, Cannot be upheld unless coerced by a third party.


On to Round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
EverlastingSummer

Pro

Rebuttal to Point:
I am not arguing the point of utility. I am arguing the point of life. The fetus is a living being who was spawned through the conscious choice of the mother. The womb is indeed part of the woman. It would be stupid to argue that. I am arguing that the woman acknowledged the risk of pregnancy when sexual intercourse was initiated. In having sexual intercourse, She created a life. This life is indeed the result of the choice the mother and father took part in. Therefore, The mother consented to the possibility for her womb to house the child. Therefore, Since the baby is indeed a human life, The mother does not have the right to end the life she chose to create just because it is not convenient for her. The baby is indeed a human life. A life created by choice of action by the mother shows consent for the life to exist.

MY OPPONENT CONCEDED THAT THE BABY IS A HUMAN LIFE, AND ONLY ARGUES FOR THE AGENCY AND UTILITY OF THE MOTHER.

A contention to your point could be used from the family courts. Fathers who have not given their consent for their sperm to be used in the realm of reproduction can be sued for child support. In the example given in the source below (1), The man had his sperm stolen from used condoms. The woman went to impregnate herself through a clinic without his knowledge. She became pregnant with twins. She then sued him for child support. The court ruled that the man had a moral and economic duty to a child he did not consent to produce.

He did not agree to the pregnancy

He is not able to demand an abortion

He is not able to refuse child support

He is not able to morally refuse his duty as a father

My opponent says that someone should not have parts of their person used "period of time--extended or otherwise. " So, If this applies to the mother, Why does it not apply to the father? How can a woman who does have control of her reproductive organs be deemed as responsible for them, While a man is deemed morally and economically responsible for reproduction he did not consent to and actively tried to prevent?

Rebuttal One:

I made the point more clear to avoid conclusion. Therefore, Your point is invalid since I said that it would go against the donor's autonomy. However, I argued that the mother autonmously chose to have sex knowing pregnancy was indeed something that could happen. My opponent says I made no logical connections in my case. Although I believe to have already done so, I will highlight some examples that could be used to orchestrate my point.

A person is inferred to agree to not harm the residence from a house they visit or steal from.

An immigrant is inferred to understand and obey the law when they are in the U. S. A.

A father is inferred to act as a father figure when he conceieves a child as long as he is given (or forced onto him) parental rights.

This is very simple. This is like arguing, "by giving birth to a child, Parents do not assume any responsibility for the child making poor decisions while under their care. " or "the child is not entitled to recieve breast milk or food from the parents when it can be provided. " Currently illegal abortions are not allowed unless performed by a medical professional to the potential harm it can cause a person. This is why there is something called criminal neglect. Responsibility for someone's own life and the lives of whom they created are inferred to be natural responsibilities. Therefore, Those who create a human life have a duty to care for the life they created.

"She needs to be responsible for the life she chose to create through sexual intercourse, Even if pregnancy was not the desired result. Of course people should not give up their kidneys against their choice to a random person. That would go against autonomy. If we go off of your analogy, It would be like someone agreed to be a kidney donor. It would make no sense for someone to be angry if their kidney was extracted when they signed the form and knew what could happen"

I believe my arguments make perfect sense.



Rebuttal Two:
She accepts the responsibility by partaking in sexual intercourse knowing that a living life may result from coitus. This is fairly simple, Just stating that the person must take responsibility for the results that occur from sexual intercourse. Again, A life created by choice of action by the mother shows consent for the life to exist. I have shown many instances where responsibility is implied and supported. This is very, Very simple.

1. If you choose to have sex, You acknowledge the risk to have a child.

2. If you acknowledge the risk to have a child, You consent to the effects that the child may have on your life and your responsibilities

3. By actively participating in sexual intercourse, You agree to take care of the human life you chose to create through your actions.

4. Since the parents knew their sexual organs may be used to create new life, The parents do not have the right to end the new life since they changed their mind out of the convenience of their life. Again, Murder due to convenience is still murder.

As for the definitions, I used the definition you used. They both came from Webster. Malice was shown through the intent to injure the child. It is not a stretch, Ending the pregnancy is injuring and killing the child. There is no way of getting around it; it is simply murder.

