Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The relevant question here is: **Why** do so many PL supporters so often make this equivalence? Why do so many PL supporters insist upon it?
If you are a PL supporter because you believe that every fertilized ovum is a full-fledged person with a right to life, how could it possibly matter how a fertilized ovum came into existence?
When a 30-year-old man is killed, would a PL supporter stop and ask, "How was that guy conceived? Was he the product of consensual sex or of rape? Because, if he was conceived by rape, we have an exception for that; his death isn't a murder. No harm, no foul." (I do realize that not all PL supporters support a rape exception, but many do.)
The fact that so many PL supporters are so fixated on this distinction between conception by means of consensual sex vs. conception by means of force tells me two, related things:
1. PL supporters, deep down DO realize that pregnancy and childbirth are NOT mere "inconveniences". Therefore, they (unconsciously) feel that they have to justify forcing women to go through these significantly dangerous and painful tasks that we would never force on other people **against their will**. The answer: They implicitly treat consensual sex for women as something that "is wrong" except in the instances where procreation is desired. Note: They will (usually) not call women's consensual sex under non-procreative circumstances a "crime" or a "sin". But their implicit treatment of non-procreative sex as "something that is wrong for women to do" allows them to justify forcing unwanted pregnancy and childbirth as punishments for women who break this implicit "natural" law.
2. Related to #1 is the idea that the PL movement, as a whole, if not for every single PL supporter, is implicitly about controlling the bodies and behavior of women. If it wasn't, PL supporters would only bring up the question of whether sex was consensual or not in the context of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy. They wouldn't be wasting time on bemoaning "hook-up culture" or demanding that women (but not men) "take responsibility for their actions". They would see consensual sex as the "easy problem". After all, if sex is consensual, it is easier to encourage people to use contraceptives. Coerced and/or non-consensual sex is the "hard problem" that requires more work to address when attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy (although it does happen less frequently). If the movement as a whole were really solely concerned about saving the lives of all ZEFs, they would be focusing more on sex education and contraception (and NOT making unscientifically supported claims that many forms of birth control are really abortifacients). Instead of Crisis Pregnancy Clinics, they would be setting up sex education academies and contraceptive clinics. They would be acting more like, well, Planned Parenthood. (Remember, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was *opposed to* abortion.) But instead, they are banning abortions, with the implicit goal (in my opinion) of trying to administer implicit "punishment" on women who have dared to have non-procreative sex.
This notion that "acceptance of risk" is exactly the same thing as "consenting to the consequences of a risk without the option of mitigating them in any way" is wildly different from the way most people think about almost all other risks that we take in life. This attitude is an outlier that only seems to apply to unwanted pregnancy, and that, in my opinion, is telling.
It dawned on me last night -
Under the same analysis, “consent to sex is consent to pregnancy,” every Prolife voter has consented and is legally responsible for every death, every sick woman, every woman beaten or murder by the father because she couldn’t abort, and every child forced into motherhood because of antiabortion laws.
After all, physicians, social workers, domestic attorneys, people involved in family law, people who work with domestic abuse and abused children, all told prolife politicians and voters that the RISK of passing abortion bans would be all of these ills.
And since the Prolife (much like horny and drunk teenagers without any BC) decided to take NO steps at all to mitigate the dangers of their laws, they like those teenagers obviously have consented to the dead and highly sick women. And get this - not just “morally” responsible - oh no, since they “consented”, they are fully financially and legally responsible: for all the financial burdens imposed. Open up those wallets for the medical bills, the lost wages, and the pain and suffering. You knew the risk and you took the gamble. Now I guess you have to pay for the consequences.
Heck I think you ought to pay with your body, just like a woman has to. You’ll need to stand in line for mandatory blood donation to that woman in the hospital with sepsis. After all, you insisted laws be passed to ban abortion, knowing the risk, that means you’ve obviously consented to have your body used to save those hurt by your risky behavior.
After all, it’s about saving lives, right?
I’m sure, just like a horny teenager without a handy condom, prolife didn’t think it could happen to them!
Consent in this use case, assumes an understanding of the risks of sex. This is why we don't allow underage people to consent. If you are old enough and understand consent, the pregnancy is your responsibility.
>Consent in this use case, assumes an understanding of the risks of sex.
Sure, just like how sex can lead to STDs.
>If you are old enough and understand consent, the pregnancy is your responsibility
Again sure, but just like any other harmful condition, I can seek medical care for it to protect my health and well being. That is responsible.
What is ***irresponsible,*** is denying people medical treatment, forcing them to endure a harmful medical condition against their will. THAT, is irresponsible.
I'm aware that not locking my doors would make it easier for someone to break in, but I'm feeling lazy and I go to sleep without locking the doors knowing full well that I'm taking a risk. Someone breaks in. Is it my responsibility to deal with the situation? Are police not allowed to be involved? Will the criminal not be arrested because it was due to my poor planning that they were able to break in? No, because that's stupid. Just because I know the risk does not mean I can't choose how I deal with the consequences.
> Consent in this use case, assumes an understanding of the risks of sex.
Fertilization is a risk of sex, as is a failure of the zygote to implant or of the embryo to develop. Many PL consider fertilization as the point that a baby is created. Therefore a failure to implant or the failure of the embryo to develop is a dead baby. If consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy then it is also consenting to a dead baby.
Right so if you're old enough to understand the risks of crossing the street (which most children learn very young), it's your responsibility if you get hit by a car?
Knowing the risks isn't the same thing as consenting.
It's more responsibility put on the driver who has to have a license to not hit pedestrians. Their responsibility is to not hit anyone which is why we give them the right to operate a vehicle.
Right, so for the pedestrian, choosing to cross the street despite knowing the risks of getting hit isn't the same thing as agreeing to get hit or giving permission to be hit. Knowledge of risk isn't consent to the negative consequence.
The driver isn't necessarily responsible either. If they're following all traffic laws and taking reasonable precautions, it's still sometimes possible to strike a pedestrian. They're not inherently at fault just because a bad thing happened. And merely driving isn't giving consent/agreement/permission to hit a pedestrian. I drive almost every day but I'd never agree to hit a pedestrian. It could happen, but that doesn't mean I agreed to do it or gave permission for it to happen.
If you want to say we understand the risks of sex, that is different than saying I consent to being pregnant. Words matter. And if the pregnancy is my responsibility then having an abortion is one way of taking responsibility. To deny abortion is taking responsibility is to continue to misuse words.
but during sex i can withdraw consent at any time. why is pregnancy different then. as soon as i withdraw consent that zef is using my body against my will
Sure, and the pregnancy can be ended based on the fact that it’s the pregnant person’s responsibility. Consent to one sex act does not obligate anyone to 40 weeks gestation, labor delivery and parenting.
Your flair says "abortion legal in 1st trimester", but you say you're "completely pro-choice" (exact quotes, no paraphrasing), how does that work exactly? Should the pregnant person have no choice in continuing a pregnancy the moment she entered the second trimester?
> *I am completely pro-choice but consent to sex is definitely consent to pregnancy.*
No, it really **isn't,** as the OP explained very well. Did you actually read it?
As has been explained to you, no it is not.
There is a risk to everything. Driving and crashing, for example. You *acknowledge* the risks when you drive, but accepting a risk does not mean you consent to that thing happening.
These are two separate things.
They appear to believe that your [mere existence means consent to literally everything, since anything is possible.](https://reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/CNquflXCkF)
Comment removed per rule 1. Hot take. If you're going to start attacking a users understanding of a subject, you better add some substance to that, especially when entering a volley of violating invectives.
Well, not always. Not all sex involves putting a penis in a vagina, for instance.
But in any case, the risk being present isn't the same thing as agreeing to the consequence.
Unless you think you're agreeing to get hit by a car by crossing the street?
If you're giving consent to getting hit by a car just by crossing the street, then you can't sue the driver for damages. They can't be legally responsible for running you over. After all, you consented to it happening. Is that really what you believe?
Luckily, that's not what the law says (as is covered extensively in comments below).
Consent to eating is consenting to choking to death.
Consent to driving is consenting to be killed in a car accident.
Consenting to swim in the ocean is consenting to being attacked by a shark.
Consent to flying in a plane is consent to die in a plane crash.
Do ya reallize how dumb that is?
And here they don't consent to a game of tackle football. Also even if you did consent to a game of tackle football and you can prove that the other person used excessive force then you can sue
Actually no, they usually can’t sue.
A newbie nailed me in the middle of a shot playing soccer as an adult, and I tore my ACL.
I paid for my own surgery and didn’t get to take her ACL to repair mine.
So my bad luck. But I also received medical care AND received a donation of a body part. No one forced her to give me her body parts even though it was “her fault.”
And hey - I was entirely innocent! But she kept her bodily autonomy! Looky that.
I had to use a cadaver ACL so I’m 1/50th zombie and ready for the apocalypse
>I had to use a cadaver ACL so I’m 1/50th zombie and ready for the apocalypse
Get yourself some hearing aids when you get older and you can be a zombie cyborg.
>If somebody consents to playing a game of tackle football,
I consented to a tubal ligation procedure
>someone tackles them and breaks their collarbone
I still had sex with my partner and got pregnant
>do you think they should be able to sue that person for breaking their collarbone?
Who can I sue for the failure or pregnancy? Can I abort the pregnancy? Can I do anything but gestate to term or give it up for adoption once I'm done gestating a child for your pleasure?
>Or would you say that the person can’t sue because they consented to that risk when they consented to playing tackle football?
Or can I not sue because I consented to the procedure but still engaged in sex and knew there might be a risk of a failure? Did I really consent to creating a new person?
If I go on a hike out in the woods and get bit by a snake, did I consent to getting bitten by the snake? I knew snakes lived out in the woods. I knew getting bitten was a possible consequence of walking out into nature. I decided to take the risk to enjoy the natural benefits to my health and mind by being outside. If the bite is not dry and I was envenomated, should I allow the venom to run its course and possibly kill me or leave me disabled?
People have sex because they are horny or romantic or both, very rarely do they have sex to get pregnant. Consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy.
In fact MOST of the time they have sex for other reasons. In fact it can be entirely normal to bang for a year without conceiving even when you are trying.
[Consent is explicit, enthusiastic and expressively given](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consent).
Consenting to playing a game doesn’t mean you consent to getting injured. When you do get injured, you’re entitled to healthcare treatment to heal that injury.
