April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

I wish to begin this round with an apology for my previous round. I referred to Pro as Con repeatedly, but not every time. Additionally I wish to thank Pro for the very interesting and lively debate, it has truly been a pleasure. Final Rebuttals#1 - Breast ArgumentPro has essentially abandoned debating this point, and makes no attempt to refute the argument, the philosophy on which it is based, or even to promote an alternate philosophical underpinning. Pro doesn't even attempt to refute the proposed analogy, but is merely reduced to the creation of poorly formed syllogisms in an attempt to divert from the weakness of his argument. So without further ado I will break down the final arguments. "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 do not disagree nor have I ever disagreed that everyone has natural inherent bodily rights. What is being discussed in this debate is whether those rights are absolute and whether they are applicable in the case of abortion. "I have thus argued that Natural function does not supersede a women’s right to her own body. " Pro has argued this, but he has provided no actual proof of this. "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. " In the previous round I showed why according to Natural Law rape and abortion are unacceptable. Pro has refused to debate my contention, but instead believes that repeating the same argument over again is a sufficient argument. Since Pro formed his syllogisms poorly I will reform them properly. P1. Guardians must provide for the needs of young children in their care. P2. Food is a need that young children cannot provide for themselves. P3. The primary purpose of breasts is to produce food for young children. P4. No other edible food for young children is present. C. Guardians must provide their breast milk to young children (assuming they have lactating breasts obviously). Whereas Pro's rape syllogism: P1: “the sole purpose of the woman's womb is for reproduction”P2: Species need to reproduce to surviveC: A male has a right to a female body to reproduce. Pro has not proved the necessity for the species to survive. While it is a natural good for the species to survive, it is not a moral imperative that it do so. Additionally, Pro would have to show that no children (or at least a vastly insufficient number of children) are being born through consensual sexual relations to justify the conclusion. In the previous round, I clearly showed that natural law denies the conclusion that Pro is presenting. As Pro has failed to attempt to refute the argument, I believe that the argument stands uncontested. Argument 2 - Natural ContractPro has attempted to salvage his previous 4 counter arguments again.1. Contraception 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. What Pro fails to understand is that sex is the contract. Contraception is merely an attempt to skew the odds that a certain clause of the contract is not enacted. Actions have consequences. If an action has a predictable outcome, even if you tried to avoid that outcome, there is a responsibility incurred. Let's assume you and your buddy have gone out drinking and you decide to drive him home (NOTE TO READERS: DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE). Now let's assume you get in an accident and he dies. Are you culpable of his death? Yup. Now, let's assume you didn't want him to die so you told him to put on his seat belt. If you got in an accident and he still died despite having his seat belt on would you still be culpable of his death? Even though you tried hard to make sure he didn't die? Yup you're still responsible. Likewise with sex. The act of sexual intercourse has a natural purpose and possible outcome. The desire to avoid the possible outcome is merely an attempt to change the odds. An acceptance of sex is an implicit acceptance of the natural outcome.2. SwimmingAs I previously stated drowning while swimming isn't a moral argument nor is it a contractual argument as this is a single person activity and completely unrelated. Pro goes on to state:"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. "Once again Pro is equating examples that do not equate. The primary purpose of sex is procreation - Pro has never debated this point. The purpose of swimming is to not drown. So Pro's argument would be valid if the purpose of sex was to avoid getting pregnant, or the fundamental purpose of swimming was drowning - both of which are both obviously false.3. Consent to Use the Body Does Not Mean Consent for Full 9 MonthsPro has merely restated this argument without adding further arguments or attempting to refute my counter argument. I have shown that it is clearly immoral to make someone dependent on you and then to take away that support without replacing it, thus endangering or even killing them.4. Bodily Rights Are Unalienable"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. ”"Pro is contending that I had no counter argument to the assertion that bodily rights are absolute when I stated: "Why are these rights widely accepted to be unalienable? How and why did they come to that conclusion? "Apparently Pro has not been reading this entire debate. Every argument that I've made has been based on the concept that while bodily rights to exist, they are not absolute. What I asked him to do was to explain why this right is absolute and unalienable and how one comes to that conclusion. While I have shown in 2 different methods why this is not true in the case of pregnancy, he has provided no actual argument but chose to simply restate his bare assertion that it is absolute. Pro completely failed to address the argument in this section, the woman's body is her agent and has the right to bind her to a natural contract for that which it has been designed to perform and which is a natural good to the woman. Thus consent has already been granted through a natural contract. To assert a right to refuse would break this contract. This is in stark contrast to Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument for which there is no natural contract in place as neither the person, nor the person's body has established a right to use the body to filter blood for the violinist. Thus it is clear that the violinist argument fails. In Round 3 Pro gave the meaning of unalienable to mean:Meaning such a right cannot be taken or given away legitimately. And in this round Pro stated:It is moral to retain the right to your own body. This would of course mean that one has absolute right over their body always and forever. Under this logic I could make the following argument:My best friend needs a kidney and I am a perfect match. So I offer him my kidney, 'cause I'm a really nice guy. A few years later my daughter is in a condition where she needs a kidney. If I have absolute unalienable right to my body that cannot be taken or given away then I should be able to force him to immediately get on the operating table and have my kidney transferred into my daughter - regardless of the outcome to him. While it would be honourable of him to give this kidney to my daughter, I think that we can agree that my daughter has no more right to the kidney than he does, and that I have legitimately rescinded any right that I have to the kidney. Thus the right to one's own body is not absolute and it is possible to agree to rescind one's right to part of it. As such Pro's arguments fail once again. ConclusionsI have presented two arguments that legitimately limit bodily rights in the case of abortion. The first clearly showed that the violinist argument was an inaccurate analogy because the natural function of the kidney is to filter the blood of the organism to which it belongs and not to another entity. The purpose of the female reproductive system is to create, sustain and protect life during the earliest stages of life. So not only does the violinist analogy fail, but it can be clearly seen that the function of this portion of the woman's body exists precisely for the benefit of her unborn children. The second argument is that the woman cannot have an abortion because there are natural contracts in place binding her to not harm her unborn child. The woman's body is her natural agent because it carries out beneficial actions for the mother without being actively instructed to do so. There are 3 possible contracts that are engaged.1. Voluntary sex is a natural contract to accept conception because it is the natural result of the act engaged in by 2 parties. This is the only conscious natural engaged in.2. Ovulation is an act of offering to create and attempt to nurture a child. This contract is accepted when a sperm merges with the ovum.3. Preparing the lining of the womb is a second natural contract by the woman's natural agent. This is an act showing a desire to nurture and provide for any child present in her womb. These 3 contracts singly or in combination bind the mother to a certain contractual obligation - which in this case would eliminate the option of abortion. I believe that I have shown these 2 arguments completely deny the woman having a moral option to abort her unborn children.