Pro-Life Results in Punishment for Women

Thank-you to all readers who have made it this far. You're almost there!I'm going to answer Pro's last round slightly out of order to make the most relevant issues front and centre and the least relevant argument at the end.RapePro stated in Round 4:"I was actually presenting Con an opportunity for a victory. The rape example illustrates the only way Con could keep his argument rationally consistent, which is to say that abortion should be banned in all circumstances. Only in that case is the undesired consequence of a woman losing her bodily rights the result of the unfortunate circumstances and not her own actions."Pro seems to ignore the fact that I did assert that under my reasoning rape is not an excuse for abortion and that the obligation to the child exists. From round 3:Her being pregnant is still a natural good to her (see Round 2), though not one that she voluntarily entered. She still has an obligation to the child as she is the only guardian of the child. It is possible to be obligated to something you did not agree to.I chose the example of a man enlisting into the army because I expected Pro to renegue on his pre-debate comment on rape. Becoming pregnant through rape is akin to being drafted. While the obligation was not voluntarily being entered into, the obligation still remains. And while it is more onerous because it was not entered into voluntarily, it is still not a punishment. Pro has ceded the debate to me because he has acknowledged that if what I claimed held true for rape then my argument won. He did not address my argument instead he tried to reverse that rape had ever been a topic of debate (Round 4):"Yet, I did fail to realize that Con already ruled out this option for himself in round one where he states: "This is about the generic condition of a pregnant woman who engaged in consensual sex"Yet in Round 3 Pro wrote:"Con has made it very clear that he is not embracing the position that a woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to terms in the event of rape." and in his concluding Round 3 statement:"If Con is claiming that a woman’s right to her own body is subject to be taken away as a result of the circumstance of being pregnant then he has to embrace forcing rape victims to carry the child to terms since it is the exact same circumstance." Thus it is blatantly clear that Pro knew exactly what he was doing in Round 3 and that this was no mere accident. He deliberately brought in the Rape issue even though he had previously agreed not to do so. Only when he got caught, not only with his hand in the cookie jar, but also with the trap I'd laid snapped shut on his hand, did he try to pretend he wasn't really reaching for the cookie.He makes one final desperate plea to distract the readers in Round 4:"And even if Con were to claim that he is for banning abortion in cases of rape I would still argue that Cons position is the minority view, making it largely irrelevant." This is simply an Argumentum ad Populum (http://en.wikipedia.org...) whereby he tries to claim my position is ignorable simply because it is not the majority opinion.At this point Pro has lost the debate, however I will rebut his remaining points for completeness.No WrongdoingI repeat once again, Pro introduced 3 definitions of Punishment in the first round each of them contained the word offense, fault, or wrongdoing. He has never shown any claim of offense, fault, or wrongdoing. He has failed to meet the criteria of a punishment by his own definitions.I have continuously argued that the woman has incurred an obligation and that there was no punishment. I showed how this paralleled what we demand of parents after birth.Every punishment that Pro introduced involved an associated offense or wrongdoing.If we looked at the man going to jail for eating a hot dog analogy introduced by Pro. You could say that a law that resulted in jail time for the accused was unjust, but at least there is an offense that has been committed. I have shown that being pregnant is a natural good to the woman and one that brings with it an obligation to the unborn child. Eating a hot dog is a natural good in that it nourishes the body. There is no natural causation between eating a hot dog and a resulting obligation to go to jail. There is however a natural cause between having sex and becoming pregnant.Implicit Agreement Con is trying to argue that you do not have to live with the consequences of your actions. Nature has certain laws and effects. We can not desire the outcomes, however it does not mean that you have a right to avoid them.And let's use the term introduced by Pro. Idiot.Is someone walking on the thin ice of a deep pond or river an idiot? Yes. He doesn't desire to fall through and drown, but that is the natural outcome of what he is doing.Is someone speeding on icy roads with summer tires an idiot? Yes. While he doesn't intend to hurt or damage he'd be required to make restitution for any damage or death they cause.Is someone who is engaging in the reproductive act (sex) without being ready to accept the child that may result an idiot? Yet. I know this may offend many of the readers, but if you do not think through the natural and obvious consequences of your actions, you meet Pro's definition of an idiot. However, even though someone does not think through the results of their actions does not mean that no obligations are incurred from their actions.MiscellaneousOnce again: Child swearing at the dinner table. Obligation broken = disobeying parental etiquette rules. Punishment - grounded.Murderer. Obligation broken = ending the life of another human being. Punishment - jail.These have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Pro has refused to present an offense real or not. That obligations limit our actions and are sometimes completely undesired does not make them punishments.ConclusionI have clearly shown that our actions have natural outcomes. These outcomes can produce natural goods for us. Sometimes these outcomes were not actively desired, but still involved obligations:A man wants a subsidized education by joining the army, but unfortunately gets sent to war.By being employed you incur an obligation to society to pay taxesBy having a child you have an obligation to provide for the needs of that child. In fact many biological fathers who have separated from the mother have minimal interaction with their children have a duty to pay support for the child.While obligations may involve undesired consequences, that does not make an obligation a punishment.Natural obligations are entered into through natural acts.Pro has failed to show that the child is not a natural good to the mother or that "Pro-Life Results in Punishment for Women" as he has been unable to show a punishable offense, fault, or wrongdoing. He has simply assumed this whole debate that it is a punishment without being able to meet the criteria laid out by the very definitions he introduced.Additionally, Pro conceded the debate with the Rape issue.I thank any reader that have managed to make it all the way to the end of this debate. I believe you can see why we were unable to resolve this debate in the forums. I look forward to your opinions on this.