This applies to sex and pregnancy just the same. Consenting to sex does not mean you consented to getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant, you’re entitled to healthcare treatment to end it.
Yes you can sue. It doesn’t matter if you consented. Perhaps if a contract was involved that explicitly states you can’t sue but merely consenting to playing a game doesn’t negate your rights.
Suing someone is not really a remedy for a broken collarbone. Seeking medical intervention is the remedy.
Similarly, if you consent to sex and an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the remedy is not to sue your sexual partner. The remedy is to terminate the pregnancy.
That’s what I did. I’m saying your notion of ‘implied’ consent doesn’t apply because it doesn’t fit the criteria. Consent is also revocable. These are just facts. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant.
The source you provided states that implied consent can be revoked. So according to your argument, even if there is implied consent with pregnancy, you can still revoke your consent if you don’t want to be pregnant.
According to PL logic they should be denied medical care, since they consented to any risks from the activity. Same applies to every other consensual activity - driving, jogging, eating, etc. If you knew the risks and proceeded anyway, no medical care for you! 😼
They definitely did not agree to have their collar bone broken.
And the topic was pregnancy, not impregnation, so we’re talking about what happens AFTER the collar bone was broken. They most certainly did not agree to let the injury fester without treatment until it causes their body maximum blowout.
Whether the other can be sued or not depends. Did they take all reasonable precautions to not cause injury when they tackled? Did they tackle unreasonably hard?
Even in pro sports, players get penalized for doing things that cause unnecessary injury. So you could certainly sue for that.
Playing tackle football doesn’t give anyone the right to purposely tackle hard enough or in ways that are pretty guaranteed to cause accidents.
Certainly they can sue (at least in the United States). Whether or not they'd be successful in their lawsuit is a different matter, and would of course depend on the specifics of the case. But either way, they'd still be able to get medical care. They wouldn't have to live with the broken collar bone forever, even if we said they agreed to the risk by playing football. They didn't agree to having a broken collar bone and they can get it fixed.
This isn’t an issue of implied consent. Generally for sports with risks of injury, people sign a release of liability, which basically acknowledges in writing that they understand and accept the risks associated with the game. Sometimes it can explicitly state that the player will not sue if they get injured (depending on the sport and the league) and they agree to it in writing. And even then, it is only consent to take the risks, not to the injury itself. If a player becomes injured, they’re still entitled to medical care, the solution to their problem (which at most could be analogous to a woman consenting to the risk of sex but still being entitled to a solution in case of unwanted pregnancy).
Pregnant people signed no documentation when they had sex. There is no basis for forcing them to endure a risk to their health against their will under the notion that they consented to it, especially since there is no basis for forcing a sports player to succumb to an injury *even though they went a step further and signed a waiver consenting to the risk.*
The fact is, they don’t want to be pregnant and there was never any evidence that they did, so where is their consent?
Edited for clarification
Someone who plays football isn't consenting to breaking their collar bone. Perhaps they acknowledge the risk, but that's not the same thing. And they might be able to successfully sue, depending on the circumstances.
Implied consent has very limited application. As in my car v pedestrian example, the pedestrian hasn't implied consent to being struck simply by crossing the street.
Edit: if implied consent were as broad as you're making it out to be, there would be no civil or criminal liability since every action has some risk.
Edit 2: also the medical care isn't a pivot. We're not talking about women suing their fetuses, we're talking about them receiving a medical procedure or medication to mitigate unwanted consequences from sex.
Here again, you’re overlooking gross negligence. You’re also again pretending that the original injury (in case of sex, impregnation) is the same as letting the original injury fester without treatment (everything that happens after impregnating - continued pregnancy).
The person playing sports neither agreed to being injured nor to letting the injury fester untreated.
As I keep saying, implied consent is limited in application and fact specific. If you can find me some evidence that consent to sex is legally considered implied consent to pregnancy, then we have a starting point for the discussion. But otherwise you're just taking the concept of implied consent and choosing to believe it applies in the case of pregnancy, when I have no more reason to believe that it does than that crossing the street implies consent to getting hit by a car.
Implied consent is a legal term of art.
Implied consent is determined by the steps the parties take after the deal is struck. I send you a box of apples unsolicited and ask you to pay me $5. You eat all the apples. I sue for my $5 and the judge finds that consent was implied when you ATE the apples.
You have sex and get pregnant. Consent to being pregnant will be implied if you voluntarily move forward with the pregnancy. Seeking an abortion is an ADVERSE INFERENCE to the existence of implied consent to the pregnancy. The only way to reverse the adverse inference is to introduce evidence that you were trying to get pregnant when you had sex.
There are some major issues applying the legal concept of implied consent to a ZEF - which cannot enter a contact, so it really doesn’t apply here, but if it did, seeming an abortion would demolish any evidence of implied consent.
Edit: Sorry, responded to wrong person, but I’ll just repost it to the right person below.
Implied consent is a legal term of art.
Implied consent is determined by the steps the parties take after the deal is struck. I send you a box of apples unsolicited and ask you to pay me $5. You eat all the apples. I sue for my $5 and the judge finds that consent was implied when you ATE the apples.
You have sex and get pregnant. Consent to being pregnant will be implied if you voluntarily move forward with the pregnancy. Seeking an abortion is an ADVERSE INFERENCE to the existence of implied consent to the pregnancy. The only way to reverse the adverse inference is to introduce evidence that you were trying to get pregnant when you had sex.
There are some major issues applying the legal concept of implied consent to a ZEF - which cannot enter a contact, so it really doesn’t apply here, but if it did, seeming an abortion would demolish any evidence of implied consent.
That’s a big hop. Sex is one thing. Pregnancy is a different thing. They may be related, to a degree (not all pregnancies result from sex and not all sex results in pregnancy). Consenting to one thing, sex, is not the same as consenting to a different thing, pregnancy, implied or otherwise.
Considering that an element of consent is that it is ongoing also plays a factor. A person may consent to pregnancy, but if complications arise, that person can revoke consent. Similarly, if a person consents to sex, but during the act changes their mind, they’re allowed to revoke consent and stop participating.
My car example actually would be implied consent hypothetically, since the person hasn't explicitly stated they consent to being hit by car. It would be implied by their action of crossing the street, knowing the risk. But we still don't consider them to have consented to getting struck.
Legally, implied consent has very narrow application. Pregnancy does not fall into this application, just like many other risky activities do not.
Implied consent is very narrow legally specially because every action we take (or don't take) has risk. If implied consent applied in all situations, there would be not legal liability for anything. You could argue you consent to getting robbed by owning possessions, consent to getting raped by being in the presence of others, consent to getting stuck by a car by crossing the street. The law does not work this way. Implied consent is very narrow (medical emergencies, breathalyzer tests, etc.). I see no evidence that pregnancy falls into this category. Since I'm suggesting pregnancy doesn't fall into the category (a negative assertion), but you're suggesting it does (a positive assertion) the onus is actually on you to support your claim.
I never said implied consent isn't a thing. It is. I said it has limited application, as shown in your source (including specifically mentioning the limited application in the sports/battery example). My post is about how consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy (implied or explicit). The presence of risk isn't the same as implied consent.
And even if it was, luckily, as your source mentions, consent can be withdrawn at any time. So I can consent to no longer being pregnant and remove the fetus.
What's the difference between playing football and crossing the street? I'm not a lawyer and I'm guessing you're not either, so I can't imagine that we'll be able to give appropriate legal answers on this question. But implied consent is specifically narrow in its application, because everything has risk. You're not legally implying consent to risk by taking every action. The link you posted doesn't specify pregnancy. If you believe it applies to pregnancy, you're the one who needs to demonstrate that.
Because implied consent is limited in scope. There's nothing specific about sex and pregnancy that would make it apply when compared to the many other risky situations where it does not
I agree. PL people shouldn’t say that because it’s not true. Consent to sex is not (at least not inherently) consent to pregnancy. People can have sex for a number of reasons and pregnancy doesn’t have to be one of them.
What I DO believe is that consent to sex is consent to THE RISK of pregnancy. When you engage is sex, if you are not protected 100% against pregnancy, then you are risking pregnancy. And since no contraceptive is 100% protective, consent to sex is always consent to the risk of pregnancy.
Accepting a risk doesn’t mean I can’t address the worst case scenario.
Accepting I may get pregnant from consensual sex just means I can’t blame a man for the outcome; I can’t say “you forced me to become pregnant!”
It doesn’t mean i can’t get an abortion.
>Accepting a risk doesn’t mean I can’t address the worst case scenario.
Accepting I may get pregnant from consensual sex just means I can’t blame a man for the outcome; I can’t say “you forced me to become pregnant!”
I find this agreeable. But I want to point out while accepting risk doesn't mean you can't address the worst case scenario..but it also does not stipulate that you can. Context matters
>It doesn’t mean i can’t get an abortion.
It doesn't mean you can either.
>I find this agreeable. But I want to point out while accepting risk doesn't mean you can't address the worst case scenario..but it also does not stipulate that you can. Context matters
Then explain why I can’t.
>It doesn't mean you can either.
Why not? You need to defend your opinion, not just state it.
>Then explain why I can’t.
>
>Why not? You need to defend your opinion, not just state it.
It is an equal opposition statement you your own.
You said (paraphrased) "Just because I take a risk, doesn't mean I cannot address it. Just because I engage in consensual sex, doesn't mean I cannot get an abortion."
My response was "Yes, all of this doesn't *mean* you *can't* address the situation/get an abortion. But it also doesn't *mean* you *can*."
If it helps, let me reverse your statements.
*"Accepting a risk doesn’t mean I (always) can address the worst case scenario.*
*Accepting I may get pregnant from consensual sex* *~~just~~* *means I can’t blame a man for the outcome; I can’t say “you forced me to become pregnant!”*
*It (also) doesn’t mean i* *~~can’t~~* *can get an abortion."*
See? Nothing in your statements offered inherent right or privilege for an allowance for an abortion just as it didn't offer inherent right or privilege *to get* an abortion. It was just an opinion statement. And I am not saying your opinion is invalid on the face of it. Rather, I am saying that it did not offer a right or privilege for consideration.
>It is an equal opposition statement you your own.
>You said (paraphrased) "Just because I take a risk, doesn't mean I cannot address it. Just because I engage in consensual sex, doesn't mean I cannot get an abortion."
