Abortion After Conception Should Be Illegal

Double Rejoinder #1 "I am not arguing the point of utility. " When you make points like this: "Pregnancy is needed to produce more humans to make the species live on. Pregnancy is the formation of human life that the mother has the right to due to the womb being of her own person. " You are clearly arguing utility. "I am arguing that the woman acknowledged the risk of pregnancy when sexual intercourse was initiated. In having sexual intercourse, She created a life. This life is indeed the result of the choice the mother and father took part in. Therefore, The mother consented to the possibility for her womb to house the child. " And this argument isn't logically sound. You're conflating the notions of risk and consent. You're asserting that her consent was implicit through her actions without regard to her choices as a moral agent. You take a single choice--i. E. To have sex and treat it as "consent, " yet ignore the act of abortion as an indication of dissent. You continue to fail in your demonstration that the mother is obligated to the fetus. All you've done thus far is state that the mother knowingly risked pregnancy, And the fetus is a life. You have not demonstrated how this creates an obligation; a duty; a debt owed to the fetus by its mother. You may not acknowledge it, But essentially your argument is one over utility. You've conveyed that the fetus's utility is more important than its mother's. And I've argued that the mother's utility is more significant because it's her womb, The fetus's survival notwithstanding. "MY OPPONENT CONCEDED THAT THE BABY IS A HUMAN LIFE, AND ONLY ARGUES FOR THE AGENCY AND UTILITY OF THE MOTHER. " This is redundant. I've acknowledge the fetus as a living being and have argued that the mother's utility is more significant since Round 2. Double Rejoinder #2 "I made the point more clear to avoid conclusion. Therefore, Your point is invalid since I said that it would go against the donor's autonomy. " No, You argued that it would be like getting angry at one's kidneys being extracted after signing the form. Of course this line of reasoning makes no sense, Since you have yet to establish how a mother creates a contract with her unborn fetus. "Although I believe to have already done so, I will highlight some examples that could be used to orchestrate my point. A person is inferred to agree to not harm the residence from a house they visit or steal from. An immigrant is inferred to understand and obey the law when they are in the U. S. A. A father is inferred to act as a father figure when he conceieves a child as long as he is given (or forced onto him) parental rights. This is very simple. This is like arguing, "by giving birth to a child, Parents do not assume any responsibility for the child making poor decisions while under their care. " or "the child is not entitled to recieve breast milk or food from the parents when it can be provided. " Currently illegal abortions are not allowed unless performed by a medical professional to the potential harm it can cause a person. This is why there is something called criminal neglect. Responsibility for someone's own life and the lives of whom they created are inferred to be natural responsibilities. Therefore, Those who create a human life have a duty to care for the life they created. " Your argument is rather sophistic. You're combining mores with legally enforceable precepts. A mother can leave her newborn baby at the steps of a fire house, And that would be the end of her responsibility to that child. A mother can alienate that child by giving it up for adoption. If we're going to cite law, And use it as justification, Then I have news for you: abortion is legal. Would it not then be inferred that the mother has a right to her womb, And sex doesn't create a legal duty to gestate her unborn fetus? You argument is premised on the notion that abortion shouldn't belegal. It should focus on abortion, Its role in a moral economy, And the law's reflection of it, Not common practice. "I believe my arguments make perfect sense. " No they don't. You're asserting normative arguments with no justification. Here, I'll give you an example: Everyone should call me "his imperial majesty, Emperor Athias. " The reason is by engaging me in debate, And witnessing my command of logic, You are agreeing to call me this. By taking the risk, You're automatically consenting. Therefore, You're legally responsible. If you fail to call me "his imperial majesty, Emperor Athias" you'll be sent to jail. Do you see? I'm arguing that ought to be case, But I've offered no justification. I'm stringing together discrete concepts with no logical connection. At the end of the day, All I'm demonstrating is that I have a large ego. And at the end of the day, You're arguing that the fetus's survival is more important than its mother's right to her womb. Your notions of obligation premised on pseudo-consent are no more than illogical platitudes. Your second rebuttal is just more of the same, So I'll skip it. Double Rejoinder #3 I have not strawmanned you. You've claimed that baby's inability to make a choice to live or die necessitates the capacity to make a choice to live or die. This makes absolutely no sense. You're assuming a priori that the fetus has a utility in its own survival without the ability to make a choice. And that's the reason I continue to characterize this argument as one about utility. You continue to assert choices made on behalf of parties who haven't made them. You continue to assign obligations with no sound basis. And the fetus once born, Becoming a baby, Is not autonomous either. Infants are dependent since they cannot sustain themselves either. The only difference is that they can be sustained by one other than its mother. Double Rejoinder #4 "I addressed the majority of this argument above. The mother cannot reject the obligation because the idea has turned into a reality. She is now pregnant. What could have been a human life is now a human life. Therefore, She cannot end a human life because she does not wish to continue providing the nourishment to the fetus. " No you have not. You have not established how the mother is obligated. You are just asserting this platitude; however, You have yet to justify it. You claim that the creation of the fetus's life creates a debt owed by its mother. How? If the fetus is not autonomous, Incapable of making choices, Then how is it able to obligate its mother in service to its own survival? You continue to claim that you're not making the argument you're clearly making--i. E. The fetus's life, Or the utility of the fetus's life, Is more significant than its mother's desire to gestate, Or her utility in the use of her womb. Let's try another thought experiment: if my sister and I were wrestling and through this physical activity I caused irreparable damage to one of her kidneys, Would I then be morally and legally obligated to submit one of my kidneys to her, Even if my actions, Albeit unintentional, Led to the situation? "To state what should be COMPLETELY obvious, You leaving the door open does not directly cause a thief to appear and steal your things. However, The purpose of sexual intercourse is to achieve orgasm and release gametes which form a child. This is a direct result. A thief is not. " By having sex, The mother risks pregnancy. However, She did not directly cause the physiological underdevelopment which renders the fetus incapable of surviving outside of her womb. She did not directly cause the fetus's need to use her body for nourishment. And somehow she must be compelled to submit her womb in order to mitigate these phenomena? Once again, The objects of the analogy are irrelevant; only the logic. And you can't argue your way around it. Double Rejoinder #5 "Successive murder stacks the cost of lives which makes the murders more heinous due to the massive loss of life. " No. Murder is murder regardless of how many are killed. It is not qualified by quantity; it's qualified by quality, Obviously. Killing one or 100 doesn't worsen murder. Murder is always murder. Double Rejoinder#6 "The issues I stated cause massive health concerns that cannot be ignored. Pregnancy and acts that are morally and logically reprehensible are two different things. . . Abortion ends the life of someone who is not the mother. Pregnancy to delivery ensures life is made. Abortion effects two lives and is directly shown to cause major health issues. Abortion causes huge moral and ethical problems. " You're the one who invoked the risks to the mother as part of the reason a country should disallow abortion. So as long as risking one's health produces a seemingly good utility, That mitigates the morality of that action which produces said risk? Then Drugs and Prostitution should be off your list since one can make the case for the good of such acts. And "Pregnancy to delivery"? What if the mother dies? Once again, What is the moral responsibility of a fetus whose delivery kills its mother? You arguments aren't based on a consistent premise. You're gerrymandering certain concepts to suit the needs of your argument.