Pro-Life Results in Punishment for Women

Main Argument In the previous round I see two main arguments from Con; (A) that by engaging in consensual sex the woman has implicitly agreed to the possibility of pregnancy, and (B) that punishment requires wrongdoing which is absent from this scenario. A) Implicit Agreement I find it bizarre for Con to claim that a person agrees to a consequence by the fact that they understood the consequence was a possibility when the action was taken. By this reasoning a teenager who uses foul language at the dinner table has implicitly agreed to stay in his room for a week with no internet, and a man who commits murder implicitly agreed to spend the rest of his life in jail. These examples are absurd because they contradict the definition of an agreement. To agree with something is to have the same opinion or concur. If a person does not wish for the consequence being imposed upon him then he is by definition not agreeing to it. And even if accepted, the argument is still invalid. By engaging in consensual sex a woman agrees to take a risk of getting pregnant. Pregnancy is not the result I am to affirm is punishment. Being forced against her will to carry out the pregnancy to terms is the punishment. To make his point Con uses the analogy of a man enlisting in the army who is sent to the front lines. In this analogy the man is explicitly agreeing to be sent to the front lines in the event he is needed. The man is not however, agreeing to be forced into a suicide mission at the Army's command. In that case the Army is trying to go one step further from the agreed consequence of risking his life on the front lines to the unagreed consequence of ensuring it in a suicide mission, just as Con is trying to go one step further from the agreed consequence of risking pregnancy to the unagreed consequence of being forced to carry the pregnancy to terms. B) No Wrongdoing Cons other main point is that it is not punishment if there is no wrongdoing, which I agree with to some extent. When we impose an undesired consequence on a person we do it for one of two reasons; either as a result of the circumstances or as a result of their actions. In the case of circumstances, there need not be any wrongdoing. We would place someone in a psyche ward against their will for example not as punishment, but as a means of protecting themselves and the people around them. In the case of actions, we require wrongdoing as a means of justifying our impositions. Theft for example is considered wrong, and it is this consideration that is necessary to justify any form of punishment for it such as incarceration. In the previous round I stated that a woman has a right to their own body and that the Pro-Life position denies them this right in the event of pregnancy. Con did not contest this. So that being the case, it is important for us to determine which of our two reasons the Pro-Life position considers. If you look back at the last round, Con has made it very clear that he is not embracing the position that a woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to terms in the event of rape. Yet whether a woman was raped or gave her consent has nothing to do with the circumstance of being pregnant and therefore, Cons position is not based on circumstances but entirely based on the woman’s actions. But if we are considering her actions, how does Con justify imposing undesired consequences without wrongdoing? Because he is trying to have it both ways. Con needs to figure out which one it is. There is no scenario where we would impose undesired consequences on someone for their actions without wrongdoing, and you can’t simply do it anyway then claim that it is not punishment because there was no wrongdoing. Imagine a man is jailed for eating a hot dog, then when asks why he is being punished the reply is “it’s not punishment because you did nothing wrong”. That would be quite an absurd interaction and clearly in the absence of some reason of circumstance that would justify the incarceration, we would call that punishment. Appeal to Nature Con repeatedly makes statements referring to things being a certain way based on them being "natural". Such statements include describing pregnancy as a natural consequence, a natural good, and a natural biological imperative of the mother and father. Con seems to refer to nature as some conscious entity, and then uses it as an authority determining what is good and what we are obligated to do. Con needs substantiate such an assertion, not simply appeal to it. Con also talks about the natural purpose of the breasts being to feed milk, and the natural purpose of the womb to provide for the child. Con would need to demonstrate how he knows what nature wants why we should care, and most importantly what relevance that has to this debate. The debate is about what qualifies as punishment, and whether the Pro-Life position (a law written by people, not nature) results in it. Rebuttals Con argues that a woman getting pregnant requires her to fulfill her obligation to the child. Con is begging the question. Whether she is required to carry the abortion to terms is what the abortion debate is about. I have no idea why Con decided to show us Canada law. I don't care what their laws are and neither should anyone else. Con needs to justify the laws he cites, not simply refer to them as if they should be taken as an authority. Con uses the example of a woman caught in a blizzard to illustrate the rights of the offspring to the mother’s body. The analogy is irrelevant as it focuses entirely on the importance of the particular circumstances and not on the woman's actions/decisions which Cons position uses as justification. Conclusion When an undesired mandate is imposed onto a person, it is either imposed as a result of the circumstances or as a result of their actions. Con is trying to have it both ways where it suites him while ignoring the baggage where it doesn’t. If Con is claiming that a woman’s right to her own body is subject to be taken away as a result of the circumstance of being pregnant then he has to embrace forcing rape victims to carry the child to terms since it is the exact same circumstance. If on the other hand he is not basing his position on the circumstances but rather the actions/decisions of the mother, then he is imposing an undesired consequence on the mother as a result of her actions/decisions. In English we have a word for that, it's called punishment.