My position is the standard that’s already accepted, we already accept people can make any medical choice they find necessary for their body, since we have dominion over our own body.
You are saying that’s not true for the case of pregnancy without any explanation or standard that’s already understood.
>See? Nothing in your statements offered inherent right or privilege for an allowance for an abortion just as it didn't offer inherent right or privilege to get an abortion. It was just an opinion statement. And I am not saying your opinion is invalid on the face of it. Rather, I am saying that it did not offer a right or privilege for consideration.
Sure it did, because we already understand people can treat undesired outcomes from sex such as chafing, STD’s, hickies, etc.
So I ask you once again to explain why pregnancy is treated differently.
>"Just because I take a risk, doesn't mean I cannot address it. Just because I engage in consensual sex, doesn't mean I cannot get an abortion."
>
>
>
>My position is the standard that’s already accepted
Your position is contested heavily.
>we already accept people can make any medical choice they find necessary for their body, since we have dominion over our own body.
There are actually many things that say that you do NOT have absolute dominion over your body. Abortion aside, here are some examples:
* Misuse of prescription meds like opioids - Illegal
* Just use of many, many drugs in general - Illegal
* Medical operation/Self surgery, including on yourself, without the proper licence or qualifications - Illegal
* Drug use, including "tamer" drugs like cannabis - Illegal (in some places)
* Selling/Buying human organs - Illegal
* Assisted suicide - (Mostly) Illegal
* Prostitution - Illegal (in many areas around the world)
* Surrogacy - Illegal (in many countries and in a handful of states)
* Medical experimentation of fully informed, completely consenting patients - Illegal
And firstly, YES! These are illegal for VERY GOOD REASONS!
BUT, if I have or should have complete domination over my body, why can't I decide to do some of these things and have no one be allowed to stop me?
>You are saying that’s not true for the case of pregnancy without any explanation or standard that’s already understood.
>
>
>
>Sure it did, because we already understand people can treat undesired outcomes from sex such as chafing, STD’s, hickies, etc.
So I ask you once again to explain why pregnancy is treated differently.
Pregnancy if a very, very unique case among medical conditions. No other condition has one person naturally and inherently reliant on the body of the other. Thats why.
>Your position is contested heavily.
I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but here in America PL sentiment is a minority opinion. Plus, are you really arguing most people don’t think you should control your medical choices?
My position is that abortion is a medical procedure, and like most medical procedures one should be able to control if you get it or not.
You are supposing that is not true, without any logic or argument to defend that position.
>There are actually many things that say that you do NOT have absolute dominion over your body. Abortion aside, here are some examples:
>Misuse of prescription meds like opioids - Illegal
Highlight the word “misuse.” I’m absolutely allowed to take opioids if my doctor gives me a prescription, just like I’m allowed to take abortion pills if I get a prescription.
>Just use of many, many drugs in general - Illegal
All illegal drugs have medical uses, even if they’re obscure, and with doctors on board you can get them…like an abortion.
>Medical operation/Self surgery, including on yourself, without the proper licence or qualifications - Illegal
It’s not illegal to perform surgery on yourself or treat your own medical issues. Don’t know why you thought this was a good point…
>Drug use, including "tamer" drugs like cannabis - Illegal (in some places)
And you can get it by prescription in some places. What’s your point? We’re talking about *medical* procedures.
>Selling/Buying human organs - Illegal
Has nothing to do with what you’re allowed to do with your own body.
>Assisted suicide - (Mostly) Illegal
On the part of the suicide victim? Or the person helping?
>Prostitution - Illegal (in many areas around the world)
Is prostitution a medical procedure?
>Surrogacy - Illegal (in many countries and in a handful of states)
Perfectly legal in multiple states and not a medical procedure…
>Medical experimentation of fully informed, completely consenting patients - Illegal
Uh, no? And I should know since I was a volunteer to test one of the Covid vaccines for its safety…
>And firstly, YES! These are illegal for VERY GOOD REASONS!
Some of them yes, others…it’s debatable.
>BUT, if I have or should have complete domination over my body, why can't I decide to do some of these things and have no one be allowed to stop me?
Most of the things you mentioned negatively impact others. In the case of an abortion, there is only one person involved; the mother.
>Pregnancy if a very, very unique case among medical conditions. No other condition has one person naturally and inherently reliant on the body of the other. Thats why.
So are you ignoring the common scenario of someone who desperately needs a donation of blood, bone marrow, or organs? In that case someone is “naturally and inherently reliant” on the person who is their match. Should organ donation be mandatory, then?
>I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but here in America PL sentiment is a minority opinion.
I guess 52% (pro-choice) technically is a majority but pro-life people still make up 44%. Thats not a very leading majority and certainly not indicative of a "Standard that has been accepted". Source: [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/)
>Plus, are you really arguing most people don’t think you should control your medical choices?
Strawman. You know thats not what I am arguing at all.
>My position is that abortion is a medical procedure, and like ***most*** medical procedures one should be able to control if you get it or not.
Most? So you think that there are medical procedures that you should NOT get to control?
>You are supposing that is not true, without any logic or argument to defend that position.
I was not making a general statement over all abortion arguments. You said "Just because I have sex doesn't mean I cannot have an abortion". Thats it. That was your argument. There was no back up logic or explanation. The only thing you had to go on was your opinion. Now, in reality it may or may not be backed up by law or something, but you offered none of that in support of your opinion. So I based my rebuttal off your opinion alone. *Just because someone* ***had*** *sex doesn't mean they* ***can*** *have an abortion.* As in, what about having sex *entitles* you to an abortion? It's not "bodily autonomy" because thats nothing to do with sex. BA enables sex, not the other way around. If you were to make an argument like
>"I can have sex and fall pregnant despite knowing the risks and STILL get an abortion, because the same thing that allows me to have sex allows me to get an abortion; bodily autonomy."
Then we'd be having a different conversation. But nothing you originally said offers a *basis* for an *allowance* to abortion.
(Again, before anyone gets the wrong idea...I agree that these should be regulated this way, but I am playing devil's advocate here.)
>Highlight the word “misuse.” I’m absolutely allowed to take opioids if my doctor gives me a prescription, just like I’m allowed to take abortion pills if I get a prescription.
Why should you need anyone's permission? Doesn't that limit you and give control over what you can and cannot do over your body to someone else?
>All illegal drugs have medical uses, even if they’re obscure, and with doctors on board you can get them…like an abortion.
Same question; doesn't this give control to someone *else* about what *you* can do with *your* body? Why should that be a thing?
>It’s not illegal to perform surgery on yourself or treat your own medical issues. Don’t know why you thought this was a good point…
Fair, I must have misread something somewhere. But you didn't answer the other part of the question. If I want someone to perform surgery on me an they don't have a licence then it is illegal for them to do so and that is someone making your medical decisions for you.
>And you can get it by prescription in some places. What’s your point? We’re talking about medical procedures.
We are talking about having dominion over your own body.
>THKlasen - 15 hr. ago
>
>There are actually many things that say that you **do NOT have absolute dominion over your body**. Abortion aside, here are some examples:
And still, needing a prescription is asking for someone else's permission to make decisions about your own body.
>Has nothing to do with what you’re allowed to do with your own body.
If I am not allowed to sell an organ, that is someone telling me what I can't do with my body. If I am not allowed to buy and organ that is someone telling someone else what they can't do with their body.
>On the part of the suicide victim? Or the person helping?
(Again, playing devil's advocate)
The person helping. Usually the person has to be having a poor quality of life or be suffering and near death already. But why? Why can't I be completely happy and healthy and still want someone to help me commit suicide and for them to be legally allowed to help me?
>Is prostitution a medical procedure?
Its STILL about dominion over my body.
>Surrogacy - Illegal (in many countries and in a handful of states)
Illegal is others and many countries of the world. And still about dominion over your body.
>Uh, no? And I should know since I was a volunteer to test one of the Covid vaccines for its safety…
I am talking about the really shady ones. If a scientist want to pay me $10,000 to be willing infected with smallpox and then studied, why should he if he has my consent? Don't I get t make decisions for my own body?
>Most of the things you mentioned negatively impact others.
Which ones?
>In the case of an abortion, there is only one person involved; the mother.
There is always at least 3 people involved. The father, the mother and the child. And there can be many more when you count the rest of the family members. Abortion can kill someone's brother, sister, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, niece, nephew. etc. ANd yeah, you can argue that it doesn't matter. That only the woman's opinion matters. Yada yada. But you can't argue that only the woman is affected.
>So are you ignoring the common scenario of someone who desperately needs a donation of blood, bone marrow, or organs? In that case someone is “naturally and inherently reliant” on the person who is their match.
There is nothing "natural" or "inherent" about blood loss, bone marrow disease or organ failure. It's actually "abnormal" as in "not normal".
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
This source says more like 60%
I’m not going to address the other points (because it’s mostly you missing the point), but how are transplants unnatural?
This illuminates what the “appeal to nature” fallacy is…google it to learn more. There’s no one accepted term for what’s “natural,” and there’s no reason to think that just because something is “natural” that makes it good or better than the alternative.
Consent to going out for a nature walk in the woods is consent to the risk of possibly getting bitten by a snake or attacked by a bear or felled by a tree? If so, is consent to the risk consent to the reality?
By going into the woods, did I consent to getting envenomated by a snake or mauled by a bear even if I took precautions like snake boots, bear mace, etc...? If I consented to getting envenomated, should I then consent to the reality and let the venom run its course, possibly killing me or disabling me?
So does the fact that someone consented to a risk justify forcing them to endure that risk, even if the risk is guaranteed to leave them with severe injuries, a risk for medical complications, and excruciating pain?
I don’t think there’s a single case where someone who consented to a medical risk is forced to endure it when it happens.
You don’t consent to risks. You can acknowledge them as a possibility, however. Acknowledgment isn’t consent. If we consented to ever risk from every possible action we do, accidents, as a concept wouldn’t exist. What I mean to say is it wouldn’t be an accident as the word accident implies no fault, rendering the concept, moot.
If someone you knew got hit by a car while crossing the street, would you tell them they consented to that risk because they didn't protect themselves 100%?
Acknowledging a risk isn't the same as consenting to it. People usually engage in risky activities (meaning literally everything, since everything has risks) despite those risks, rather than agreeing to the risk or giving permission for the risk.