Rebuttal Three:

I do not know if you are intentionally straw-manning me or you misunderstood my argument. I did not argue the fetus is autonomous. That is one of the exact reason why it cannot be aborted. The baby cannot choose to end its own life. Therefore, Since the child is a human life, One cannot end the life for him. The mother consented to offer the fetus sustinence through sexual intercourse. Therefore, The mother does not have the right to end the baby's life since it is no longer convenient for her to provide said sustinence since the child is living human life. I was simply saying that after the baby is born, It has the ability to make autonomous choices on its own.


Rebuttal Four:

I addressed the majority of this argument above. The mother cannot reject the obligation because the idea has turned into a reality. She is now pregnant. What could have been a human life is now a human life. Therefore, She cannot end a human life because she does not wish to continue providing the nourishment to the fetus.

That is not true. For one, The baby relies on the mother biologically. The thief just desires the goods that reside in your home. Additionally, That person is autonomous, And made the conscious choice to invade your home. You did not consent for him to steal your belongings or to even enter your house. However, The mother consented for the sperm and penis to enter her body through sexual intercourse. Additionally, I already said that since the fetus is not autonomous, It cannot make the choice to end its life or live off of the mother. Therefore, since the child is a human life, One cannot end the life for him. I do not know how this is even considered as an argument, As both are entirely different matters. One is the invasion of private property through means of force and often intimidation with malice that the person autonomously chose to perform.

To state what should be COMPLETELY obvious, You leaving the door open does not directly cause a thief to appear and steal your things. However, The purpose of sexual intercourse is to achieve orgasm and release gametes which form a child. This is a direct result. A thief is not.

It is not simply a debate of utility. It is a debate of morals. It is a debate of responsibility. It is a debate of the sanctity of human life. To reduce it to simply the utility of two entities is not logical nor applicable.

I've covered his "experiment" by addressing the autonomy point.


Rebuttal Five:

Successive murder stacks the cost of lives which makes the murders more heinous due to the massive loss of life. It is immoral for the loss of life to occur. Therefore, More loss of life makes the acts more morally deplorable. My argument is that abortion being used as a form of birth control is immoral and therefore should not be allowed. You seem to not touch that point entirely.

Rebuttal Six:

"I would contend that getting pregnant risks a mother's health. Should that, Too, Be made illegal? "

I am sorry; but, What kind of argument is this? Pregnancy is needed to produce more humans to make the species live on. Pregnancy is the formation of human life that the mother has the right to due to the womb being of her own person. We agree there. HOWEVER, We disagree about if the mother has a life to end a human life that she is noursihing.

Alcohol: Prohibition was a historical event. However, Drinking is not inherently immoral. One act ends a life, One act does not. One act is used as a social tool to foster a common ground (which I do not partake in as I do not drink), One is ending a human life. Drinking can be considered moral or immoral. Drinking in excess is the only thing that can cause health problems. But, Alcoholism is uncommon; and multiple rehab facilities are made to help severe alcoholics

Drugs are used for treatment, Patients choose to take them or not if perscribed by a doc.

Cosmetics are for appearance and do not cause severe health concerns.

Processed meats. . ? It is food that has not shown to have very significant health concerns.

Water with low PH. . ? PH with water effecting the body is arguable at best due to the buffer system in the body naturally regulation PH.

The issues I stated cause massive health concerns that cannot be ignored. Pregnancy and acts that are morally and logically reprehensible are two different things. . . Abortion ends the life of someone who is not the mother. Pregnancy to delivery ensures life is made. Abortion effects two lives and is directly shown to cause major health issues. Abortion causes huge moral and ethical problems.

Character limit reached. Thanks



1. https://www. Naturalnews. Com/047121_sperm_bank_paternity_child_support. Html
Athias

Con

Double Rejoinder #1

"I am not arguing the point of utility. "

When you make points like this:

"Pregnancy is needed to produce more humans to make the species live on. Pregnancy is the formation of human life that the mother has the right to due to the womb being of her own person. "

You are clearly arguing utility.

"I am arguing that the woman acknowledged the risk of pregnancy when sexual intercourse was initiated. In having sexual intercourse, She created a life. This life is indeed the result of the choice the mother and father took part in. Therefore, The mother consented to the possibility for her womb to house the child. "

And this argument isn't logically sound. You're conflating the notions of risk and consent. You're asserting that her consent was implicit through her actions without regard to her choices as a moral agent. You take a single choice--i. E. To have sex and treat it as "consent, " yet ignore the act of abortion as an indication of dissent. You continue to fail in your demonstration that the mother is obligated to the fetus. All you've done thus far is state that the mother knowingly risked pregnancy, And the fetus is a life. You have not demonstrated how this creates an obligation; a duty; a debt owed to the fetus by its mother.

