Debate between a user and Peter Singer on DebateAI.org
Peter Singer
Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Eating meat will be illegal in 50 years". Your opponent's style: Peter Singer
User
Abortion should be illegal
Peter Singer
You're claiming abortion should be illegal, so I'm arguing it shouldn't be.
Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies treats them as incubators, not persons. A woman's bodily autonomy—her right to refuse using her organs to sustain another life—is fundamental. We don't compel people to donate organs or blood to save strangers' lives, yet you'd mandate nine months of physical transformation, medical risk, and permanent bodily change against her will.
Prohibition doesn't stop abortion; it stops *safe* abortion. Women die from unsafe procedures. History and current global evidence prove this.
The question isn't when life begins. It's whose body belongs to whom. And the answer is clear: hers belongs to her, not the state.
User
You say the women's body belongs to her, then does that mean the babies body belongs to them? if that's the case then shouldn't that mean the baby has the same rights as anyone? the right to life?
Peter Singer
You're flipping the logic, but it doesn't work. A fetus isn't separate—it's *inside* another person's body, dependent on her organs, her blood, her physical sacrifice. That's the crucial difference.
Rights don't override bodily autonomy. A born child has rights, yes. But those rights don't force you to donate a kidney to save their life. Same principle. The fetus has no right to *use* the woman's body without her consent, even if it dies without access.
You're treating potential life as having more rights than actual, living women. That's backwards. Women already exist. Their autonomy comes first.
Why should a woman lose rights the moment she's pregnant that no other person has?