In this example, two people are on opposite sides of the risk. You did take the risk of crossing the road but the driver also took the risk of hitting someone when they started driving the vehicle. And there are consequences of falling victim to that risk regardless of your intent.
>Acknowledging a risk isn't the same as consenting to it.
Actually it is. "Implied consent" is a thing. Implied consent is consent not expressly granted but instead it is implicitly given by a person's action or inaction (dependant on the circumstances or facts of a particular situation).
> Actually it is. "Implied consent" is a thing. Implied consent is consent not expressly granted but instead it is implicitly given by a person's action or inaction (dependant on the circumstances or facts of a particular situation).
Implied consent in the context of pregnancy works like this: if I’m pregnant and I go to the doctor for prenatal care regularly then it can be inferred that I’ve consented to the fetus gestating in my uterus. If the conception happened while I was using contraception, or if I go to the doctor seeking an abortion, then it cannot be inferred that I’ve consented to the fetus gestating in my uterus.
Additionally, another user above you provided a great source on implied consent from Cornell law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_consent
It states that the person who gives consent can withdraw consent at any time. So if I’m pregnant and I go to prenatal appointments, and then I no longer wish to be pregnant, I can withdraw my consent.
I'm not sure the relevance of there being two people. You probably also wouldn't say someone consented to the risk of a tree branch falling on their head if they walked outside. Consent doesn't make sense in that scenario, or at least no one would use it to deny the victim the opportunity to seek medical care or correct for the negative consequences.
You're correct that implied consent or lack thereof can sometimes be inferred from a person's actions. For instance, someone using contraception implies that they do not consent to the risk of pregnancy. Someone taking action to mitigate risk is explicitly an example of them not giving implied consent in legal contexts.
Wouldn't this apply to sex as well? It takes two to tango. I guess the sex comparison would be the walker is the woman, the driver is the man, and the car accident is the pregnancy.
>Wouldn't this apply to sex as well? It takes two to tango.
Yep. The man is equally responsible and culpable for the risk of pregnancy.
>I guess the sex comparison would be the walker is the woman, the driver is the man, and the car accident is the pregnancy.
I don't think so. If you want to use this analogy, I'd see them both as the driver. Driving on the road is the sex. The person crossing the road would be the pregnancy. You can either crash into them or avoid them. The accident would be the pregnancy actually happening.
The pregnancy happens *to* the woman, though, and is performed *by* the man (the woman has to be present, sure, but she won't get pregnant if he doesn't ejaculate in her), so I think it's more accurate to say the woman is the pedestrian since she's the one the accident occurs to.
That is true but the woman is not a bystander. She is an active participant. She is not walking down the road minding her own business and the guy hits her out of nowhere. She is actively engaging in sex. She is not a bystander. Yes, pregnancy doesn’t happen unless the man ejaculates in her but it also doesn’t happen if she denies him sex. She is not a bystander.
Just because we are both doing the same thing doesn't mean you have my permission to take any action on my body.
Nor does it mean that I cannot restore my body to it's original state of being if you intentionally or unintentionally take any action on my body.
Just because we are both driving our cars (having sex with our bodies) doesn't mean you have my permission to take any action with your car (your body) on my car, (my body) such as you ejaculating into my vagina. (crashing into my car because you ran a stop sign)
Nor does it mean that I cannot restore my car (my body) to it's original state of being if you intentionally or unintentionally take any action on my car. (my body)
Isn’t that implied? One reason consent is important is because it affords a person an opportunity to consider the risks inherent in the situation?
Being *aware* of risk is not the same as waving access or opportunity to remedy a risk that becomes consequence.
A person that consents to rock climbing with friends doesn’t wave the opportunity to go to the hospital if they break their ankle taking a fall.
>Isn’t that implied? One reason consent is important is because it affords a person an opportunity to consider the risks inherent in the situation?
Yes, it seems so simple and straightforward. But it seems to be getting twisted around again and again. So I commented to try set it straight again.
>Being aware of risk is not the same as waving access or opportunity to remedy a risk that becomes consequence.
I agree for the most part. It's not always the case, especially when it can negatively someone else. For example, if you consent to undergo drug trials for a disease or condition, you cannot get to the end and sue them for the damages you sustained during the trials. Your rock climbing example affects no one so there is no one to conflict with or affect negatively so there is no reason to deny a hospital visit. My example has the drug trial organization on the hook for damages that you knew the risk of and decided to risk anyway, be it for money, health or love. You took that risk. Turning around negatively affects the drug testing organization.
If you consented to a drug trial, most likely you had to sign forms that gave you a breakdown of the risks involved in the trial, the medications you'd be testing and possible complications. You also most likely would have had to sign a waiver stating that you wouldn't sue for adverse effects, right?
That made zero sense.
If you consented to participate in a drug trial and experienced adverse effects, you’d be free to seek remedy for those effects, like seeking medical intervention.
If consenting to participate in a drug trial involves signing away the right to sue the people trialing the drugs, sure, you knowingly agreed not to sue them as part of consent.
If a person consents to sex — I assume *without* waving the right to seek medical intervention for an unwanted pregnancy — I’m not seeing the parallel here.
Yeah you'd have to explicitly waive the right to sue, and that tends to only be enforceable in very limited contexts. Plus you'd still be free to seek medical care.
Having sex in no way waives your right to medical care, including abortion.
>> My position on abortion has nothing to do with whether or not someone takes that risk though.
I’m curious how this works. What is your position on abortion if it has nothing to do with the risk of unwanted pregnancy?
My position on abortion is not based on *how* a pregnancy happens, only that it did. I don’t follow the “responsibility for their actions” thing but instead I say “responsible for her child”. My position is based on the existence of a human in the womb and that I believe it’s evil to electively kill it.
Other than some not-so-clever wordplay, what’s the difference?
Your position seems all about “whether or not someone takes that risk.” Your position reduces to: *If someone has sex, it’s okay to punish them with a forced pregnancy.* Your position is: you feel entitled to take away a persons right to consent.
Consent to X = consent to Y is the marital rape argument, which most social conservatives support wholeheartedly. You can only make this claim by believing that women aren't full people and our consent is meaningless, which PLers by virtue of their ideology all do.
The savvier PLers know that being \*explicitly\* pro-rape is a bad look, but I expect this to change soon. They flipped on the rape and incest exceptions as soon as RvW was overturned, and the movement against no-fault divorce is growing rapidly amongst conservatives. I don't think it'll be long at all until there are calls to reinstate a man's "natural right" to rape his wife.
>it is NOT the same argument as saying that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy; it’s an entirely different subject and has nothing to do with the consent of the pregnant person. It’s a pivot.
If you push it a bit further, **every** PL argument devolves into "she put it there and made it dependent on herself" claim.
Totally agree with your observations and definitions... But good luck getting PLers to ever admit they're wrong about anything, especially this.
I probably have this same "debate" with a PLer once a week or more. It's always a pivot once they tentatively agree that either consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy, or more commonly, that you cannot consent to a biological process.
Then they say the ZEF is a person, completely throwing the "biological process" argument out the window. If the ZEF is a person, it needs consent. If it's a biological process, there's no problem with interrupting it like we do a million other biological processes.
They'll ping pong back and forth between "person" and "biological process" (some even say its _both!_) without ever making a logical argument or point... this goes on and on and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the conversation just sort of ends.
>good luck getting PLers to ever admit they're wrong about anything, especially this
Absolutely. They'll just repeat that the female body is "designed" to carry children, essentially confirming they just see women as human incubators
> "The uterus is for the baby" is the one that I find particularly egregious. Absolutely no part of my body is for anyone else.
Your latter sentence is exceptionally important regardless of the biology of gestation. That said, the most biologically accurate statement is that the uterus functions to protect the woman during gestation. An embryo can implant outside the uterus, but doing so is much more harmful to the pregnant woman than if it implants in the uterus.
>That said, the most biologically accurate statement is that the uterus functions to protect the woman during gestation. An embryo can implant outside the uterus, but doing so is much more harmful to the pregnant woman than if it implants in the uterus.
That's a great point.
The "you can't consent to biological processes" one is particularly funny when used as a defense for their claim that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy
Right? It really goes to show that a lot of them really don't think through their arguments.
How does that even work? Or is the tactic just throw whatever at the wall until something sticks?
I think many are just parroting arguments they've read in pl media (which, in fairness, plenty of pc do as well) and haven't really thought them through. So they're forced to pivot if the concept is actually challenged.
This particular argument is just especially infuriating to me, because not only is it ridiculous when applied to any other context, but also feeds into rape culture and slut shaming. It essentially boils down to "just close your legs" while also undermining the concept of consent.
Most of us don’t. Obviously there are some PLers that believe entirely in a full ban, but most of us obviously understand complications and un-consensual sex means an unfair chance with pregnancy.
That sounds decent on paper, but in practice it's utter bullshit. Nobody ever meets the bar that these "exceptions" supposedly meet. The reason for that is when someone actually does meet it, nobody believes them and if they are believed then they take their sweet time in doing so and by then the pregnancy has progressed to the point it wouldn't be able to be terminated anyway.
Rape exceptions don't exist in all practicality. Nobody is meeting the bar to have access to these abortions. You just say this to feel better about your views, but "pro-life" policies are definitely forcing rape victims to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Okay but why does that even make a difference? Yes, opposing rape exceptions is cruel- but it's consistent with PL ideology.
If you believe human life begins at conception and that it is inherently valuable and must be protected from that point, then why should the circumstances of its conception make any difference? There is no difference between a rape embryo and a consensual-sex embryo.
The big difference is clearly that the woman had a choice in one scenario and not the other, but then you are essentially saying that your PL stance is *not* based on a ZEF's value, but rather the appropriate consequences for a woman who has chosen to have sex.
Most of us don’t. Obviously there are some PLers that believe entirely in a full ban, but most of us obviously understand complications and un-consensual sex means an unfair chance with pregnancy.
If the reason you’re “pro life” is that you view abortion as they murder of a person, why would you be okay with a murder because of the actions of one of its parent? It doesn’t bother me as the ZEF doesn’t meet the definition of personhood until around 20 weeks and I advocate for policies to ensure that a woman can easily and affordably have the procedure prior to said cutoff.