You may not acknowledge it, But essentially your argument is one over utility. You've conveyed that the fetus's utility is more important than its mother's. And I've argued that the mother's utility is more significant because it's her womb, The fetus's survival notwithstanding.

"MY OPPONENT CONCEDED THAT THE BABY IS A HUMAN LIFE, AND ONLY ARGUES FOR THE AGENCY AND UTILITY OF THE MOTHER. "

This is redundant. I've acknowledge the fetus as a living being and have argued that the mother's utility is more significant since Round 2.

Double Rejoinder #2

"I made the point more clear to avoid conclusion. Therefore, Your point is invalid since I said that it would go against the donor's autonomy. "

No, You argued that it would be like getting angry at one's kidneys being extracted after signing the form. Of course this line of reasoning makes no sense, Since you have yet to establish how a mother creates a contract with her unborn fetus.

"Although I believe to have already done so, I will highlight some examples that could be used to orchestrate my point.

A person is inferred to agree to not harm the residence from a house they visit or steal from.

An immigrant is inferred to understand and obey the law when they are in the U. S. A.

A father is inferred to act as a father figure when he conceieves a child as long as he is given (or forced onto him) parental rights.

This is very simple. This is like arguing, "by giving birth to a child, Parents do not assume any responsibility for the child making poor decisions while under their care. " or "the child is not entitled to recieve breast milk or food from the parents when it can be provided. " Currently illegal abortions are not allowed unless performed by a medical professional to the potential harm it can cause a person. This is why there is something called criminal neglect. Responsibility for someone's own life and the lives of whom they created are inferred to be natural responsibilities. Therefore, Those who create a human life have a duty to care for the life they created. "


Your argument is rather sophistic. You're combining mores with legally enforceable precepts. A mother can leave her newborn baby at the steps of a fire house, And that would be the end of her responsibility to that child. A mother can alienate that child by giving it up for adoption. If we're going to cite law, And use it as justification, Then I have news for you: abortion is legal. Would it not then be inferred that the mother has a right to her womb, And sex doesn't create a legal duty to gestate her unborn fetus? You argument is premised on the notion that abortion shouldn't belegal. It should focus on abortion, Its role in a moral economy, And the law's reflection of it, Not common practice.

"I believe my arguments make perfect sense. "

No they don't. You're asserting normative arguments with no justification. Here, I'll give you an example:

Everyone should call me "his imperial majesty, Emperor Athias. " The reason is by engaging me in debate, And witnessing my command of logic, You are agreeing to call me this. By taking the risk, You're automatically consenting. Therefore, You're legally responsible. If you fail to call me "his imperial majesty, Emperor Athias" you'll be sent to jail.

Do you see? I'm arguing that ought to be case, But I've offered no justification. I'm stringing together discrete concepts with no logical connection. At the end of the day, All I'm demonstrating is that I have a large ego. And at the end of the day, You're arguing that the fetus's survival is more important than its mother's right to her womb. Your notions of obligation premised on pseudo-consent are no more than illogical platitudes.

Your second rebuttal is just more of the same, So I'll skip it.

Double Rejoinder #3

I have not strawmanned you. You've claimed that baby's inability to make a choice to live or die necessitates the capacity to make a choice to live or die. This makes absolutely no sense. You're assuming a priori that the fetus has a utility in its own survival without the ability to make a choice. And that's the reason I continue to characterize this argument as one about utility. You continue to assert choices made on behalf of parties who haven't made them. You continue to assign obligations with no sound basis.

And the fetus once born, Becoming a baby, Is not autonomous either. Infants are dependent since they cannot sustain themselves either. The only difference is that they can be sustained by one other than its mother.

Double Rejoinder #4

"I addressed the majority of this argument above. The mother cannot reject the obligation because the idea has turned into a reality. She is now pregnant. What could have been a human life is now a human life. Therefore, She cannot end a human life because she does not wish to continue providing the nourishment to the fetus. "

No you have not. You have not established how the mother is obligated. You are just asserting this platitude; however, You have yet to justify it. You claim that the creation of the fetus's life creates a debt owed by its mother. How? If the fetus is not autonomous, Incapable of making choices, Then how is it able to obligate its mother in service to its own survival? You continue to claim that you're not making the argument you're clearly making--i. E. The fetus's life, Or the utility of the fetus's life, Is more significant than its mother's desire to gestate, Or her utility in the use of her womb.

