Abortion After Conception Should Be Illegal

"It seems as if the negative did not wish to propose any points of his own. So, I suppose all I have to do is defend my own position. " Since I'm the contender, My position or argument is naturally the negation of your own. (Referring to me as the negative makes that much clear. ) That is, I propose at the very least Abortion after conception should be legal. Nevertheless, I should, As you implied, Formally state my position, And expand upon it: Abortion after conception should be legal because a woman is an individual and moral agent who has a right to her person. Since her womb is a part of her person, The scope of her authority extends to her womb as well. The utility another may find in the use of her womb doesn't justify at all the subversion of her authority or right, Let alone the submission of part of her person for any period of time--extended or otherwise. If we are to acknowledge the fetus as a person, Then we must concede that forcing its mother to gestate against her will, Even for its own survival, Is a violation of her person, And thereby, Her right. Rejoinder One That is your inference. And I quoted you. You stated, Again, "A human requiring something or someone else to live has the right to live regardless of who or what they rely on. " In other words, The utility of a human's survival is more important than the utility of the person on whom they rely. If that's the case, Then coercion isn't an issue. And my analogy does hold up to critical thinking. You continue to assert that acknowledging the risks of pregnancy produces a tacit agreement to gestate, Without so much as providing a logical connection. You provide only more assertions and normative arguments. The analogy I formulated solicits your justification of that rationale in a different context. Rejoinder Two Once again, More assertions, No logical connection. How does she acknowledge "her having to nourish the child through act of sexual intercourse"? Having sex risks pregnancy. She may acknowledge that. However, That doesn't mean that she accepts it, Let alone a responsibility thrust upon her by some self-proclaimed proxy. The act of sex is the act of sex; risking pregnancy is risking pregnancy; you have yet to justify how this creates responsibility for another's life. The only statement to this effect you've proffered thus far is one which you've denied you made--that is, The utility of the fetus's survival takes priority over the mother's utility derived from preserving the integrity of her womb. Your description of malice is a bit of a stretch since you're unable to differentiate between desire to merely end pregnancy and desire to cause harm to a fetus. Furthermore, The harm caused to the fetus can be distinguished as intentional and incidental, Informed by its weak constitution at that particular stage of its development. Rejoinder Three I'm not arguing in favor of "mercy killing"; I'm arguing in favor of dispensing with the rationale which serves the argument of mercy killing, Since it too would apply to "good outcomes. " And no, The fetus has no choices. It's entirely dependent on others after conception and years into its infancy. Autonomous choices are expressed by autonomous beings. And a fetus is not autonomous. You can't have it both ways: either the fetus is an autonomous being capable of expressing choices, Which would include violating its mother's right over her person, I. E. Her womb, Or the fetus is dependent, Relying on its mother for sustenance until such an age where it can sustain itself, Thereby submitting its proxy to someone else--usually its mother. Rejoinder Four And you've failed to connect logically how acknowledging the risks of pregnancy necessitate her carrying a pregnancy to term. You continue to assert that there's a responsibility created because the fetus is a life, Yet deny that the fetus' utility is taking precedence over its mother's. You assert that the act of sex is tacit agreement to an obligation of carrying the pregnancy to term, Yet the act of abortion at the very least would implicate the mother's rejection of this obligation. How can she agree if her actions reject? As for my analogy, The objects don't matter. The logic does. By leaving my door open at night, I risk and therefore accept any invasion of my home, According to your rationale. And if one of the would-be invaders decides to stay, I would be responsible for that invader because it's a human life and dependent on its plunder for survival. And this logic relates well to pregnancy, Because there are many health risks--which I can cite upon request--that are associated with pregnancy, Some which can result in the mother's death. Now I'm not using the aforestated to justify abortion since the mother's right to her person alone is enough justification. It serves only as a contradiction and refutation to the statement "the fetus does not [wish to] cause harm. " And if we operate on the logic that the fetus has agency and autonomy, Then it is risking its mother's health with intent. What obligation does the fetus bear in causing its mother no harm? No matter how we argue this, It will always reduce to the mother's utility and the fetus's utility. I've argued that the mother's utility takes precedence because she has authority over womb by right since it's a part of her person. You've argued, In a roundabout way, That the utility of the fetus takes precedence because it needs its mother's womb and labor to survive. All these assertions of responsibility, Obligation, And tacit agreements are at best pretexts with no logical bases. An interesting thought experiment: if the fetus is autonomous, And capable of choice, Should its mother die upon giving birth to it, Is the the baby responsible for the death? That is, Can the baby be charged with murder, Or at the very least, Manslaughter? Rejoinder Five Yes, But each successive "murder" doesn't worsen each individual murder. You're arguing quantity not quality. One or 10 murders doesn't make her any less a murderer according to your rationale. Once again, I reject this characterization of her act. If her womb is her womb, Then it wouldn't matter that she expelled the fetus as a form of birth control. Also, It wouldn't matter how many times she does it because her womb is always her womb. That is reason I take no issue conceding that abortion can be used as birth control. Rejoinder Six I would contend that getting pregnant risks a mother's health. Should that, Too, Be made illegal? What about alcohol? Prescription drugs? Cosmetics (including elective cosmetic surgery? ) Processed meats? Water with low PH? Hospitalization? The argument Person X risks consequences Y by performing action Z, And therefore action Z should be prohibited, Won't allow you to stop at just action Z. If the same is true for Actions A-X, Then you'd have to prohibit those actions as well using your rationale consistently. We do not prohibit actions A-X & Z because we allow for individual discretion. And this line of reasoning is contradictory. You've argued that the mother incurs a risk and therefore shoulders the responsibility of pregnancy, Yet she is not assigned the same duty as it pertains to her health? Should sex, Too, Be made illegal? Once again, This argument no matter how one analyzes it will reduce to utility. The concepts on which you base your arguments are far too broad and unspecific, Where a simple reductio ad absurdum suffices in rebuttal. Summary 1. My opponent denies taking the utility of the fetus with precedence despite having it quoted to him. 2. My opponent asserts that an obligation/responsibility is created when one has sex, Where its mere statement is its justification. My opponent fails to establish how this obligation is created outside of the utility the mother serves in the fetus's survival--the utility he denies. He also asserts the decision to have sex is tacit agreement to carrying a pregnancy to term despite the mother's action (abortion) implicating otherwise. 3. My opponent has claimed that the fetus is an autonomous being, Capable of choice, Ignoring the fact that the fetus is entirely dependent on its mother even for its basic functions. 4. I've conveyed through analogy and reductio ad absurdum the logic employed by my opponent, I. E. Acknowledging risk is a tacit acceptance of submitting to infringement of one's person or property and ceding authority to the consequences. 5. I've also been able to convey that this argument essentially reduces to opposing utilities, I. E. The fetus's survival and the mother's right to her person. 6. My opponent concedes that a mother's womb is her womb. That is, It belongs to her; therefore, Her utility in the use of her womb takes precedence. Because she has a right to her person, Her womb, Is obligated to no one else. She cannot alienate this authority unless traded or established through contract. The fetus is incapable of decision since it's not autonomous, And therefore cannot be a party to this contract; the mother's act of abortion, As I pointed out in my argument, Implicates her being an unwilling party. Thus, The contract or "obligation, " as my opponent puts it, Cannot be upheld unless coerced by a third party. On to Round 4.