Pro-Life Results in Punishment for Women

Additional DefinitionsFreedom:A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference:(http://tinyurl.com...) License:Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom(http://tinyurl.com...) Duplicitous:Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.(http://tinyurl.com...) Opening StatementI find it very curious that Pro introduced 3 definitions of Punishment in the first round each of them contained the word offense, fault, or wrongdoing. And yet he has failed to show how any of these match the case of a woman who becomes pregnant after voluntarily engaging in voluntary sex is being punished. He makes the mental leap that if the woman is prevented from doing something that she is automatically being punished.Pro does not seem to understand the difference between freedom and license. While one has rights, one does not have unlimited purview to enforce those rights. That is why we have laws, to limit the application of rights.Rebuttals A) Implicit agreementPro uses a teenager swearing in his parents house and a murderer as counter examples. Both of these are non-equivalent examples as they both involve people breaking established rules or laws. He did not address my simple example of me sticking a knife in a wall outlet. Actions have natural consequences, and the natural result of sex is pregnancy.Pro states "If a person does not wish for the consequence being imposed upon him then he is by definition not agreeing to it."One agrees to the natural outcome of actions all the time. If I eat nothing but chips and coke, the natural result is that I'll get fat and have poor health. Did I want to become a blob on the couch with rotting teeth? No. However, that is the natural outcome of my actions.If I cycle down a steep hill as fast as I can then wipe out at the sharp corner at the bottom I'll get road rash and maybe broken bones. Did I want to be picking gravel out of thigh? No, but that is the outcome of my action.Pro refers to my soldier analogy saying that while the soldier enlisted he has not agreed to go to on a suicide mission. Pro is trying to distract from the real argument in two ways. First of all, his argument is of a general nature and is essentially saying that all soldiers should be able to walk away when they are called to the front lines. Additionally, he is trying to obfuscate the issue. Even if the soldier was sent on a suicide mission, is that a punishment? Depending on circumstances it may or may not be wrong, but was it a punishment? Was this because he failed in some other duty or was it because his commanding officers need to fulfill their obligation of protecting the nation and as such rely on the soldier's obligation to fight for his nation, even at the possible cost of his own life.B) No WrongdoingPro has asked "how does Con justify imposing undesired consequences without wrongdoing". As I stated in the previous round, this is justified by incurring an obligation. We have other obligations imposed on us as well. Taxes. The government demands that you pay a percentage of what you earn to meet your obligation to society. Did I actively agree to give a percentage of my income to the government when I was employed? Nope, it is an implied agreement that the government requires of you to meet your societal obligations.Pro brings up the example of a man being jailed for eating a hot dog. Now there is no natural link between eating a hot dog and going to jail. Thus there is no obligation on the man to be in jail as a result of eating said hot dog. Thus his being imprisoned is fundamentally wrong. This is not an apt analogy as it does not take the surrounding circumstances into effect.C) Appeal to NatureNatural law is the foundation to all law. Nature or God (take your choice) has resulted in us being who and what we are. If we are to have just laws, they must be in keeping with our nature and the nature of what our actions are. This is the underpinning for our fundamental human rights - including the bodily rights that Pro asserts.As noted before, we can show that the person has bodily rights because of what the natural purpose of the body is. You have a right to your blood because the purpose of your blood is to move nutrients, oxygen, waste, etc... around your body. Just as the womb exists for the child.The right to life proceeds from a fundamental understanding of the nature of human beings and how we are fundamentally equal in nature, even if not equal in ability. If laws are not in keeping with what our nature is, then there is no justice because the law does not defend the truth of what we and our action truly are.A simple example. A man of average height and weight, buys a new chair and sit down on it. The chair breaks and causing the man to break his arm. He has recourse agaisnst the chair manufacturer, because a chair has a natural purpose; a chair is for people to sit upon.I take that same chair and decide to stand on it to change a light bulb. If I fall off the chair and break my arm while changing the light bulb I have no recourse against the chair manufacturer because standing on the chair to change a light is not the purpose of a chair. Things have a proper and improper use. As a chair has a nature so do people and actions have natures. As such any law that breaks this nature, is fundamentally unjust because it is not in keeping with the truth.This is also why we oblige parents to take care of their children. They are the natural guardians of the children.Now Pro has asked what relevance this has to the debate. If we are to have just laws they must be based on fundamental truths and not societal whims. I have shown that natural law is what gives the woman the natural right to her body in the first place, and as such I am able to show why she has a corresponding obligation resulting from it.D) RebuttalsPro stated, "Whether she is required to carry the abortion to terms is what the abortion debate is about."And that is why we are having this debate. However, our scope in this debate is solely on whether the Pro-Life Position results in Punishment for Women.As for citing Canadian Law, it is something that I'm more familiar with and in the US such laws are generally at the state level. Let's look at Texas for instance:11b, The duty of a parent to support his or her child exists while the child is an unemancipated minor... (http://tinyurl.com...)These laws are common throughout 1st world nations. RapePro has used this as a trump card because he realizes that he is losing this debate, and so he brings in an emotional issue. First of all, this is poor form and duplicitous on the part of Pro because it was never part of our original discussion that brought us to this debate and he explicitly stated in the comments prior to the debate:"I have no intent of making an argument regarding rape." - Refer to 3rd comment from the bottom on the comments tab.However, my desire to exclude rape from the argument was for simplification of argument and not a denial of my position. This is only because it brings an unnecessary emotional element into the argument. If the woman is raped, the violation against her was by the man. Her being pregnant is still a natural good to her (see Round 2), though not one that she voluntarily entered. She still has an obligation to the child as she is the only guardian of the child. It is possible to be obligated to something you did not agree to.I chose the example of a man enlisting into the army because I expected Pro to renegue on his pre-debate comment on rape. Becoming pregnant through rape is akin to being drafted. While the obligation was not voluntarily being entered into, the obligation still remains. And while it is more onerous because it was not entered into voluntarily, it is still not a punishment. ConclusionPro continues to pretend that any undesired outcome is a punishment. Yet the word punishment by his own definition requires an offense.