Let's try another thought experiment: if my sister and I were wrestling and through this physical activity I caused irreparable damage to one of her kidneys, Would I then be morally and legally obligated to submit one of my kidneys to her, Even if my actions, Albeit unintentional, Led to the situation?

"To state what should be COMPLETELY obvious, You leaving the door open does not directly cause a thief to appear and steal your things. However, The purpose of sexual intercourse is to achieve orgasm and release gametes which form a child. This is a direct result. A thief is not. "

By having sex, The mother risks pregnancy. However, She did not directly cause the physiological underdevelopment which renders the fetus incapable of surviving outside of her womb. She did not directly cause the fetus's need to use her body for nourishment. And somehow she must be compelled to submit her womb in order to mitigate these phenomena? Once again, The objects of the analogy are irrelevant; only the logic. And you can't argue your way around it.

Double Rejoinder #5
"Successive murder stacks the cost of lives which makes the murders more heinous due to the massive loss of life. "

No. Murder is murder regardless of how many are killed. It is not qualified by quantity; it's qualified by quality, Obviously. Killing one or 100 doesn't worsen murder. Murder is always murder.

Double Rejoinder#6

"The issues I stated cause massive health concerns that cannot be ignored. Pregnancy and acts that are morally and logically reprehensible are two different things. . . Abortion ends the life of someone who is not the mother. Pregnancy to delivery ensures life is made. Abortion effects two lives and is directly shown to cause major health issues. Abortion causes huge moral and ethical problems. "

You're the one who invoked the risks to the mother as part of the reason a country should disallow abortion. So as long as risking one's health produces a seemingly good utility, That mitigates the morality of that action which produces said risk? Then Drugs and Prostitution should be off your list since one can make the case for the good of such acts. And "Pregnancy to delivery"? What if the mother dies? Once again, What is the moral responsibility of a fetus whose delivery kills its mother?

You arguments aren't based on a consistent premise. You're gerrymandering certain concepts to suit the needs of your argument.
Debate Round No. 4
EverlastingSummer

Pro

Woohoo, You submitted it just in time! It seems like my opponent does not have much to go on. So, I'd imagine this rebuttal will be rather brief. I would like to thank my opponent for this marvelous first debate back on my new account! This has been interesting for me.


Rebuttal One:

I am not arguing for utility on the abortion point. You brought up pregnancy, Which is necessary for the human species to continue, As something that should be illegal due to the risks it imposes to the mother as a way to try to debunk my earlier point. You were reaching way too far there, As one is ending a life that the mother chose to make herself while the other is literally carrying on the species.


Sex is consent because, As I stated earlier, It is the direct result from the choice of the mother to have intercourse. The direct result of sex is for an orgasm to be achieved, Gametes to meet, And an embryo to be formed. Therefore, The mother gave consent for the new life to form and obtain nutrients from her body. The fact that abortion shows dissent does not change anything. As I stated before, A person cannot murder on the grounds of inconvenience. Therefore, The baby must be carried to birth.

Utility: fitness for some purpose or worth to some end (1)

I am arguing that the fetus has a right to life. I am arguing that the fetus is a life and cannot be denied the right to live. I am arguing that murder is indeed illegal. I am arguing that abortion can destroy two lives, Not just one. That argument was about the right to life that the fetus had through the conscious choice of the mother. I do argue points where utility is brought into question. However, This was not one of them.

Rebuttal 2:

I made it clear how the mother agreed to have the child. The mother makes the contract through the reasoning I outlined before which goes as the following:

"1. If you choose to have sex, You acknowledge the risk to have a child.

2. If you acknowledge the risk to have a child, You consent to the effects that the child may have on your life and your responsibilities

3. By actively participating in sexual intercourse, You agree to take care of the human life you chose to create through your actions.

4. Since the parents knew their sexual organs may be used to create new life, The parents do not have the right to end the new life since they changed their mind out of the convenience of their life. Again, Murder due to convenience is still murder. "

Of this, You have yet to address this point directly.


