Abortion After Conception Should Be Illegal

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 pregnancyHe is not able to demand an abortionHe is not able to refuse child supportHe is not able to morally refuse his duty as a fatherMy 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 responsibilities3. 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. Thanks1. https://www. Naturalnews. Com/047121_sperm_bank_paternity_child_support. Html