Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion

As this will be my last round, I will provide a brief overview of my points, Con's counter arguments, and why they do not work.1. In this point I argue that the woman owns her own body and therefore has final say over what happens to her body. Most would agree with this, but Con argues that in the case of a pregnancy, the father is entitled to equal control over the woman's body to the extent that what she does affects the baby (which is technically everything she does, but Con's focus is on abortion). Con claims that this entitlement is given to the father due to the hardships he has to go through during the pregnancy. These hardships include driving her to the hospital, financial aid and general catering. My response to this argument was 2-fold. Firstly, these “hardships” only apply assuming the mother does not get an abortion. If she does, then none of these sacrifices are made. Therefore, this argument is only relevant under the assumption that the father already has enough say to stop the abortion, which makes it a circular argument. Con does not address this criticism. Secondly, I pointed out that this standard insinuates that one's right over their own body can be purchased (via favours and finance). I go on to question how such a system breaks down – that is, how much hardship and sacrifice must the father offer before his say is equal to 50%. How does Con justify this involuntary acquisition of “say” by the father? Rather than developing his argument further, Con claims that I am misrepresenting his argument, but does not explain how this is a misrepresentation (explaining the difference), making his counter argument non-existent. He reiterates that his argument is “sacrifice = 50% say”, but does not seem to see how this suggests the father is purchasing say via favours and finance. Regardless, the question remains – How much sacrifice does it take to gain 50% of someone else's right to their own body? Since Con cannot make new argument next round, this point has been laid to rest in favour of Pro. Finally, Con claims that I ignored his argument about “being the host only equal 50% say”. I didn't ignore this argument because it's not an argument – it's an assertion. Con asserts that owning your own body only gives you 50% say over your own body. I don't know by what measure he is coming up with this figure, and in all likelihood there is no measure, just an assertion. 2. In this point I argue that the mother contributes more towards the fetus' genome, therefore winning the genetic argument. Con claims the difference is negligible, but this is merely an excuse to dismiss the argument. Surely if the percentage was reversed, he would use it as an argument in his favour, though he would never admit it. In the case of a company's stock where two owners, each with the same percentage of ownership, have a disagreement, what happens? Nothing. But if one owner has even one share more than the other, regardless of how many times the company has split their stock, that owner is recognized as having majority control. The magic number is 50%, and any amount greater than that, regardless of how small, still sways the decision. Therefore, so long as genetic contribution is taken into account, we must recognize that the mother has the greater say. Con attempts to plead for the fathers case by saying he is naturally disadvantaged. This is irrelevant. Of course he is naturally disadvantaged. That's the point. He contributes less, and that's all there is to it. As Con has neither conceded nor dissolved this point, it rests in favour of Pro. 3. In this point I argue that the man gives his sperm to the woman, thereby relinquishing ownership of it to the extent that the mother can choose to use it, or not use it to make a baby. Con's rebuttal, despite being preemtively debunked, is essentially that the man does not relinquish ownership of the sperm because he gave it to her specifically to make a baby. This argument is asinine as the fathers desire to see a baby be made does not in any way trump the woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. Remember, no contract was made prior to conception removing this right from the woman, therefore she retains it exclusively. Con's return point is a re-statement of this same argument. He argues that the man has the right to have a baby with this woman because he emptied sperm into her. He does not explain how or why this “right” (which is never justified initially beyond his assertion) trumps the woman's right to govern herself. Why does “giving sperm” entitle him to any rights over her person? This sort of logic does not apply to any other relationship or agreement. If there is no legally binding contract stating the man has these rights, and the woman owns herself, then she has the right to not make a baby. Con states that a bank has the right to refuse service because they have a “clear cut” reason to refuse service, while the woman does not. This is nothing short of grasping at straws. It is of no consequence whether or not the man understands why the woman wants to “refuse service” as it is her body and she has exclusive ownership of it. How would we even qualify what is and is not a “clear cut” reason? Con claims I am dancing around his argument that the man has rights as well (due to his sacrifices). I am not ignoring this argument because there is no argument, just an assertion. The issue here is that Con is starting from the assumption that the man has say and working backwards. The woman has initial rights because it is her body in question, but any rights the man has over the woman's body need to be justified. They are not assumed. Simply pointing out that the father makes sacrifices (sacrifices that wouldn't even happen assuming the abortion is carried out) is an extremely underdeveloped argument for the reasons I've outlined numerous times. His argument is circular and his conclusion is unwarranted. 4. Here I argue that since there is no middle-ground option, there can be no true 50/50 split. The 50/50 split only exists to the extent that both parties already agree with one another. Con attempts to refute this by suggesting possible middle-ground options, but none of them are actually “middle ground”. Every one of them results in an abortion not happening. It is readily obvious that “no abortion” does not equal “somewhere between an abortion and no abortion”. Con does not defend his 4 options, but rather asserts their validity. I will make this as clear as possible; if the dispute is “abort, or not to abort”, then any option that either ends in an abortion or does not end in an abortion is not an alternative to the “abort/ don't abort” dispute. One gets their way and the other does not. 5. In this point I argue that if child is not property, the only remaining relevant factor is the woman's self-ownership. Con's response is that the man contributes equally to the fetus' genome (this is not true. Even 49.99999% =/= 50%, and as stated in round 1 less than 50% = no say) and goes through hardships, therefore he is entitled to 50% say. These arguments have been laid to rest over and over again, so no further debunking is required. 6. Con claims that he ignored these arguments because he felt they didn't apply. It is not my burden, nor the voter's burden to guess why Con has dropped an argument, so this is no excuse. However, Con apologizes for not clarifying earlier, so no biggie. Since these arguments are predicated on a point we do not agree on at this point (if there can be a 50/50 split in say), I will retire these arguments for both our sakes. Conclusion Con's argument rests entirely on assertions he has not justified. He is starting from his conclusion and working backwards, which is why his arguments do not stand the test of scrutiny, thereby making his arguments both unsound and invalid. As such, his BoP is unfulfilled and the resolution is affirmed. I turn the debate over to Con for the final word.