Of course the mother can choose to give up the child for adoption. At this point, She is giving up her rights to the child. However, While the child is growing inside of her, She cannot relinquish her rights to the child. Therefore, She is responsible for the life inside of her. We are arguing whether or not abortion should be illegal. The current legality of abortion is irrelevant. However, What is relevant are the moral questions my points ask. We have argued the morality and legality of abortion. You have not argued against the moral questions given by my points. For instance, Why shouldn't the legal guardians of a child be required to nourish their child? Why shouldn't the immigrant have to obey the laws? How is it logical to say the mother has a right to her womb when it has been deemed immoral for the father to shirk his responsibilities even when the mother steals his semen? If you cannot address the moral points I bring up, This argument is conceded. Which, So far, You have not.

Here we go with more of your outlandish examples. . . You have no legal power to enforce or make any laws. The law is not based on anything rather than ego. A law against abortion would be based on saving a life. I have asserted that since we are arguing if this should indeed be law, Knowing the direct result of sexual intercourse is reproduction, The mother is indeed responsible for the baby inside of her. Sex and pregnancy are directly related. There is no debate on that.

Let's use your logic in a legal sense. Say that someone asks for a man to take an item he no longer wants. The man takes the item. The owner is now lacking the item and regrets selling it. He then accuses the man of burglary. Is he right? Of course not. Losing the item was the direct result of asking someone to take it. The debate is on the legality of a law. Your point is akin to a child whining his friend didn't call him by his favorite nickname.

His imperial majesty, Emperor Athias, Your logic is severely flawed and you are conflating two issues which are entirely different.

Rebuttal 3:

I'll draw this out logically. . .

1. The fetus is a life that spawned as a direct result of a choice the mother made.

2. Therefore, Terminating the baby is murder.

3. The baby cannot consent to a suicide.

4. Therefore, Ending the baby's life is murder, Which is illegal and immoral.

This is why the baby's life cannot be terminated without his consent.

I meant when the child is autonomous when he grows up to be an adult. I also meant that the child is able to survive without the mother at birth. I am sorry for the confusion.

Rebuttal Four:

Refer to this again. . .


1. The fetus is a life that spawned as a direct result of a choice the mother made.

2. Therefore, Terminating the baby is murder.

3. The baby cannot consent to a suicide.

4. Therefore, Ending the baby's life is murder, Which is illegal and immoral.

The mother owes a debt because she chose to create this life as a direct result of having sexual intercourse. It's very, Very simple.

No, You do not owe her a kidney as wrestling your sister does not directly result in kidney damage.

Let's level this out since it seems you may be confused. . .

1. The mother chose to have sex

2. The direct result of sex is the gametes being combined and an embryo being produced

3. The direct result of an embryo being produced is that embryo then having the mother provide sustenance and physiological development

The mother is indeed responsible for the premature ejection of the fetus knowing full well that the fetus would need time to grow. She directly caused the murder of a life by having an abortion. She is indeed responsible for forcing the fetus's life to end early by early dejection with conscious knowledge of the death she is causing and the choice to go through with said abortion.

Rebuttal Five:

Killing many makes murder worse as it shows a disregard for human life. It shows that the mother does not care which life she ends. It shows she does not have regret. This makes it so much worse.

Rebuttal Six:

You're literally arguing that pregnancy should be illegal due to the potential health risks when they are minuscule compared to abortion, Is needed for the survival of the entire species, And creates life instead of simply destroying it. This argument is simply ridiculous, And I'm sure the voters see it as such. Are you actually suggesting all drugs and prostitution should be legal when they effect multiple people, Easily cause many health concerns, And cause the destruction of many lives? These are direct reasons why I argue abortion should be illegal, Since it does the same things. We aren't even talking about the addiction elements in drugs or such a risk of life for such a little high such as prostitution as well as STDs, Abuse, And more. These arguments are plain ridiculous! The fetus does not have autonomy as it is being born since the baby could not consciously choose to kill the child. Therefore, It is not responsible for the murder.

Arguments Not Addressed From My Last Round Alone:


Father's being morally obligated to care for the child even if they show they do not consent.

Abortion being murder, Argument was dropped by him last round.

Murder of a pregnant woman being a double homicide.

Abortion being used as birth control when it clearly immoral through loss of life.

Thief analogy being debunked.


My opponent obviously is losing this debate. Many points have been conceded to me. He is using analogies and logic that does not hold up to rational thinking. I have shown why abortion should be illegal on the grounds of legal and moral grounds.

Thank you, VOTE PRO!




