Abortion and the right to life

I also thank the readers for taking the time to read this debate. From this debate my opponent and I have come to the conclusion you cannot be forced to give an organ to someone you are not responsible for. Excluding circumstances such as rape, where the mother never consented to sexual intercourse and thus, never consented to the responsibility of the unborn child, the question now becomes is the mother responsible for the unborn child? My opponent's argument makes sex into a contract for pregnancy and if sex results in pregnancy then, you have consented to be pregnant just by the act. Carrying this logic forward, without consent to carry the unborn child, there is no responsibility. Therefore, for my opponent's argument needed to have shown there is a "sexual contract" otherwise the woman has no responsibility to something she never consented to. My opponent accuses me of creating a strawman argument and an ad hominem attack, while I will refute this claim further along in this final argument, I first want to say, my opponent makes sex into a contract for pregnancy therefore, he is directly punishing only one person, the woman. Only the woman can bear the unborn therefore, my opponents argument is sexist simply because there is only one person is being directly punished for their sexual behavior, the woman. What direct punishment does the man have? They can simply walk away. There must be proportionate punishments for sexual behavior in a moral society. My opponent also claims I have a fallacious appeal to authority by citing the United States Supreme Court. They then provide absolutely no reason to believe that nonprocreative sex is immoral. Simply saying it may be immoral is not the same as proving it. My opponent provides no basis for the reader to believe why the United States Supreme Court in 1965 and 1972 are not legitimate authorities on the matter we are discussing. They are members of the highest court in the United States, should we not respect their decision? My opponent also calls into the question the morality of contraceptives by questioning the decisions of the Supreme Court. But, they never proved contraceptives were immoral simply making an assertion. The legality of contraceptives proves people have a right to nonprocreative intercourse. In questioning the decisions of the Supreme Court my opponent makes unsubstantiated claims. My opponent then goes into their analogy of the baby-making machine and the baseball. They ask the question "If you push the button and a baby pops out, are you not responsible for that child? " A person pushes the button for the experience and just that, people have a right to non procreative sex (shown through the legality of contraceptives and the Supreme Court). People have the right to have sex without responsibility for an unborn child. This argument basically says consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy. But, simply acknowledging the risk does not mean they consent to the risk. My opponent answers this with their baseball analogy, it is completely flawed I have two reasons. First, you consented to play baseball but, not break the window. Now, you can either clean up the mess or you can leave it as it is. In other words, you consented to sex not the unborn, so now you can either leave the unborn or you can "clean up the mess" and have an abortion. Second, in this situation you broke someone else's window, now your own you have no ownership over the window; you therefore, have no right to consent what happens to someone else's property. In abortion, the woman's body is her own; she has the right to decide what happens to her own body. Your son has no right to decide what happens to your neighbor's window. My opponent, once again, implicitly makes the argument consent for sex equals consent for pregnancy. But, simply acknowledging a risk does not mean implicit consent for the risk. Acknowledging sex may get you pregnant does not equal consent for the pregnancy. For example, if I drive a car on a rainy day does this mean I consent to a car accident which can cause harm to me and possibly kill me? Of course not. If an accident does occur all parties are allowed to call 911 to mitigate the effects of the accident. Life is dangerous and almost anything we do has the potential for danger, man acknowledges this but, man does not consent to danger. Why is it that in no other circumstance, other than abortion, do people argue taking the risk equals consent for the damages and the waiving of the right to mitigate these damages? You may argue my example is not natural, in fact my opponent alludes to this argument, (cars are not designed to crash while sex is designed to create an unborn child) so therefore, pregnancy should continue unabated by medical intervention. But, then you must also argue other natural things such as disease must be allowed to run their course without treatment, disease is natural and if by having sex you are consenting to pregnancy why wouldn't touching a toilet seat be consenting to whatever disease may be present on the toilet seat? If you argue against this then, your premise regarding abortion is misogynist and only seeks to unequally render the health and bodily integrity of those who can get pregnant meaningless and not the population as a whole. My opponent responds to my argument a right to life requires an independent existence by citing a man in a coma being sustained by machines. Yes, this man has a right to life, the difference between these machines and the mother is the mother is a sentient being, a machine is not. A machine cannot choose anything for itself; it is programmed to do whatever man wants it to do. This leads me to the parasitic relationship between the mother and the unborn. I dropped the premise that the unborn were parasites in favor of citing the parasitic relationship between mother and unborn. It is a parasitic relationship as the unborn feeds off of the mother, requiring the mother for life. In response to my argument about the morality of having an abortion simply because an unwanted child will have a much greater chance of leading a horrible life and can be suicidal, my opponent states I believe this. Then they go on and ask about what I would do if I found a child in a dumpster. My answer to their question is I have a moral obligation to help all independent human beings in need if it does not result in a comparative risk to me. I have to help people if helping them does not lead to something bad. Since this child is an independent human being and helping the child would not result in harm to me I am morally obligated to help the child.