April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

R: Argument 1 – Breasts/Defense of The Violinist Con says “There is one major flaw to the violinist argument. The purpose of your kidneys is to filter your own blood. That using modern science we could have the amazing ability to re-purpose them is a medical marvel. However, this clearly explains why in this scenario there is no obligation on the person to offer the use of their kidneys - however noble it might otherwise be.” “the sole purpose of the woman's womb is for reproduction” Essentially Con is arguing that because the hypothetical of the violinist is unnatural and pregnancy is natural the moral implications are entirely different. I ask is there something about “Natural” that affects morals? Clearly many things that are natural are negative. Cancer is natural, does this make Cancer inherently moral and the surgery that could cure it immoral? As con said “The unborn child is making use of the mother’s body.” Despite being natural or not the mother has ultimate rights to her body, not the child. To follow this same reasoning con endorses… is Rape justified so long as the man is intending pregnancy. Does he have a right to the natural use of the woman due to nature? Of course not! To justify the unauthorized use of a person’s body by another because the intended use is “nature” is an untenable moral position. R2: Con’s Hypothetical Con concludes “I think that it is obvious that the mother has a duty to nurture the child that has been left in her care. Especially considering that the primary reason that breasts exist is to provide nourishment to the infants of the species.” Though I feel this has already been addressed I will address it again. P1: Breast are for nourishment to infants P2: Women have breasts C: A hungry infant has a right to a Women’s Breasts P1: “the sole purpose of the woman's womb is for reproduction” P2: Species need to reproduce to survive C: A male has a right to a female body to reproduce. Natural function does not supersede a women’s right to her own body. To conclude as 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. R: Argument 2 - The Natural Contract Of this argument con say’s “To my knowledge this argument has never been presented anywhere before now.” As I understand the argument it boils down to “tacit Consent.” Essentially Con is arguing that a women tacitly agrees to the fetus using her body by engaging in sexual intercourse. I have several contentions to this line of thinking. 1st: In the event that contraception is used tacit consent is not implied, in fact it is being explicitly withheld. 2nd: Voluntarily deciding to go swimming is not a tacit agreement to the result of drowning. Tacit consent is not implied just because a certain result may be one of the result of an action taken. 3rd: Even if I agree that a woman has tacitly consented to the fetus use of her body, it does not imply that she has consented to such use for the entire nine months of pregnancy. 4th: The moral right to one’s body is widely accepted to be unalienable. Meaning such a right cannot be taken or given away legitimately. No such contracts that con has presented have to be upheld due to the lack of consent. Conclusion of rebuttals: Natural does not imply moral. Tacit consent does not inherently exists and does not supersede the right to one’s own body. Due to the moral right to determine what happens to one’s own body, I affirm the resolution that In spite of a fetus' right to life, Abortion is morally acceptable.