1. Https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/utility

Athias

Con

Triple Rejoinder

"I am not arguing for utility on the abortion point. You brought up pregnancy, Which is necessary for the human species to continue, As something that should be illegal due to the risks it imposes to the mother as a way to try to debunk my earlier point. "

It isn't a reach. Your argument claimed that the health risks to a person in part provided a compelling reason for a country to disallow abortion. That's your rationale, Not mine. And then you conclude that the utility in reproduction mitigates the risks of pregnancy. How does the argument where risks taken when carrying out an abortion not operate on the same logic as risks taken when carrying out a pregnancy? The logic is the same. It's either that you're incapable of grasping the premise of your own argument, Or you're being logically inconsistent.

Triple Rejoinder #2

"Sex is consent because, As I stated earlier, It is the direct result from the choice of the mother to have intercourse. "

I made it clear how the mother agreed to have the child. The mother makes the contract through the reasoning I outlined before which goes as the following:

"1. If you choose to have sex, You acknowledge the risk to have a child.

2. If you acknowledge the risk to have a child, You consent to the effects that the child may have on your life and your responsibilities

3. By actively participating in sexual intercourse, You agree to take care of the human life you chose to create through your actions.


And by no description, Moral or legal, Does contractual consent follow your reasoning. You're manipulating concepts in order to interpret consent using your pseudo "essentialia negotii. " You have not actually observed consent. And if the mother has decided to end her pregnancy, Clearly she hasn't consented to it. You are using a platitude in order to establish yourself as the fetus's legal proxy, But the dispute in question is not between you and a prospective mother. You're not relevant in this proposed dispute between the fetus and its mother. You don't get to dictate any terms. The fetus does not have a capacity to either enter or establish a contract; and the mother has not agreed to be bound by your presumed proxy. So this proposition of contractual obligation can be dispensed with since you cannot establish that a contract was formed.

"We are arguing whether or not abortion should be illegal. The current legality of abortion is irrelevant. . . You have not argued against the moral questions given by my points. For instance, Why shouldn't the legal guardians of a child be required to nourish their child? . . . How is it logical to say the mother has a right to her womb when it has been deemed immoral for the father to shirk his responsibilities even when the mother steals his semen? "

Yes, Your argument is normative; your attempts at justification are just as normative. That is the issue. I don't have to address the reasons legal guardians shouldn't be required to nourish their children nor must I address the reasons a father's alleged dereliction of paternal duty is deemed immoral. We are discussing abortion. The relevant parties are the mother and the fetus.

"Sex and pregnancy are directly related. There is no debate on that. "

What about in vitro fertilization? What about the case, You yourself referenced, In which a woman steals a man's sperm? Once again, You have demonstrated an inconsistent logic. Modern contraceptives allow for certain risks to be abated, Yet none of that informs the mother's capacity or intent when having sex?

"Say that someone asks for a man to take an item he no longer wants. The man takes the item. The owner is now lacking the item and regrets selling it. He then accuses the man of burglary. Is he right? Of course not. Losing the item was the direct result of asking someone to take it. "

The proposition that I be called "His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Athias" is implied to be legally enforceable since in the absence of one's compliance, One would be forcibly detained. In other words, My demand in this analogy is presumed legal. Again, You're focusing way too much on the objects of the analogy rather than the logic. The logic conveys the futility in using normative to justify normative.

Triple Rejoinder #3


1. The fetus is a life that spawned as a direct result of a choice the mother made.


No, The fetus is a life that spawned as a result of an act partaken by its mother and father--coitus, In vitro, Etc.

2. Therefore, Terminating the baby is murder.

No, Ending life in an of itself is not murder. It requires malice aforethought. And you have not established malice.

3. The baby cannot consent to a suicide.

And by that same reasoning, A baby cannot consent to entering a contract, Rendering any obligation its mother may bear, Null and void.

Therefore, Ending the baby's life is murder, Which is illegal and immoral.

Refer to the point above.

"This is why the baby's life cannot be terminated without his consent. "

Your syllogism is logically inconsistent at best, Incorrect at worst.

Triple Rejoinder #4

"The mother owes a debt because she chose to create this life as a direct result of having sexual intercourse. It's very, Very simple. "

No, She chose to have sex. Pregnancy is a phenomena outside her scope of agency. She cannot choose pregnancy. She can only risk it and deal with the consequences, Or abate them as best as she can. And "debt" is established through contract. How can she be in debt, If there's no contract? How can she owe the fetus when her capacity in their "transaction" was the gift of life? What does she owe it? She hasn't deprived it of anything, Right? Wouldn't the fetus owe her? Her womb belongs to her so in her withdrawal of it as a resource to the fetus's gestation isn't deprivation. Your argument is basically saying she owes because she knows. And no description of debt binds a person to their knowledge.