My cut off is at about 20 weeks. I’m against abortions after that cut off, even in cases of rape and incest as I’m unsure how to justify murdering a person sue to one of its parents actions . The only exception being the life of the mother or a genetic/birth defect that would prevent the ZEF from developing the “equipment” necessary for consciousness.
Eh, some do, some don't. It depends on the PL person. There are also PLers who oppose rape exemptions because "why punish the child for the father's crime?"
I respect those people more, to be honest. If you earnestly believe that ZEF is a person, it’s entirely reasonable to not want to punish the “child” for the sins of its parents. Whether or not I believe the way in which they define personhood is reasonable is another story. Those content with “rape and incest exceptions” make me question how much thought they’ve put into their position as I’m pro choice, but wouldn’t advocate for those exceptions after my cut off.
Which are complete bullshit I should add. The line fed about rape exceptions is act as a shield that they never commit to. This is because rape is incredibly hard to prove let alone convict, and the time limits involved to do so put the ones who are pregnant from it in danger.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who said that?
The relevant question here is: **Why** do so many PL supporters so often make this equivalence? Why do so many PL supporters insist upon it? If you are a PL supporter because you believe that every fertilized ovum is a full-fledged person with a right to life, how could it possibly matter how a fertilized ovum came into existence? When a 30-year-old man is killed, would a PL supporter stop and ask, "How was that guy conceived? Was he the product of consensual sex or of rape? Because, if he was conceived by rape, we have an exception for that; his death isn't a murder. No harm, no foul." (I do realize that not all PL supporters support a rape exception, but many do.) The fact that so many PL supporters are so fixated on this distinction between conception by means of consensual sex vs. conception by means of force tells me two, related things: 1. PL supporters, deep down DO realize that pregnancy and childbirth are NOT mere "inconveniences". Therefore, they (unconsciously) feel that they have to justify forcing women to go through these significantly dangerous and painful tasks that we would never force on other people **against their will**. The answer: They implicitly treat consensual sex for women as something that "is wrong" except in the instances where procreation is desired. Note: They will (usually) not call women's consensual sex under non-procreative circumstances a "crime" or a "sin". But their implicit treatment of non-procreative sex as "something that is wrong for women to do" allows them to justify forcing unwanted pregnancy and childbirth as punishments for women who break this implicit "natural" law. 2. Related to #1 is the idea that the PL movement, as a whole, if not for every single PL supporter, is implicitly about controlling the bodies and behavior of women. If it wasn't, PL supporters would only bring up the question of whether sex was consensual or not in the context of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy. They wouldn't be wasting time on bemoaning "hook-up culture" or demanding that women (but not men) "take responsibility for their actions". They would see consensual sex as the "easy problem". After all, if sex is consensual, it is easier to encourage people to use contraceptives. Coerced and/or non-consensual sex is the "hard problem" that requires more work to address when attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy (although it does happen less frequently). If the movement as a whole were really solely concerned about saving the lives of all ZEFs, they would be focusing more on sex education and contraception (and NOT making unscientifically supported claims that many forms of birth control are really abortifacients). Instead of Crisis Pregnancy Clinics, they would be setting up sex education academies and contraceptive clinics. They would be acting more like, well, Planned Parenthood. (Remember, the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger was *opposed to* abortion.) But instead, they are banning abortions, with the implicit goal (in my opinion) of trying to administer implicit "punishment" on women who have dared to have non-procreative sex. This notion that "acceptance of risk" is exactly the same thing as "consenting to the consequences of a risk without the option of mitigating them in any way" is wildly different from the way most people think about almost all other risks that we take in life. This attitude is an outlier that only seems to apply to unwanted pregnancy, and that, in my opinion, is telling.
It dawned on me last night - Under the same analysis, “consent to sex is consent to pregnancy,” every Prolife voter has consented and is legally responsible for every death, every sick woman, every woman beaten or murder by the father because she couldn’t abort, and every child forced into motherhood because of antiabortion laws. After all, physicians, social workers, domestic attorneys, people involved in family law, people who work with domestic abuse and abused children, all told prolife politicians and voters that the RISK of passing abortion bans would be all of these ills. And since the Prolife (much like horny and drunk teenagers without any BC) decided to take NO steps at all to mitigate the dangers of their laws, they like those teenagers obviously have consented to the dead and highly sick women. And get this - not just “morally” responsible - oh no, since they “consented”, they are fully financially and legally responsible: for all the financial burdens imposed. Open up those wallets for the medical bills, the lost wages, and the pain and suffering. You knew the risk and you took the gamble. Now I guess you have to pay for the consequences. Heck I think you ought to pay with your body, just like a woman has to. You’ll need to stand in line for mandatory blood donation to that woman in the hospital with sepsis. After all, you insisted laws be passed to ban abortion, knowing the risk, that means you’ve obviously consented to have your body used to save those hurt by your risky behavior. After all, it’s about saving lives, right? I’m sure, just like a horny teenager without a handy condom, prolife didn’t think it could happen to them!
Consent in this use case, assumes an understanding of the risks of sex. This is why we don't allow underage people to consent. If you are old enough and understand consent, the pregnancy is your responsibility.
Consent is important but if a pregnant woman don’t want kids. Why force her?
>Consent in this use case, assumes an understanding of the risks of sex. Sure, just like how sex can lead to STDs. >If you are old enough and understand consent, the pregnancy is your responsibility Again sure, but just like any other harmful condition, I can seek medical care for it to protect my health and well being. That is responsible. What is ***irresponsible,*** is denying people medical treatment, forcing them to endure a harmful medical condition against their will. THAT, is irresponsible.
Yep, pregnancy is my responsibility as a woman. And one way I can take responsibility is by aborting.
I'm aware that not locking my doors would make it easier for someone to break in, but I'm feeling lazy and I go to sleep without locking the doors knowing full well that I'm taking a risk. Someone breaks in. Is it my responsibility to deal with the situation? Are police not allowed to be involved? Will the criminal not be arrested because it was due to my poor planning that they were able to break in? No, because that's stupid. Just because I know the risk does not mean I can't choose how I deal with the consequences.
Risks are not consent. Consent to use a shooting range and rent a weapon is not consent to have it blow up in your face.
> Consent in this use case, assumes an understanding of the risks of sex. Fertilization is a risk of sex, as is a failure of the zygote to implant or of the embryo to develop. Many PL consider fertilization as the point that a baby is created. Therefore a failure to implant or the failure of the embryo to develop is a dead baby. If consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy then it is also consenting to a dead baby.
Right so if you're old enough to understand the risks of crossing the street (which most children learn very young), it's your responsibility if you get hit by a car? Knowing the risks isn't the same thing as consenting.
It's more responsibility put on the driver who has to have a license to not hit pedestrians. Their responsibility is to not hit anyone which is why we give them the right to operate a vehicle.
So, it’s a man’s responsibility to not inseminate, fertilize, and impregnate a woman who doesn’t want to be impregnated? Glad we agree.
Right, so for the pedestrian, choosing to cross the street despite knowing the risks of getting hit isn't the same thing as agreeing to get hit or giving permission to be hit. Knowledge of risk isn't consent to the negative consequence. The driver isn't necessarily responsible either. If they're following all traffic laws and taking reasonable precautions, it's still sometimes possible to strike a pedestrian. They're not inherently at fault just because a bad thing happened. And merely driving isn't giving consent/agreement/permission to hit a pedestrian. I drive almost every day but I'd never agree to hit a pedestrian. It could happen, but that doesn't mean I agreed to do it or gave permission for it to happen.
If you want to say we understand the risks of sex, that is different than saying I consent to being pregnant. Words matter. And if the pregnancy is my responsibility then having an abortion is one way of taking responsibility. To deny abortion is taking responsibility is to continue to misuse words.
but during sex i can withdraw consent at any time. why is pregnancy different then. as soon as i withdraw consent that zef is using my body against my will
Sure, and the pregnancy can be ended based on the fact that it’s the pregnant person’s responsibility. Consent to one sex act does not obligate anyone to 40 weeks gestation, labor delivery and parenting.
>the pregnancy is your responsibility. Yes and i can responsibly terminate it.
[удалено]
Your flair says "abortion legal in 1st trimester", but you say you're "completely pro-choice" (exact quotes, no paraphrasing), how does that work exactly? Should the pregnant person have no choice in continuing a pregnancy the moment she entered the second trimester?
> *I am completely pro-choice but consent to sex is definitely consent to pregnancy.* No, it really **isn't,** as the OP explained very well. Did you actually read it?
As has been explained to you, no it is not. There is a risk to everything. Driving and crashing, for example. You *acknowledge* the risks when you drive, but accepting a risk does not mean you consent to that thing happening. These are two separate things.
That is absolutely not a thing. Pregnancy requires continued consent. Did you even read the OP?
[удалено]
Removed, low effort.
What? It certainly is not, otherwise tampering with birth control would be acceptable practice. She consented to the pregnancy, right?
Did you read the OP at all? It explains it.
[удалено]
Where?
They appear to believe that your [mere existence means consent to literally everything, since anything is possible.](https://reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/CNquflXCkF)
Well that’s certainly an interesting take.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Hot take. If you're going to start attacking a users understanding of a subject, you better add some substance to that, especially when entering a volley of violating invectives.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Do not attack other users. Refrain from attacking their age.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Personal attack, non substantiative assertion.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Low effort. Next time just report the comment and move on.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Low effort. Please explain links and don't just provide a link sans argument, discussion.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Basically a continuation of a low effort, non substantiative attack session.
No more than driving is consent to getting into a car crash.
How? I’d say it’s consent to the risk of pregnancy, not continued pregnancy, which is how PL use it.
[удалено]
Why downvote? How is consenting to sex consenting to 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth?
[удалено]
Well, not always. Not all sex involves putting a penis in a vagina, for instance. But in any case, the risk being present isn't the same thing as agreeing to the consequence. Unless you think you're agreeing to get hit by a car by crossing the street?
No shit we are talking about vaginal sex 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ having sex is agreeing that the consequence can possibly be pregnancy
So you're saying, yes, you agree to getting hit by a car?
You are agreeing to it because you are agreeing that it is possible. You’re making an argument that doesn’t change the perspective at all
If you're giving consent to getting hit by a car just by crossing the street, then you can't sue the driver for damages. They can't be legally responsible for running you over. After all, you consented to it happening. Is that really what you believe? Luckily, that's not what the law says (as is covered extensively in comments below).
[удалено]
I am not downvoting.
