Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion

It's always nice to get a page 1 super-star down here in the trenches for a verbal fire-fight. My opponent has chosen to argue that men should have equal say (50%), therefore that is to the extent his BoP must be fulfilled. In this round I will establish that the final decision should ultimately rest with the pregnant woman (>50% say) due to the five reasons listed below. Before continuing, as my opponent pointed out it has not been specified which party, be it the mother or the father, wanted an abortion to occur. This was done intentionally as the arguments I am about to present are sound in both cases. Let's begin:Mother Wants; Father Does Not 1. Self-Ownership We must first consider which party actually carries the burden of being pregnant. It is the mother. As my opponent has stated, he will be arguing that the man should have 50% say in the decision. His contention is most likely rooted in the argument that the man is responsible for half the child's genetic code, but keep in mind that that on top of the woman being the one carrying the child, she also has contributed equally to the child's genome. Since both share equal say when we look only at the genes, the final arbitration must come down to some other factor. That factor is self-ownership. To argue that the man should have equal say in a woman's abortion because he contributed 50% to the child's genome is to argue that the man should also have equal say and control over the woman's body. As stated in round one, this debate is under the assumption of a typical pregnancy devoid of any prior contracts. Therefore, as no agreement has been made otherwise, the woman retains her right to change her mind about what happens within her own body. To put this argument in a single sentence; the man's “50% genetic contribution” claim is trumped by the woman's 50% contribution claim in tandem with her right to change her mind over her own body. If the man took over half the pregnancy, then the responsibility (and therefore the say) would be equal, but this is not the case, so the final say must rest with the woman. 2. Not 50% Previously I had talked about how both parties contribute 50% to the child's genome. This was merely for the sake of argument. The truth is, the mother actually contributes slightly more than the man (up to 3.5% more) [1]. This means even if we look at the genetic argument exclusively, we still must conclude that the mother has greater than 50% say, and therefore the final say. 3. Relinquish Ownership of Sperm Imagine person A gave person B some wood (. .. the kind from trees). Let's say person B decided to build a dresser out of said wood, with slightly more than half of the wood going into the dresser coming from wood person B already had. Let us then imagine that, for whatever reason, person B no longer wished to carry out the project and decided to scrap it. Would person A have the right to stop person B from doing so? Of course not. Likewise, when a man gives a woman his sperm voluntarily, he is doing just that – giving it. She is therefore free to do with it what she chooses as he has relinquished ownership of it. Now of course we are talking about genetic material, not wood, so there are some restrictions to what she can do, but those limitations do not cover NOT doing anything with said material. Just as person B retains the right to NOT finish making a dresser, so too must the woman retain the right to NOT make a child. One might object to this argument by saying that the man did indeed give his sperm to the woman, but he gave it to her specifically for her to make a baby out of it, and therefore the woman does not retain the right to opt out. Be that as it may, as stated earlier no sort of contract had been signed relinquishing the woman of her sovereignty, and so any agreement made between the two is subject to change at the will of the party with the most say in the matter, and given that the woman contributes the most genetically and carries the child within her own body exclusively, the woman must be the party with the final say over how the pregnancy progresses, all else being equal. 4. 50% is not 50% Just for the sake of argument, let's assume there is an even 50/50 split in say over the fetus. What happens? A deadlock tie, one might say, where nothing is done with the fetus until some sort of agreement is reached. However, this is outcome is not representative of a 50/50 share in say as this outcome is in favour of the opposing party so long as no agreement is reached. Either the fetus is aborted or it is not aborted, there is no neutral position and therefore there cannot be an even 50/50 split in say. One side must have more say for one reason or another. Therefore, my opponent is forced to abandon his original argument and argue that the man should have greater say (as this is his only option left outside of agreeing with the affirmative). I leave it to Con to justify why the man should have more say. 5. Ownership of the Fetus It has not been established that the fetus is property in the first place. Yes the parents made the child, and yes they would be responsible for it, but it is still a human being and therefore not property. Given this, if the child is not viewed as property, the argument about the parents sharing equal genetic contribution is a moot point and so the only relevant argument is who owns the host body. As it so happens, that belongs to the mother. I leave it to Con to (on top of defending against my argument of the woman contributing slightly more genetic material than the father) justify why this argument is relevant to begin with. In other words, to justify why a fetus should be viewed as property where “shares” can be divided like stock in a company. Father Wants; Mother Does Not It is clear that most of the above arguments also apply to this scenario, with some requiring just a few tweaks. 1. Self Ownership In this case, we are talking about a forced, involuntary abortion. I leave it to Con to justify why the man should have the right to force the woman into an abortion. If Con so chooses to drop this point, it is then his burden to argue why the father's say only applies when he's anti-abortion and why his say vanishes when the positions are reversed. 2. Not 50% No changes needed. 3. Relinquish Ownership of Sperm In this case Con must argue why the man should be able to force the woman into an abortion when he willingly gave baby-making material to the woman (presumably with the intention to make a baby). If he chooses to drop this point, it is then his burden to differentiate between the two scenarios an in point 1. 4. 50% is not 50% No changes needed.5. Ownership of the FetusNo changes needed. Conclusion To conclude, Con has an enormous effort ahead of him if he wants to adequately defend his position. He must argue that the fetus is property first and foremost, then he must argue that the man has greater than 50% share in the fetus (as a 50/50 split cannot actually exist when the topic is abortion) despite the fact that he does not contribute 50% of the fetus' genes, then he must argue that he still owns his >50% share despite having voluntarily given his “shares” to the woman, then finally he must argue that his shares over the fetus also trumps her ownership over her own body – then he must do the same for the reverse scenario, or at least somehow show that the two scenarios are different enough to justify dropping the later points. If he cannot do all of this, then his BoP will not be fulfilled. As I have shown why the final say should rest with the mother and not the father, the resolution has been affirmed. I turn this debate over to Con. 1. . http://www.madsci.org...