Pro-Life Results in Punishment for Women

Additional DefinitionsConsent:1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Consequence:1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Procreation:1 the sexual activity of conceiving and bearing offspring(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)And since Pro introduced the word in the definition of penalty,Obligation:1. The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Like Pro, I do not believe that there is anything that is objectionable about these definitions.A penalty is not the same as a punishment, though closely related. The penalty is what is imposed as the form of punishment.ArgumentThe premise of this argument is based on a generic case and does not include exceptions such as rape, imminent death of mother, etc. This is about the generic condition of a pregnant woman who engaged in consensual sex with a man. Pro has honourably maintained that basic framework from our previous discussion.The natural consequence of sexual intercourse is pregnancy. While the odds of becoming pregnant from any single coupling of man and woman varies, the natural of purpose and outcome of sex is the creation of new human beings. Nature has made this act pleasurable in order to make the procreative act enticing.If a woman consents to sex, and the natural consequence of sex is pregnancy, then the woman has implicitly agreed to the possible pregnancy that may arise. This is intuitive logic. If I stick a knife in the electrical wall outlet I have implicitly agreed to the outcomes that result from my action, even if the outcomes aren't what I explicitly desired.Additionally, we know that all of nature is ordered to reproduce. The natural purpose of every life form on the planet is to reproduce and further their species. Thus procreation is a natural good for both the mother and the father as it is the fulfillment of their natural biological imperative. PunishmentNow this debate is about "Pro-Life Result in Punishment for Women." Now pulling up one of the definitions of Punishment from Pro:A penalty imposed for wrongdoingNow what was the wrongdoing?Was getting pregnant a wrongdoing? No, I have already shown that it is a natural good.The sex between the parties was consensual, so there was no wrongdoing there.Is sex itself wrong? Nope, it is in full agreement with Natural Law as stated by Thomas Aquinas (ST IaIIae 94, 2).Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animal," such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth. (http://home.newadvent.org...)So there is no apparent wrongdoing in any action. Thus in no way has a punishment been imposed on the mother by becoming pregnant.So let's make an analogy to put things into perspective.A young man decides to enlist in the army because he can get his College education for free. Now, while he knows that the natural duty of an army soldier is to fight, he hopes that the nation won't go to war while he's enlisted. However, one day his commanding officer tells him to get his stuff because he's being sent out.Is the soldier being punished or suffering a penalty by being sent to the front lines? No. There was no offense committed by either party as he consented to the natural consequences of joining the army. Let's compare the above example to a young woman having consensual sex:Instead of the desire for education she desires the intimacy or pleasure of the act. While she knows that pregnancy is a possibility that is not the desired outcome of her having sex. That she becomes pregnant requires her to fulfil the obligation she assented to by engaging in sex.Parental ObligationNow that the obligation of the mother to the child has been established we can proceed to the next aspect of the argument.The obligation of a parent to provide for the needs of their children is something that has been enshrined in law. In Canada:Failure to Provide the Necessities of Life: Everyone is under a legal duty as a parent, foster parent, guardian or head of a family, to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years. (http://en.wikibooks.org...)Additionally, parents are given the primary role of guardian. They only relinquish this duty by safely passing the guardianship of the child onto another person.Now once again there was no verbal or written contract that made the parents the responsible party. They are so because of the implicit agreement that exists under natural law creating this obligation. However, even though the state demands that they put effort and resources to the raising of the child, this is not a punishment. However, if they fail to fulfill this obligation the courts will punish them by imposing a penalty:a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by non fulfillment of some obligation. Now for the final argument. Does the child have the right to use the mother's body? Assume that the mother of a newborn has decided that she doesn't want to nurse. However, she is caught in a blizzard with no access to her formula supply, but she is still lactating. Could she refuse to provide the child milk because of her bodily rights? This is illogical to argue, because the primary natural purpose of her breasts is to deliver milk to her children. Thus it is formula that is a substitute, and she would be reasonably expected to provide her milk to the child. That is because this is what nature has provided as a means for the child to survive, and she has an obligation to the child. Once again this is not a punishment to the mother.This leads us to the unborn in the womb. Con stated that you don't have the right to take blood from somebody else regardless of the reason. And this is true, because of the nature of what blood is. The purpose of the blood in your body is to move nutrients, oxygen, waste, etc. around your body. That we have the ability to repurpose the blood to do so in someone else's body is a modern medical marvel. However, you are not required to provide it for that alternate purpose, because that is not its fundamental purpose.The purpose of the mother's womb however is precisely to provide the necessities of life to her children. That is its primary purpose. Thus the child is in the mother's womb through her express and intentional actions. And is using the womb for precisely the purpose that it was intended to be used. An abortion is a misuse of the womb as it interferes with both the natural and proper use of the womb, and also with the natural good of both the mother and the child.ConclusionAs has been shown, there has been no offence from the time of consensual sex through to the time when the legal parental responsibilities end and the child is grown up. Pro confuses undesired outcomes and the limitation of rights, based on obligations, with punishments that result in penalties bing imposed. Pro has thus far failed to prove his argument. In all of his definitions the punishment or penalty requires that there was an offense, wrongdoing, or failure to meet an obligation. It is has been clearly shown that no offence has been committed and thus there is no punishment.