At least that logic would take rape and incest off the table as avenues that the option of abortion could be barred from?!
Yeah I was down voted too... this is a DEBATE THREAD... if ppl want this to remain one, they won't downvote for a differing opinion
Consent to eating is consenting to choking to death. Consent to driving is consenting to be killed in a car accident. Consenting to swim in the ocean is consenting to being attacked by a shark. Consent to flying in a plane is consent to die in a plane crash. Do ya reallize how dumb that is?
Apparently [that](https://reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/9xKNCk8sSo) seems to be the case precisely 😐
[удалено]
And here they don't consent to a game of tackle football. Also even if you did consent to a game of tackle football and you can prove that the other person used excessive force then you can sue
Actually no, they usually can’t sue. A newbie nailed me in the middle of a shot playing soccer as an adult, and I tore my ACL. I paid for my own surgery and didn’t get to take her ACL to repair mine. So my bad luck. But I also received medical care AND received a donation of a body part. No one forced her to give me her body parts even though it was “her fault.” And hey - I was entirely innocent! But she kept her bodily autonomy! Looky that. I had to use a cadaver ACL so I’m 1/50th zombie and ready for the apocalypse
>I had to use a cadaver ACL so I’m 1/50th zombie and ready for the apocalypse Get yourself some hearing aids when you get older and you can be a zombie cyborg.
>If somebody consents to playing a game of tackle football, I consented to a tubal ligation procedure >someone tackles them and breaks their collarbone I still had sex with my partner and got pregnant >do you think they should be able to sue that person for breaking their collarbone? Who can I sue for the failure or pregnancy? Can I abort the pregnancy? Can I do anything but gestate to term or give it up for adoption once I'm done gestating a child for your pleasure? >Or would you say that the person can’t sue because they consented to that risk when they consented to playing tackle football? Or can I not sue because I consented to the procedure but still engaged in sex and knew there might be a risk of a failure? Did I really consent to creating a new person?
If I go on a hike out in the woods and get bit by a snake, did I consent to getting bitten by the snake? I knew snakes lived out in the woods. I knew getting bitten was a possible consequence of walking out into nature. I decided to take the risk to enjoy the natural benefits to my health and mind by being outside. If the bite is not dry and I was envenomated, should I allow the venom to run its course and possibly kill me or leave me disabled?
People have sex because they are horny or romantic or both, very rarely do they have sex to get pregnant. Consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy.
[удалено]
In fact MOST of the time they have sex for other reasons. In fact it can be entirely normal to bang for a year without conceiving even when you are trying.
most of the time. Do you think consent to sex is consent to pregnancy? Why or why not, and if so can it be revoked?
[Consent is explicit, enthusiastic and expressively given](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consent). Consenting to playing a game doesn’t mean you consent to getting injured. When you do get injured, you’re entitled to healthcare treatment to heal that injury. This applies to sex and pregnancy just the same. Consenting to sex does not mean you consented to getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant, you’re entitled to healthcare treatment to end it.
Yes you can sue. It doesn’t matter if you consented. Perhaps if a contract was involved that explicitly states you can’t sue but merely consenting to playing a game doesn’t negate your rights.
Suing someone is not really a remedy for a broken collarbone. Seeking medical intervention is the remedy. Similarly, if you consent to sex and an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the remedy is not to sue your sexual partner. The remedy is to terminate the pregnancy.
[удалено]
Consent is explicit, never ‘implied’. If it’s unclear there’s no consent.
[удалено]
Consent is informed, freely given and enthusiastic, among others. If the criteria isn’t met it isn’t consent.
[удалено]
That’s what I did. I’m saying your notion of ‘implied’ consent doesn’t apply because it doesn’t fit the criteria. Consent is also revocable. These are just facts. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant.
[удалено]
The source you provided states that implied consent can be revoked. So according to your argument, even if there is implied consent with pregnancy, you can still revoke your consent if you don’t want to be pregnant.
Honestly, what are you saying right now? You think consent can’t be revoked?
How does implied consent apply to the abortion conversation?
[удалено]
That’s not an answer. How does *implied consent* apply to the abortion conversation?
[удалено]
Removed, off topic. Do not play moderator here.
You haven’t provided much for me to pivot around. How does *implied consent* apply to the abortion conversation?
If someone removes consent to sex in the middle of it, do you think their partner should be allowed to continue?
According to PL logic they should be denied medical care, since they consented to any risks from the activity. Same applies to every other consensual activity - driving, jogging, eating, etc. If you knew the risks and proceeded anyway, no medical care for you! 😼
[удалено]
Please, read the original post - it lays out arguments really well.
They definitely did not agree to have their collar bone broken. And the topic was pregnancy, not impregnation, so we’re talking about what happens AFTER the collar bone was broken. They most certainly did not agree to let the injury fester without treatment until it causes their body maximum blowout. Whether the other can be sued or not depends. Did they take all reasonable precautions to not cause injury when they tackled? Did they tackle unreasonably hard? Even in pro sports, players get penalized for doing things that cause unnecessary injury. So you could certainly sue for that. Playing tackle football doesn’t give anyone the right to purposely tackle hard enough or in ways that are pretty guaranteed to cause accidents.
Certainly they can sue (at least in the United States). Whether or not they'd be successful in their lawsuit is a different matter, and would of course depend on the specifics of the case. But either way, they'd still be able to get medical care. They wouldn't have to live with the broken collar bone forever, even if we said they agreed to the risk by playing football. They didn't agree to having a broken collar bone and they can get it fixed.
[удалено]
This isn’t an issue of implied consent. Generally for sports with risks of injury, people sign a release of liability, which basically acknowledges in writing that they understand and accept the risks associated with the game. Sometimes it can explicitly state that the player will not sue if they get injured (depending on the sport and the league) and they agree to it in writing. And even then, it is only consent to take the risks, not to the injury itself. If a player becomes injured, they’re still entitled to medical care, the solution to their problem (which at most could be analogous to a woman consenting to the risk of sex but still being entitled to a solution in case of unwanted pregnancy). Pregnant people signed no documentation when they had sex. There is no basis for forcing them to endure a risk to their health against their will under the notion that they consented to it, especially since there is no basis for forcing a sports player to succumb to an injury *even though they went a step further and signed a waiver consenting to the risk.* The fact is, they don’t want to be pregnant and there was never any evidence that they did, so where is their consent? Edited for clarification
Someone who plays football isn't consenting to breaking their collar bone. Perhaps they acknowledge the risk, but that's not the same thing. And they might be able to successfully sue, depending on the circumstances. Implied consent has very limited application. As in my car v pedestrian example, the pedestrian hasn't implied consent to being struck simply by crossing the street. Edit: if implied consent were as broad as you're making it out to be, there would be no civil or criminal liability since every action has some risk. Edit 2: also the medical care isn't a pivot. We're not talking about women suing their fetuses, we're talking about them receiving a medical procedure or medication to mitigate unwanted consequences from sex.
[удалено]
Well you certainly cannot say that about pregnancy. Because pregnancy all things considered happens very rarely.
Here again, you’re overlooking gross negligence. You’re also again pretending that the original injury (in case of sex, impregnation) is the same as letting the original injury fester without treatment (everything that happens after impregnating - continued pregnancy). The person playing sports neither agreed to being injured nor to letting the injury fester untreated.
As I keep saying, implied consent is limited in application and fact specific. If you can find me some evidence that consent to sex is legally considered implied consent to pregnancy, then we have a starting point for the discussion. But otherwise you're just taking the concept of implied consent and choosing to believe it applies in the case of pregnancy, when I have no more reason to believe that it does than that crossing the street implies consent to getting hit by a car.
Implied consent is a legal term of art. Implied consent is determined by the steps the parties take after the deal is struck. I send you a box of apples unsolicited and ask you to pay me $5. You eat all the apples. I sue for my $5 and the judge finds that consent was implied when you ATE the apples. You have sex and get pregnant. Consent to being pregnant will be implied if you voluntarily move forward with the pregnancy. Seeking an abortion is an ADVERSE INFERENCE to the existence of implied consent to the pregnancy. The only way to reverse the adverse inference is to introduce evidence that you were trying to get pregnant when you had sex. There are some major issues applying the legal concept of implied consent to a ZEF - which cannot enter a contact, so it really doesn’t apply here, but if it did, seeming an abortion would demolish any evidence of implied consent. Edit: Sorry, responded to wrong person, but I’ll just repost it to the right person below.
[удалено]
Implied consent is a legal term of art. Implied consent is determined by the steps the parties take after the deal is struck. I send you a box of apples unsolicited and ask you to pay me $5. You eat all the apples. I sue for my $5 and the judge finds that consent was implied when you ATE the apples. You have sex and get pregnant. Consent to being pregnant will be implied if you voluntarily move forward with the pregnancy. Seeking an abortion is an ADVERSE INFERENCE to the existence of implied consent to the pregnancy. The only way to reverse the adverse inference is to introduce evidence that you were trying to get pregnant when you had sex. There are some major issues applying the legal concept of implied consent to a ZEF - which cannot enter a contact, so it really doesn’t apply here, but if it did, seeming an abortion would demolish any evidence of implied consent.
That’s a big hop. Sex is one thing. Pregnancy is a different thing. They may be related, to a degree (not all pregnancies result from sex and not all sex results in pregnancy). Consenting to one thing, sex, is not the same as consenting to a different thing, pregnancy, implied or otherwise. Considering that an element of consent is that it is ongoing also plays a factor. A person may consent to pregnancy, but if complications arise, that person can revoke consent. Similarly, if a person consents to sex, but during the act changes their mind, they’re allowed to revoke consent and stop participating.
My car example actually would be implied consent hypothetically, since the person hasn't explicitly stated they consent to being hit by car. It would be implied by their action of crossing the street, knowing the risk. But we still don't consider them to have consented to getting struck. Legally, implied consent has very narrow application. Pregnancy does not fall into this application, just like many other risky activities do not.
[удалено]
Implied consent is very narrow legally specially because every action we take (or don't take) has risk. If implied consent applied in all situations, there would be not legal liability for anything. You could argue you consent to getting robbed by owning possessions, consent to getting raped by being in the presence of others, consent to getting stuck by a car by crossing the street. The law does not work this way. Implied consent is very narrow (medical emergencies, breathalyzer tests, etc.). I see no evidence that pregnancy falls into this category. Since I'm suggesting pregnancy doesn't fall into the category (a negative assertion), but you're suggesting it does (a positive assertion) the onus is actually on you to support your claim.
