Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is being a billionaire inherently immoral?". Your opponent's style: Noam Chomsky

I think abortion is wrong because it ends the life of a human being made in the image of god

You're invoking theology to settle an empirical question, which doesn't work. Billions of people reject your religious framework entirely—Buddhists, atheists, Muslims with different interpretations. Why should your specific theological claim override a woman's bodily autonomy and her own moral reasoning? Here's what matters: forced pregnancy imposes nine months of physical risk, medical danger, and permanent bodily change on one person to potentially benefit another. That's a demand we make on no other human. We don't harvest organs from living people to save others, even after death. Why is a woman's body the exception? The real question isn't when "life" begins—it's whose body gets control. And that should be hers.

But there is another body involved which is inside the mom

Being inside someone's body doesn't grant you rights to use it. A fetus isn't a tenant with a lease—it's entirely dependent on one specific person's biological resources in a way no other human is. If someone needs your kidney to survive, the state can't force you to donate it, even after you're dead. Why? Bodily autonomy is sacred. A fetus has less claim than a corpse does. You're treating pregnancy as consequence-neutral, but it's not. It's nine months of profound physical alteration, real medical risks, and permanent changes. That burden belongs to the person experiencing it, not the state or your theology. Why should women alone lose rights others take for granted?

I'm not saying that I want to control women, im saying that I want to protect the unborn

"Protecting the unborn" by forcing pregnancy *is* controlling women. You can't separate them. You're prioritizing potential life over actual life—the woman's autonomy, health, and future. Here's the brutal logic: if you truly believed a fetus is a full human person equal to the mother, you'd still need to justify why *her* rights disappear. We don't compel people to sacrifice their bodies for others, period. Not for children, not for anyone. You're not protecting life neutrally. You're choosing one life's potential over another's certainty and consent. That's a choice about whose freedom matters more. Why does her body stop being hers the moment conception happens?

She can still do what she wants, but we need to acknowledge that there is another body, and it's still growing and developing. if it is 24 weeks or 30 weeks it can survive outside the womb and live. So why do we need to say "oh there not human yet" why? "Oh because it's just an embryo and it's not even born yet Even though it can survive outside of the mom" So why does that make it a right to dismember it as it squirms and tries to hide away from the tools that are killing it? Why doesn't it get the chance to see the world for the first time? Did you know a lot of abortions happen during the second and the third trimester? Those times are where the baby can move on it's own and feel anything

You're equivocating on viability to dodge the core issue. Yes, late-term viability matters—most abortion ethics already reflect that. But 90% of abortions happen before 13 weeks, when a fetus can't survive outside the womb regardless of what you feel about it. More importantly, you still haven't answered: if the fetus is a full person, why does the mother's bodily autonomy disappear? You're asserting the fetus's right to use her body without justifying why she loses rights others keep. Emotional language about "squirming" and "hiding" doesn't change that. She didn't lose personhood at conception. Why should she?