Abortion After Conception Should Be Illegal

Triple Rejoinder "I am not arguing for utility on the abortion point. You brought up pregnancy, Which is necessary for the human species to continue, As something that should be illegal due to the risks it imposes to the mother as a way to try to debunk my earlier point. " It isn't a reach. Your argument claimed that the health risks to a person in part provided a compelling reason for a country to disallow abortion. That's your rationale, Not mine. And then you conclude that the utility in reproduction mitigates the risks of pregnancy. How does the argument where risks taken when carrying out an abortion not operate on the same logic as risks taken when carrying out a pregnancy? The logic is the same. It's either that you're incapable of grasping the premise of your own argument, Or you're being logically inconsistent. Triple Rejoinder #2 "Sex is consent because, As I stated earlier, It is the direct result from the choice of the mother to have intercourse. " I made it clear how the mother agreed to have the child. The mother makes the contract through the reasoning I outlined before which goes as the following: "1. If you choose to have sex, You acknowledge the risk to have a child. 2. If you acknowledge the risk to have a child, You consent to the effects that the child may have on your life and your responsibilities 3. By actively participating in sexual intercourse, You agree to take care of the human life you chose to create through your actions. And by no description, Moral or legal, Does contractual consent follow your reasoning. You're manipulating concepts in order to interpret consent using your pseudo "essentialia negotii. " You have not actually observed consent. And if the mother has decided to end her pregnancy, Clearly she hasn't consented to it. You are using a platitude in order to establish yourself as the fetus's legal proxy, But the dispute in question is not between you and a prospective mother. You're not relevant in this proposed dispute between the fetus and its mother. You don't get to dictate any terms. The fetus does not have a capacity to either enter or establish a contract; and the mother has not agreed to be bound by your presumed proxy. So this proposition of contractual obligation can be dispensed with since you cannot establish that a contract was formed. "We are arguing whether or not abortion should be illegal. The current legality of abortion is irrelevant. . . You have not argued against the moral questions given by my points. For instance, Why shouldn't the legal guardians of a child be required to nourish their child? . . . How is it logical to say the mother has a right to her womb when it has been deemed immoral for the father to shirk his responsibilities even when the mother steals his semen? " Yes, Your argument is normative; your attempts at justification are just as normative. That is the issue. I don't have to address the reasons legal guardians shouldn't be required to nourish their children nor must I address the reasons a father's alleged dereliction of paternal duty is deemed immoral. We are discussing abortion. The relevant parties are the mother and the fetus. "Sex and pregnancy are directly related. There is no debate on that. " What about in vitro fertilization? What about the case, You yourself referenced, In which a woman steals a man's sperm? Once again, You have demonstrated an inconsistent logic. Modern contraceptives allow for certain risks to be abated, Yet none of that informs the mother's capacity or intent when having sex? "Say that someone asks for a man to take an item he no longer wants. The man takes the item. The owner is now lacking the item and regrets selling it. He then accuses the man of burglary. Is he right? Of course not. Losing the item was the direct result of asking someone to take it. " The proposition that I be called "His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Athias" is implied to be legally enforceable since in the absence of one's compliance, One would be forcibly detained. In other words, My demand in this analogy is presumed legal. Again, You're focusing way too much on the objects of the analogy rather than the logic. The logic conveys the futility in using normative to justify normative. Triple Rejoinder #3 1. The fetus is a life that spawned as a direct result of a choice the mother made. No, The fetus is a life that spawned as a result of an act partaken by its mother and father--coitus, In vitro, Etc. 2. Therefore, Terminating the baby is murder. No, Ending life in an of itself is not murder. It requires malice aforethought. And you have not established malice. 3. The baby cannot consent to a suicide. And by that same reasoning, A baby cannot consent to entering a contract, Rendering any obligation its mother may bear, Null and void. Therefore, Ending the baby's life is murder, Which is illegal and immoral. Refer to the point above. "This is why the baby's life cannot be terminated without his consent. " Your syllogism is logically inconsistent at best, Incorrect at worst. Triple Rejoinder #4 "The mother owes a debt because she chose to create this life as a direct result of having sexual intercourse. It's very, Very simple. " No, She chose to have sex. Pregnancy is a phenomena outside her scope of agency. She cannot choose pregnancy. She can only risk it and deal with the consequences, Or abate them as best as she can. And "debt" is established through contract. How can she be in debt, If there's no contract? How can she owe the fetus when her capacity in their "transaction" was the gift of life? What does she owe it? She hasn't deprived it of anything, Right? Wouldn't the fetus owe her? Her womb belongs to her so in her withdrawal of it as a resource to the fetus's gestation isn't deprivation. Your argument is basically saying she owes because she knows. And no description of debt binds a person to their knowledge. "The mother is indeed responsible for the premature ejection of the fetus knowing full well that the fetus would need time to grow. " So once again, You're arguing utility. That is, Because the mother is aware of the utility her womb serves in the fetus's survival, She owes the fetus her womb until it can survive outside of it. In other words, The fetus's utility is more important than its mother's. And the fetus's utility isn't served through contract or obligation, As much as you may try to argue the case. It's served simply because it exists. I've argued thus far that the mother's utility is more significant because not only is it her womb, But she has no liability in the physiological underdevelopment that disallows the fetus from surviving outside of her womb. There's a stark difference between murder, And refusing to submit labor toward one's survival. And you've not met your burden in substantiating the obligation the mother bears in helping her fetus survive. You've offered only fictional terms of contract. "Killing many makes murder worse as it shows a disregard for human life. It shows that the mother does not care which life she ends. It shows she does not have regret. This makes it so much worse. " We're simply going back and forth, So this is as much as this point deserves at this stage of the argument. Triple Rejoinder#5 "You're literally arguing that pregnancy should be illegal due to the potential health risks when they are minuscule compared to abortion" No. I'm using your logic to argue ad absurdum the inconsistency of your argument, I. E. Risks to one's health should be considered in part to disallowing an action. And it's clear that you haven't been consistent. "Are you actually suggesting all drugs and prostitution should be legal when they effect multiple people, Easily cause many health concerns, And cause the destruction of many lives? " I'm suggesting using your premise that drugs and prostitution should be legal. That is, Despite its health risks, It provides good utility. Once again, You haven't been consistent. Closing Arguments: 1. My opponent argues an obligation a mother owes its fetus using stipulations he clearly conceived himself. These stipulations are conceived using subjective behavior and his interpretation, Not observation, Of how said behavior informs consent. By no description of contractual consent do his reasons inform agreement. He can't substantiate how the mother consents to these stipulation, Let alone a fetus. Furthermore, He is not a relevant party in the supposed dispute between fetus and mother; he presumes to be relevant by assuming the fetus's proxy. He has not at all justified the reason this proxy should be accepted. 2. He has failed to establish abortion as murder. Murder requires malice aforethought. He has not distinguished between the mother's intent to merely end pregnancy, And intent to do harm. He has not refuted the physiological underdevelopment which renders the fetus incapable of surviving outside of the womb. 3. Finally, I've argued that the mother's utility is more significant since it's her womb, A premise which my opponent has accepted. He has denied several times the focus on utility, To the point of inconsistency, Yet invokes the concept when attempting to establish his stipulations. He argues in favor of the fetus's utility using a womb to which it has no claim. I have been consistent; my opponent has not. My opponent invokes irrelevant concepts; I have not. My focus has remained on the mother and her fetus. Simply ask oneself this: does the mother have a right to her person? Yes? Then the resolution to this dispute is quite clear.