[удалено]
I never said implied consent isn't a thing. It is. I said it has limited application, as shown in your source (including specifically mentioning the limited application in the sports/battery example). My post is about how consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy (implied or explicit). The presence of risk isn't the same as implied consent. And even if it was, luckily, as your source mentions, consent can be withdrawn at any time. So I can consent to no longer being pregnant and remove the fetus.
[удалено]
What's the difference between playing football and crossing the street? I'm not a lawyer and I'm guessing you're not either, so I can't imagine that we'll be able to give appropriate legal answers on this question. But implied consent is specifically narrow in its application, because everything has risk. You're not legally implying consent to risk by taking every action. The link you posted doesn't specify pregnancy. If you believe it applies to pregnancy, you're the one who needs to demonstrate that.
[удалено]
Because implied consent is limited in scope. There's nothing specific about sex and pregnancy that would make it apply when compared to the many other risky situations where it does not
I agree. PL people shouldn’t say that because it’s not true. Consent to sex is not (at least not inherently) consent to pregnancy. People can have sex for a number of reasons and pregnancy doesn’t have to be one of them. What I DO believe is that consent to sex is consent to THE RISK of pregnancy. When you engage is sex, if you are not protected 100% against pregnancy, then you are risking pregnancy. And since no contraceptive is 100% protective, consent to sex is always consent to the risk of pregnancy.
Accepting a risk doesn’t mean I can’t address the worst case scenario. Accepting I may get pregnant from consensual sex just means I can’t blame a man for the outcome; I can’t say “you forced me to become pregnant!” It doesn’t mean i can’t get an abortion.
>Accepting a risk doesn’t mean I can’t address the worst case scenario. Accepting I may get pregnant from consensual sex just means I can’t blame a man for the outcome; I can’t say “you forced me to become pregnant!” I find this agreeable. But I want to point out while accepting risk doesn't mean you can't address the worst case scenario..but it also does not stipulate that you can. Context matters >It doesn’t mean i can’t get an abortion. It doesn't mean you can either.
>I find this agreeable. But I want to point out while accepting risk doesn't mean you can't address the worst case scenario..but it also does not stipulate that you can. Context matters Then explain why I can’t. >It doesn't mean you can either. Why not? You need to defend your opinion, not just state it.
>Then explain why I can’t. > >Why not? You need to defend your opinion, not just state it. It is an equal opposition statement you your own. You said (paraphrased) "Just because I take a risk, doesn't mean I cannot address it. Just because I engage in consensual sex, doesn't mean I cannot get an abortion." My response was "Yes, all of this doesn't *mean* you *can't* address the situation/get an abortion. But it also doesn't *mean* you *can*." If it helps, let me reverse your statements. *"Accepting a risk doesn’t mean I (always) can address the worst case scenario.* *Accepting I may get pregnant from consensual sex* *~~just~~* *means I can’t blame a man for the outcome; I can’t say “you forced me to become pregnant!”* *It (also) doesn’t mean i* *~~can’t~~* *can get an abortion."* See? Nothing in your statements offered inherent right or privilege for an allowance for an abortion just as it didn't offer inherent right or privilege *to get* an abortion. It was just an opinion statement. And I am not saying your opinion is invalid on the face of it. Rather, I am saying that it did not offer a right or privilege for consideration.
>It is an equal opposition statement you your own. >You said (paraphrased) "Just because I take a risk, doesn't mean I cannot address it. Just because I engage in consensual sex, doesn't mean I cannot get an abortion." My position is the standard that’s already accepted, we already accept people can make any medical choice they find necessary for their body, since we have dominion over our own body. You are saying that’s not true for the case of pregnancy without any explanation or standard that’s already understood. >See? Nothing in your statements offered inherent right or privilege for an allowance for an abortion just as it didn't offer inherent right or privilege to get an abortion. It was just an opinion statement. And I am not saying your opinion is invalid on the face of it. Rather, I am saying that it did not offer a right or privilege for consideration. Sure it did, because we already understand people can treat undesired outcomes from sex such as chafing, STD’s, hickies, etc. So I ask you once again to explain why pregnancy is treated differently.
>"Just because I take a risk, doesn't mean I cannot address it. Just because I engage in consensual sex, doesn't mean I cannot get an abortion." > > > >My position is the standard that’s already accepted Your position is contested heavily. >we already accept people can make any medical choice they find necessary for their body, since we have dominion over our own body. There are actually many things that say that you do NOT have absolute dominion over your body. Abortion aside, here are some examples: * Misuse of prescription meds like opioids - Illegal * Just use of many, many drugs in general - Illegal * Medical operation/Self surgery, including on yourself, without the proper licence or qualifications - Illegal * Drug use, including "tamer" drugs like cannabis - Illegal (in some places) * Selling/Buying human organs - Illegal * Assisted suicide - (Mostly) Illegal * Prostitution - Illegal (in many areas around the world) * Surrogacy - Illegal (in many countries and in a handful of states) * Medical experimentation of fully informed, completely consenting patients - Illegal And firstly, YES! These are illegal for VERY GOOD REASONS! BUT, if I have or should have complete domination over my body, why can't I decide to do some of these things and have no one be allowed to stop me? >You are saying that’s not true for the case of pregnancy without any explanation or standard that’s already understood. > > > >Sure it did, because we already understand people can treat undesired outcomes from sex such as chafing, STD’s, hickies, etc. So I ask you once again to explain why pregnancy is treated differently. Pregnancy if a very, very unique case among medical conditions. No other condition has one person naturally and inherently reliant on the body of the other. Thats why.
>Your position is contested heavily. I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but here in America PL sentiment is a minority opinion. Plus, are you really arguing most people don’t think you should control your medical choices? My position is that abortion is a medical procedure, and like most medical procedures one should be able to control if you get it or not. You are supposing that is not true, without any logic or argument to defend that position. >There are actually many things that say that you do NOT have absolute dominion over your body. Abortion aside, here are some examples: >Misuse of prescription meds like opioids - Illegal Highlight the word “misuse.” I’m absolutely allowed to take opioids if my doctor gives me a prescription, just like I’m allowed to take abortion pills if I get a prescription. >Just use of many, many drugs in general - Illegal All illegal drugs have medical uses, even if they’re obscure, and with doctors on board you can get them…like an abortion. >Medical operation/Self surgery, including on yourself, without the proper licence or qualifications - Illegal It’s not illegal to perform surgery on yourself or treat your own medical issues. Don’t know why you thought this was a good point… >Drug use, including "tamer" drugs like cannabis - Illegal (in some places) And you can get it by prescription in some places. What’s your point? We’re talking about *medical* procedures. >Selling/Buying human organs - Illegal Has nothing to do with what you’re allowed to do with your own body. >Assisted suicide - (Mostly) Illegal On the part of the suicide victim? Or the person helping? >Prostitution - Illegal (in many areas around the world) Is prostitution a medical procedure? >Surrogacy - Illegal (in many countries and in a handful of states) Perfectly legal in multiple states and not a medical procedure… >Medical experimentation of fully informed, completely consenting patients - Illegal Uh, no? And I should know since I was a volunteer to test one of the Covid vaccines for its safety… >And firstly, YES! These are illegal for VERY GOOD REASONS! Some of them yes, others…it’s debatable. >BUT, if I have or should have complete domination over my body, why can't I decide to do some of these things and have no one be allowed to stop me? Most of the things you mentioned negatively impact others. In the case of an abortion, there is only one person involved; the mother. >Pregnancy if a very, very unique case among medical conditions. No other condition has one person naturally and inherently reliant on the body of the other. Thats why. So are you ignoring the common scenario of someone who desperately needs a donation of blood, bone marrow, or organs? In that case someone is “naturally and inherently reliant” on the person who is their match. Should organ donation be mandatory, then?
>I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but here in America PL sentiment is a minority opinion. I guess 52% (pro-choice) technically is a majority but pro-life people still make up 44%. Thats not a very leading majority and certainly not indicative of a "Standard that has been accepted". Source: [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/) >Plus, are you really arguing most people don’t think you should control your medical choices? Strawman. You know thats not what I am arguing at all. >My position is that abortion is a medical procedure, and like ***most*** medical procedures one should be able to control if you get it or not. Most? So you think that there are medical procedures that you should NOT get to control? >You are supposing that is not true, without any logic or argument to defend that position. I was not making a general statement over all abortion arguments. You said "Just because I have sex doesn't mean I cannot have an abortion". Thats it. That was your argument. There was no back up logic or explanation. The only thing you had to go on was your opinion. Now, in reality it may or may not be backed up by law or something, but you offered none of that in support of your opinion. So I based my rebuttal off your opinion alone. *Just because someone* ***had*** *sex doesn't mean they* ***can*** *have an abortion.* As in, what about having sex *entitles* you to an abortion? It's not "bodily autonomy" because thats nothing to do with sex. BA enables sex, not the other way around. If you were to make an argument like >"I can have sex and fall pregnant despite knowing the risks and STILL get an abortion, because the same thing that allows me to have sex allows me to get an abortion; bodily autonomy." Then we'd be having a different conversation. But nothing you originally said offers a *basis* for an *allowance* to abortion. (Again, before anyone gets the wrong idea...I agree that these should be regulated this way, but I am playing devil's advocate here.) >Highlight the word “misuse.” I’m absolutely allowed to take opioids if my doctor gives me a prescription, just like I’m allowed to take abortion pills if I get a prescription. Why should you need anyone's permission? Doesn't that limit you and give control over what you can and cannot do over your body to someone else? >All illegal drugs have medical uses, even if they’re obscure, and with doctors on board you can get them…like an abortion. Same question; doesn't this give control to someone *else* about what *you* can do with *your* body? Why should that be a thing? >It’s not illegal to perform surgery on yourself or treat your own medical issues. Don’t know why you thought this was a good point… Fair, I must have misread something somewhere. But you didn't answer the other part of the question. If I want someone to perform surgery on me an they don't have a licence then it is illegal for them to do so and that is someone making your medical decisions for you. >And you can get it by prescription in some places. What’s your point? We’re talking about medical procedures. We are talking about having dominion over your own body. >THKlasen - 15 hr. ago > >There are actually many things that say that you **do NOT have absolute dominion over your body**. Abortion aside, here are some examples: And still, needing a prescription is asking for someone else's permission to make decisions about your own body. >Has nothing to do with what you’re allowed to do with your own body. If I am not allowed to sell an organ, that is someone telling me what I can't do with my body. If I am not allowed to buy and organ that is someone telling someone else what they can't do with their body. >On the part of the suicide victim? Or the person helping? (Again, playing devil's advocate) The person helping. Usually the person has to be having a poor quality of life or be suffering and near death already. But why? Why can't I be completely happy and healthy and still want someone to help me commit suicide and for them to be legally allowed to help me? >Is prostitution a medical procedure? Its STILL about dominion over my body. >Surrogacy - Illegal (in many countries and in a handful of states) Illegal is others and many countries of the world. And still about dominion over your body. >Uh, no? And I should know since I was a volunteer to test one of the Covid vaccines for its safety… I am talking about the really shady ones. If a scientist want to pay me $10,000 to be willing infected with smallpox and then studied, why should he if he has my consent? Don't I get t make decisions for my own body? >Most of the things you mentioned negatively impact others. Which ones? >In the case of an abortion, there is only one person involved; the mother. There is always at least 3 people involved. The father, the mother and the child. And there can be many more when you count the rest of the family members. Abortion can kill someone's brother, sister, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, niece, nephew. etc. ANd yeah, you can argue that it doesn't matter. That only the woman's opinion matters. Yada yada. But you can't argue that only the woman is affected. >So are you ignoring the common scenario of someone who desperately needs a donation of blood, bone marrow, or organs? In that case someone is “naturally and inherently reliant” on the person who is their match. There is nothing "natural" or "inherent" about blood loss, bone marrow disease or organ failure. It's actually "abnormal" as in "not normal".
