April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

My continued thanks to Kasmic for this debate.RebuttalsArgument 1 - Breast"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?"I believe that Pro is misunderstanding the meaning of nature in my argument. It is not:3. all natural phenomena and plant and animal life, as distinct from manand his creations. [5]but rather:1. the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character. [5]It is not just that something occurs in nature, it is an argument from philosophy and natural law. Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a philosophy of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state. In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), while others distinguish between natural law and natural right...Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law. [6]Con fails to appreciate that his bodily rights argument is based upon the very natural law argument that I laid out. This is why the government does not have the right to take your body and transplant your organs to save many others at the expense of your life. This would be an act against the Natural Law which uses philosophy to explain that the purpose of your organs is for your personal benefit. As stated before, that we now possess the ability to repurpose them is nearly miraculous when you think about it. However, this secondary use is always subservient to the primary purpose.Now returning to my original argument. The unborn child is rightly using the mother's womb for the express purpose that it exists. The act of abortion is an act contrary to the natural order in the same way that an unprovoked attack on you or me is contrary to the natural order.As a less esoteric example let's consider a chair. If I decide to stand on a chair to change a light bulb and it breaks and I hurt myself, I have very little chance of suing the chair manufacturer. Why? Because the purpose of a chair is not to stand on to change a light bulb. Now if I buy a chair and I go and sit down on it and it collapses, I have a very good chance in a lawsuit against the manufacturer. If I use the chair to prop up my car while I change the oil and the chair breaks killing me, I will be given a Darwin Award. [7] Why? Because that is not what a chair is for. The further away from the intrinsic purpose of an object, the less validity the action holds.Con provided a couple of examples where he believes that "nature" would dictate against my natural law argument."Cancer is natural, does this make Cancer inherently moral and the surgery that could cure it immoral?"To understand this we must look at cancer through the lens of natural law. First of all what is cancer?"Cancer harms the body when damaged cells divide uncontrollably to form lumps or masses of tissue called tumors (except in the case of leukemia where cancer prohibits normal blood function by abnormal cell division in the blood stream). Tumors can grow and interfere with the digestive, nervous, and circulatory systems, and they can release hormones that alter body function. Tumors that stay in one spot and demonstrate limited growth are generally considered to be benign." [8]So as we can see, cancerous cells are cells that are no longer operating according to their nature and purpose in the body, but rather have become damaged and divide uncontrollably. For this reason, it is acceptable to attempt to remove from the body that which not only is now acting against its intended purpose, but is furthermore threatening the body as a whole (especially in the case of malignant tumors).Contrasting this to the case of abortion, both the unborn child and mother's womb are acting in accordance with their purpose and with their nature to the best of each's ability.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.Here Con is conflating several issue in order to promote an erroneous conclusion. Is sexual intercourse a natural good? Of course. Likewise with the desire to have children and children themselves. These are all good and consistent with natural law. Is the unprovoked attack on the woman in keeping with natural law? Not at all. Thus there is no justification for rape under natural law.Now can something good come from an evil act? In some cases yes, because part of the act was in keeping with natural law even though the application was not. Thus is it possible for the natural good of a child to be realized through a morally reprehensible act.Pro then throws in a syllogism on reproduction which is poorly formed as the conclusion does not flow from the premises. 'Nuff said.Con concludes this section with:Natural function does not supersede a women’s right to her own body.What Con has failed to do is to provide any basis for this argument. His basis is that a woman has bodily rights - which is not in disagreement. He has however given no basis for this right. I on the other hand have given a clear basis for this right and the right of the unborn to the mother's body.Argument 2 - Natural ContractCon has once again oversimplified my argument by equating it to a tacit consent to pregnancy by engaging in sexual intercourse. This argument too is based on natural law, but essentially combined with the fundamentals of contract law. If an action has a purpose, one must logically accept the outcome of the action. To deny the outcome would be a denial of reality which is fundamentally irrational and illogical. Additionally, I pose this argument not as a single offer and acceptance, but as a set of up to 3 contracts.Con has posed 4 scenarios that he believe invalidate this argument. I will address them one by one.1. In the event that contraception is used tacit consent is not implied, in fact it is being explicitly withheld.Let's analyze this by the 3 contracts I've laid out.1) Sex has still occurred - Contract confirmed.2) Ovulation occurred providing an offer by the woman to create and nurture the new child. - Contract confirmed3) Implantation occurred - Contract confirmed.If we go back to our hotel analogy if the CEO sends out a memo telling the employees not to rent out room 325, but the memo is missed and room 325 is rented out by the front desk manager, the contract is still binding on the hotel even though the ownership did not want to rent the room out. Contraception lessens your odds of getting pregnant it does not change the nature of the act. There are also moral implications to contraception that would hinder implantation, but that is not part of this debate.2. 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.This isn't a moral argument at all. Drowning is the natural result of an inability to maintain oneself above the surface of the water resulting in water instead of oxygen bearing air entering the lungs. It is cause and effect. Besides, returning to my original argument, pregnancy is a natural good to the woman. Drowning is a natural evil in that it kills the individual. Not comparable at all.3. 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.This was already dealt with in my previous rounds arguments:"Likewise, if I invite you onto my land knowing that this action will make you dependent on me for a period of time, I have obligated myself to provide for you."If I make you dependent on me I have a duty of care to you. The greater the dependency the greater the duty of care.4. The moral right to one’s body is widely accepted to be unalienable. Meaning such a right cannot be taken or given away legitimately.Why are these rights widely accepted to be unalienable? How and why did they come to that conclusion?This would of course mean that a father could not donate part of his liver or kidney to his daughter because that would be violating his unalienable bodily rights. A doctor could not cut off a gangrenous leg to save a life without violating these rights. If it cannot be given away, it cannot be given away. Additionally, the state could not conscript people into the army at times of war.ConclusionsAll of Pro's arguments have been shown to be insufficient in nature and both counter arguments stand in whole.References[5] http://www.collinsdictionary.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...