"The mother is indeed responsible for the premature ejection of the fetus knowing full well that the fetus would need time to grow. "

So once again, You're arguing utility. That is, Because the mother is aware of the utility her womb serves in the fetus's survival, She owes the fetus her womb until it can survive outside of it. In other words, The fetus's utility is more important than its mother's. And the fetus's utility isn't served through contract or obligation, As much as you may try to argue the case. It's served simply because it exists. I've argued thus far that the mother's utility is more significant because not only is it her womb, But she has no liability in the physiological underdevelopment that disallows the fetus from surviving outside of her womb. There's a stark difference between murder, And refusing to submit labor toward one's survival. And you've not met your burden in substantiating the obligation the mother bears in helping her fetus survive. You've offered only fictional terms of contract.

"Killing many makes murder worse as it shows a disregard for human life. It shows that the mother does not care which life she ends. It shows she does not have regret. This makes it so much worse. "

We're simply going back and forth, So this is as much as this point deserves at this stage of the argument.

Triple Rejoinder#5

"You're literally arguing that pregnancy should be illegal due to the potential health risks when they are minuscule compared to abortion"

No. I'm using your logic to argue ad absurdum the inconsistency of your argument, I. E. Risks to one's health should be considered in part to disallowing an action. And it's clear that you haven't been consistent.

"Are you actually suggesting all drugs and prostitution should be legal when they effect multiple people, Easily cause many health concerns, And cause the destruction of many lives? "

I'm suggesting using your premise that drugs and prostitution should be legal. That is, Despite its health risks, It provides good utility. Once again, You haven't been consistent.

Closing Arguments:

1. My opponent argues an obligation a mother owes its fetus using stipulations he clearly conceived himself. These stipulations are conceived using subjective behavior and his interpretation, Not observation, Of how said behavior informs consent. By no description of contractual consent do his reasons inform agreement. He can't substantiate how the mother consents to these stipulation, Let alone a fetus. Furthermore, He is not a relevant party in the supposed dispute between fetus and mother; he presumes to be relevant by assuming the fetus's proxy. He has not at all justified the reason this proxy should be accepted.

2. He has failed to establish abortion as murder. Murder requires malice aforethought. He has not distinguished between the mother's intent to merely end pregnancy, And intent to do harm. He has not refuted the physiological underdevelopment which renders the fetus incapable of surviving outside of the womb.

3. Finally, I've argued that the mother's utility is more significant since it's her womb, A premise which my opponent has accepted. He has denied several times the focus on utility, To the point of inconsistency, Yet invokes the concept when attempting to establish his stipulations. He argues in favor of the fetus's utility using a womb to which it has no claim.

I have been consistent; my opponent has not. My opponent invokes irrelevant concepts; I have not. My focus has remained on the mother and her fetus. Simply ask oneself this: does the mother have a right to her person? Yes? Then the resolution to this dispute is quite clear.

I thank my opponent, And vote well.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 3 years ago
John_C_1812_II
Pregnancy Abortion is both an admission and accusation that describes a crime as a truth publicly. The truth however is not a whole truth and creates a self-incrimination when left unregulated by judicial separation.

Is Female Specific Amputation Illegal?
Is In Vitro Fertilization illegal?
Posted by EverlastingSummer 3 years ago
EverlastingSummer
The only way I can post my sources is as an image. My sources are under a photo album called "sources" in my profile.

I was able to post by removing my sources from the argument.
Posted by EverlastingSummer 3 years ago
EverlastingSummer
This site is gay
time to try to post my sources again
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
Your argument was just posted. I'll take a look at it now. How were you able to post it this time around?
Posted by EverlastingSummer 3 years ago
EverlastingSummer
7. Http://afterabortion. Org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/
Posted by EverlastingSummer 3 years ago
EverlastingSummer
This is gonna be hard to get all my sources back :(
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
No, Not at all. It will allow you to post the argument until the argument is removed just seconds later. If you continue to post, It will just update the topic, Resetting the the time limit. It is quite vexing.
Posted by EverlastingSummer 3 years ago
EverlastingSummer
Did it clear up in time?
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
I've experienced this same glitch in another argument I was having. Unfortunately, I know of no solution.
Posted by EverlastingSummer 3 years ago
EverlastingSummer
It will not let me post my argument for some reason
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.