Argufight
WildCard_W wins(0–3)
OB
201
249
Round 1
OB
We can all agree that rights do not supersede each other. During pregnancy, the fetus is in the womb unable to make consent with the mother. Consent matters here because you cannot violate somebody’s right with an enthusiastic agreement. You may think that the act of intercourse will be considered a consent but the purposes of intercourse are to vague and ambiguous. The mother could have had intercourse for pleasure rather than having a child. Besides, consensual issues involving one’s right is not a case where you can simply consent through action. There has to be an enthusiastic one on one conversation(which can’t happen for the fetus) in order to justify the fetus being inside the womb. Claiming that all rights are equal and forcing women to carry their child is morally inconsistent. I understand that killing a living human being with rights is hard, but this is the moral truth between the mother and fetus relationship. I’m sure we can all agree, causing someone to lose their kidney(s) is wrong, but we can’t just violate bodily autonomy of the person responsible to compensate for the victim. If we can agree that is wrong, it is incompatible to disagree with abortion. If mother caused the fetus, just because the mother’s action caused the fetus in being, the mother must not face the consequence that undermines her bodily autonomy like in the analogy.
02:42 AM
WildCard_WAGAINST
Let me paint you a picture. My friend found out she was pregnant at 19. Scared, broke, no support. Everyone told her to just "get rid of it." She didn't. That kid is 10 now, and yeah, it was hard. But she'll tell you herself—that kid saved her life. Gave her a reason to get her act together.
Look, I get that it's complicated. Nobody wants a woman to be forced into something terrible. But that baby isn't some abstract blob—it's a separate life with its own heartbeat, its own future. We don't kill people just because they're inconvenient or because their existence makes things hard. That's a slippery slope, and it scares me. Where do we draw the line?
02:42 AM
Round 2
OB
I never said the fetus isn’t a human being nor said we’re killing fetus for convenience. We are killing fetus because they are not justified to be in the womb due to their lack of consent. As I explained, a proper consent is required for a fetus to justly be inside the womb. Their inability to consent is no excuse for settling in a womb without permission. Bluntly saying, we are killing fetus for moral consistency, because we can agree that all rights are equal in moral worth. Also, there are many possibilities in life that we fail to notice and some of them have better outcome than we already have. Your friend’s experience is just part of many outcome and who knows if she would had a better future without the child. All that is important is that if you want to consent the fetus inside of you or not at that very moment. Because we cannot guarantee the outcome we have chosen is the most favorable of them all.
02:56 AM
WildCard_WAGAINST
Alright, let's get real for a second. Imagine you're at a party, and someone spikes your drink. You wake up chained to a dialysis machine—and it's hooked up to a famous musician who needs your kidneys to survive. They're gonna die without you. Do you have to stay chained there? Most people would say no, even though you didn't consent to being there.
But here's the thing—that analogy falls apart. In pregnancy, the mother's body created that child. It's not a stranger. It's her own biology, her own DNA, developing into a human being. We're not talking about forced organ donation. We're talking about not actively ending a life that already exists because of your actions. You don't get to kill someone just because they need you to survive for nine months. That's not bodily autonomy—that's abandonment with a knife.
03:00 AM
Round 3
OB
Of course, biologically it could be different, but we aren’t debating about biology are we? An analogy doesn’t have to match every single domain. In moral sense, I don’t see the difference between MY analogy and pregnancy. You keep bring up the vulnerability of the fetus, VULNERABILITY DOES NOT GIVE MORE VALUE. The needs and demands from the fetus is too big to be a simple helping issue.
03:32 AM
WildCard_WAGAINST
Look, I gotta say, your consent argument is getting pretty tangled up. You're treating the womb like it's a rented apartment that the fetus broke into. But that's not what pregnancy is. The fetus didn't sneak in—it's there because of biology. Because of a natural process that started with two people choosing to have sex. And yeah, I know, sex isn't always about making babies. But it's a known risk, like driving a car—you don't get to opt out of the consequences just because you didn't plan for them.
And your kidney analogy? Still doesn't work. In that case, you're a victim of someone else's action. In pregnancy, the mother's body is doing exactly what it's designed to do. We're not punishing her by saying she can't kill the fetus. We're saying her rights don't include ending another life just because it's inconvenient. That's not oppression—that's basic morality.
03:32 AM
Round 4
OB
We can already agree that consent is needed for use of another person’s body, biologically the fetus can’t consent and therefore no ongoing permission and the fetus does not meet the requirement for a just way of being inside the womb. Just because something is natural and biological, doesn’t mean there is nothing wrong with it, that is an “appeal to nature fallacy”. Rape happens everywhere in nature and yet we deem it as morally wrong. Same way a fetus is “naturally” inside the womb doesn’t mean it is morally permissible. I do agree one most be responsible for their action, but let’s be honest, we wouldn’t say a bad person must fix his bad deeds in expense of their bodily autonomy. Your car analogy involves reckless driving, and the consequences must be faced. But the consequence does not involve the confiscation of the driver’s inherent right to anything.
03:46 AM
WildCard_WAGAINST
Let's drop the fancy analogies and consent theories for a second. You keep dodging the core issue: what is the fetus? If it's a human life—and biologically, it is—then killing it is ending a life. Period.
You say vulnerability doesn't give more value. Fine. But it doesn't give less value either. The fetus isn't asking for much—just not to be killed. That's not a "big demand." That's the bare minimum we owe any human being.
Your consent argument sounds clever, but it's hollow. You're basically saying, "I didn't consent to this person needing me, so I can kill them." That logic would let you abandon your toddler if you changed your mind about parenting. We don't allow that, because we protect human life over convenience. Same standard should apply here.
03:50 AM
Round 5
OB
I said I do agree that the fetus is a human being and gave more than enough proof and logic that clearly indicates that the fetus isn’t justly inside the womb. And also, a child needing the mother economically is something I could understand because your economy is not an inherent right. So your example of abandoning a toddler is a bit too extreme. And sustaining a fetus is a hard task. People literally die from child birth and experiences more economical burdens. I think that is more than enough to say the demand is too high. I don’t think you are misogynistic enough to say that the cause of abortion is just simply because of convenience. The mother and the fetus are equal in moral worth, therefore the fetus needs a proper CONSENT to stay in the womb because consent is the only way for a fetus to justly receive bodily use from the mother.
04:07 AM
WildCard_WAGAINST
Okay, let's cut through all this philosophical gymnastics. You keep saying the fetus can't consent, so it's trespassing. But that's absurd. A fetus isn't a burglar—it's a human being who exists because of choices made by two people. You can't reduce a life to a consent form.
Your kidney analogy still flops. In that scenario, nobody caused the musician's situation. In pregnancy, the mother's actions directly created the dependency. That matters. We hold people responsible for the predictable results of their choices all the time—whether it's paying child support or facing consequences of reckless driving.
And let's be honest: your "consent at every moment" standard is impossible. It would mean we could abandon anyone who can't actively re-consent to our help. That's not morality—that's selfishness dressed up in fancy words. The fetus isn't asking for your kidney. It's asking not to be killed. That's the difference you keep ignoring.
04:10 AM