April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

My thanks to Kasmic for the concise opening round that presents perhaps the best Pro-Choice argument in existence. Unfortunately, my reply will not employ such brevity.Con has initiated this debate in order to improve his debating skills. As such, in this round, I will present two counter arguments to show why it is morally unacceptable for the mother to abort her child. One will be a more typical counter argument and the second is an argument of my own device. To my knowledge this argument has never been presented anywhere before now. This will hopefully provide a good challenge to his debating skills.Argument 1 - BreastsThere 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.Conversely, the sole purpose of the woman's womb is for reproduction. The mother's womb exists solely to enable fertilization of the new child and to provide it with the necessary environment and nutrients that it will require to reach a sufficiently developed stage to exist outside of the womb. The unborn child is making use of the mother's body for precisely the purpose that it has been designed/evolved (depending on your theological viewpoint).Now, if we consider a post birth scenario we can see the correlation. Let's assume that a new mother leaves her newborn with her husband (with ample formula of course) and then proceeds to drive out to a mountain cabin to meet her friend who also just gave birth. The first mother falls asleep on the couch, and while asleep, the friend decides to drive to town leaving her own newborn in the house with her sleeping friend. (I know they are probably the two worst mothers ever)Now as fate would have it, while the friend is in town the blizzard of the century followed by an avalanche isolates the woman in the cabin along with her friend's child. The house is well stocked with food, drink and fuel. Now let's further assume that the woman had previously decided that she would not breast feed because she didn't want the possible side effects to her breasts that could result from breast feeding (sagging, flattening, misshapenness or even asymmetry). [1]If the newborn baby starts to cry is there a moral obligation on her to go to the cupboard and make bottles of formula to feed the child?Now what if, while there is much food in the cabin, there is no formula. Does the woman have a moral duty to use her currently lactating breasts to feed the child or is she morally justified in letting the child die of starvation? 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.Furthermore, what if she was some form of breast model and any possible deformities to her breasts would affect her income. Would she be justified to assert her bodily rights in letting the child with her starve to death?What if she suffered from early osteo-porosis? Since breast feeding can deplete bone mass [2], would it then be acceptable for her to let the child starve to death to possibly prevent some future illness?I think that the moral intuition of the vast majority of people would conclude that the woman did indeed have a moral obligation to help the innocent child that had been left in her care. The woman's breasts are designed/have evolved explicitly to provide nutrients to the young of the species. In the same way the mother's womb exists explicitly to provide environment and nutrients to the unborn child. In reality, I believe that the actual case is even stronger that what I've presented here. While in this example the child is not hers, in a pregnancy the child within her womb is her child. This makes her the natural guardian of the child until such time as she chooses, and is able, to safely pass this guardianship of the child off to another person.Argument 2 - The Natural ContractPart 1 - Your body is your natural agent.Agent - One empowered to act for or represent another [2]This is quite obvious. Your body completes the many tasks required of you to survive. You do not focus on breathing, fighting off viruses, digesting food, etc... These tasks are completed by your natural agent. A way of understanding this is that your mind is like the CEO of a hotel. The CEO does not work the front desk, serve the meals or clean the rooms. These every day tasks are carried out by the agents that work under the CEO.Part 2 - ContractContract - an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. [4]Pregnancy is a natural good to all 3 parties involved. The natural goals of every organism is to survive and to reproduce and continue the species. Thus reproduction is a natural good to each organism, in that it accomplishes that to which the organism is naturally ordered. And the act of living is also a natural good of the organism, as this too fulfills that to which it is naturally ordered.The begetting of a child is a series of 3 contracts involving 2 or 3 parties each.Contract 1 - Consensual SexAs there is no other natural means of reproduction for humans, the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is for reproduction of the species. As sexual intercourse carries an inherent chance of pregnancy, a voluntary act of sexual intercourse is an implicit acceptance of the possible outcome of the act, namely a new human child. While one could argue that this creates a two way contract between the parties for the sake of brevity (and relevancy to the debate) I will ignore the obligations of the father and simply focus on the mother. The mother has completed the first contract by engaging in sex - it is fundamentally an offer and acceptance to the possibility of pregnancy. Whether pregnancy occurs will depend on whether the agents of the parents complete their contracts.Contract 2 - FertilizationFertilization is an offer and acceptance style contract between 3 parties. The woman's body (her natural agent) releases an ovum monthly. This is an offer on the part of the mother to create and sustain a child. The release of sperm from the male's body (his natural agent) in an attempt to accept the offer. If the sperm unites with the ovum the contract is completed and a third party that is wholly dependent on the offer of the mother's agent is also brought into the contract.Returning to our hotel analogy. There is a vacancy sign on outside the hotel. A man from corporation B brings in a customer and asks for the room. The lady at the desk hands over the paperwork and the customer signs the paper. Contract 3 - ImplantationThe mother's fertility cycle releases the egg with the full anticipation that it will implant in her uterus. Likewise the newly formed zygote begins development and travels towards the uterus in order to implant. The preparation of the uterus to receive the embryo is a third offer and acceptance contract commenced by the mother or her agents.Any one of these 3 contracts imposes a moral obligation on her to sustain the child within her.If I were to invite you onto my land, I believe that we can all agree that I would have no moral justification to sue or shoot you for trespassing. You are here at my request. 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.These contracts make the mother the natural guardian of the child. As guardian, she cannot intentionally act against the child. This too is something I believe that we can agree upon as a moral requirement for someone who is the guardian of a minor.ScenariosSo let's consider a few scenarios and see if at least one contract holds up.In-Vitro fertilization - There is no sex, assuming the egg comes from a different woman there is no direct offer and acceptance relating to the mother, however there is implantation so the contract is formed and the woman is morally obligated to carry the pregnancy to term.Rape - This is always a difficult topic and I do not wish to belittle the act, but death is also a very serious and difficult topic. As such this may sound cold, but it isn't when understanding the rights of the child. In a rape the first contract is violated and the mother should have full recourse against the father. However, the second and third contracts were validly completed. Thus the natural contracts between the child and the mother are in full effect and are a natural good to her. While she did not intend to enter into a contract with the father, she has entered into a contract with the child.ConclusionI have provided 2 separate arguments that clearly illustrate why the mother has a moral obligation to sustain the life of the unborn child within her womb regardless of her natural bodily rights. These obligations supersede the mother's bodily rights, thus making abortion a morally unacceptable decision for the mother.Thank-you for your time, and I look forward to Pro's counter arguments.References[1] http://www.webmd.boots.com...[2] http://www.niams.nih.gov...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...