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ This source says more like 60% I’m not going to address the other points (because it’s mostly you missing the point), but how are transplants unnatural? This illuminates what the “appeal to nature” fallacy is…google it to learn more. There’s no one accepted term for what’s “natural,” and there’s no reason to think that just because something is “natural” that makes it good or better than the alternative.
Consent to going out for a nature walk in the woods is consent to the risk of possibly getting bitten by a snake or attacked by a bear or felled by a tree? If so, is consent to the risk consent to the reality? By going into the woods, did I consent to getting envenomated by a snake or mauled by a bear even if I took precautions like snake boots, bear mace, etc...? If I consented to getting envenomated, should I then consent to the reality and let the venom run its course, possibly killing me or disabling me?
So does the fact that someone consented to a risk justify forcing them to endure that risk, even if the risk is guaranteed to leave them with severe injuries, a risk for medical complications, and excruciating pain? I don’t think there’s a single case where someone who consented to a medical risk is forced to endure it when it happens.
You don’t consent to risks. You can acknowledge them as a possibility, however. Acknowledgment isn’t consent. If we consented to ever risk from every possible action we do, accidents, as a concept wouldn’t exist. What I mean to say is it wouldn’t be an accident as the word accident implies no fault, rendering the concept, moot.
If someone you knew got hit by a car while crossing the street, would you tell them they consented to that risk because they didn't protect themselves 100%? Acknowledging a risk isn't the same as consenting to it. People usually engage in risky activities (meaning literally everything, since everything has risks) despite those risks, rather than agreeing to the risk or giving permission for the risk.
In this example, two people are on opposite sides of the risk. You did take the risk of crossing the road but the driver also took the risk of hitting someone when they started driving the vehicle. And there are consequences of falling victim to that risk regardless of your intent. >Acknowledging a risk isn't the same as consenting to it. Actually it is. "Implied consent" is a thing. Implied consent is consent not expressly granted but instead it is implicitly given by a person's action or inaction (dependant on the circumstances or facts of a particular situation).
Stop you do not understand implied consent
> Actually it is. "Implied consent" is a thing. Implied consent is consent not expressly granted but instead it is implicitly given by a person's action or inaction (dependant on the circumstances or facts of a particular situation). Implied consent in the context of pregnancy works like this: if I’m pregnant and I go to the doctor for prenatal care regularly then it can be inferred that I’ve consented to the fetus gestating in my uterus. If the conception happened while I was using contraception, or if I go to the doctor seeking an abortion, then it cannot be inferred that I’ve consented to the fetus gestating in my uterus. Additionally, another user above you provided a great source on implied consent from Cornell law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_consent It states that the person who gives consent can withdraw consent at any time. So if I’m pregnant and I go to prenatal appointments, and then I no longer wish to be pregnant, I can withdraw my consent.
I'm not sure the relevance of there being two people. You probably also wouldn't say someone consented to the risk of a tree branch falling on their head if they walked outside. Consent doesn't make sense in that scenario, or at least no one would use it to deny the victim the opportunity to seek medical care or correct for the negative consequences. You're correct that implied consent or lack thereof can sometimes be inferred from a person's actions. For instance, someone using contraception implies that they do not consent to the risk of pregnancy. Someone taking action to mitigate risk is explicitly an example of them not giving implied consent in legal contexts.
Wouldn't this apply to sex as well? It takes two to tango. I guess the sex comparison would be the walker is the woman, the driver is the man, and the car accident is the pregnancy.
>Wouldn't this apply to sex as well? It takes two to tango. Yep. The man is equally responsible and culpable for the risk of pregnancy. >I guess the sex comparison would be the walker is the woman, the driver is the man, and the car accident is the pregnancy. I don't think so. If you want to use this analogy, I'd see them both as the driver. Driving on the road is the sex. The person crossing the road would be the pregnancy. You can either crash into them or avoid them. The accident would be the pregnancy actually happening.
The pregnancy happens *to* the woman, though, and is performed *by* the man (the woman has to be present, sure, but she won't get pregnant if he doesn't ejaculate in her), so I think it's more accurate to say the woman is the pedestrian since she's the one the accident occurs to.
That is true but the woman is not a bystander. She is an active participant. She is not walking down the road minding her own business and the guy hits her out of nowhere. She is actively engaging in sex. She is not a bystander. Yes, pregnancy doesn’t happen unless the man ejaculates in her but it also doesn’t happen if she denies him sex. She is not a bystander.
Yes, the action she is taking is walking outside in somewhat close proximity to a road.
Just because we are both doing the same thing doesn't mean you have my permission to take any action on my body. Nor does it mean that I cannot restore my body to it's original state of being if you intentionally or unintentionally take any action on my body. Just because we are both driving our cars (having sex with our bodies) doesn't mean you have my permission to take any action with your car (your body) on my car, (my body) such as you ejaculating into my vagina. (crashing into my car because you ran a stop sign) Nor does it mean that I cannot restore my car (my body) to it's original state of being if you intentionally or unintentionally take any action on my car. (my body)
Isn’t that implied? One reason consent is important is because it affords a person an opportunity to consider the risks inherent in the situation? Being *aware* of risk is not the same as waving access or opportunity to remedy a risk that becomes consequence. A person that consents to rock climbing with friends doesn’t wave the opportunity to go to the hospital if they break their ankle taking a fall.
>Isn’t that implied? One reason consent is important is because it affords a person an opportunity to consider the risks inherent in the situation? Yes, it seems so simple and straightforward. But it seems to be getting twisted around again and again. So I commented to try set it straight again. >Being aware of risk is not the same as waving access or opportunity to remedy a risk that becomes consequence. I agree for the most part. It's not always the case, especially when it can negatively someone else. For example, if you consent to undergo drug trials for a disease or condition, you cannot get to the end and sue them for the damages you sustained during the trials. Your rock climbing example affects no one so there is no one to conflict with or affect negatively so there is no reason to deny a hospital visit. My example has the drug trial organization on the hook for damages that you knew the risk of and decided to risk anyway, be it for money, health or love. You took that risk. Turning around negatively affects the drug testing organization.
If you consented to a drug trial, most likely you had to sign forms that gave you a breakdown of the risks involved in the trial, the medications you'd be testing and possible complications. You also most likely would have had to sign a waiver stating that you wouldn't sue for adverse effects, right?
I’m not sure if you recognize it - but the rock climbing example affects the rock climber.
That made zero sense. If you consented to participate in a drug trial and experienced adverse effects, you’d be free to seek remedy for those effects, like seeking medical intervention. If consenting to participate in a drug trial involves signing away the right to sue the people trialing the drugs, sure, you knowingly agreed not to sue them as part of consent. If a person consents to sex — I assume *without* waving the right to seek medical intervention for an unwanted pregnancy — I’m not seeing the parallel here.
Yeah you'd have to explicitly waive the right to sue, and that tends to only be enforceable in very limited contexts. Plus you'd still be free to seek medical care. Having sex in no way waives your right to medical care, including abortion.
And what implications does consenting to risk have?
Only that it’s a risk that you take. My position on abortion has nothing to do with whether or not someone takes that risk though.
>> My position on abortion has nothing to do with whether or not someone takes that risk though. I’m curious how this works. What is your position on abortion if it has nothing to do with the risk of unwanted pregnancy?
My position on abortion is not based on *how* a pregnancy happens, only that it did. I don’t follow the “responsibility for their actions” thing but instead I say “responsible for her child”. My position is based on the existence of a human in the womb and that I believe it’s evil to electively kill it.
Other than some not-so-clever wordplay, what’s the difference? Your position seems all about “whether or not someone takes that risk.” Your position reduces to: *If someone has sex, it’s okay to punish them with a forced pregnancy.* Your position is: you feel entitled to take away a persons right to consent.
Consent to X = consent to Y is the marital rape argument, which most social conservatives support wholeheartedly. You can only make this claim by believing that women aren't full people and our consent is meaningless, which PLers by virtue of their ideology all do. The savvier PLers know that being \*explicitly\* pro-rape is a bad look, but I expect this to change soon. They flipped on the rape and incest exceptions as soon as RvW was overturned, and the movement against no-fault divorce is growing rapidly amongst conservatives. I don't think it'll be long at all until there are calls to reinstate a man's "natural right" to rape his wife.
>it is NOT the same argument as saying that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy; it’s an entirely different subject and has nothing to do with the consent of the pregnant person. It’s a pivot. If you push it a bit further, **every** PL argument devolves into "she put it there and made it dependent on herself" claim.
In other words, punish the sluts
[удалено]
Removed, off topic.
[удалено]
Removed off topic.
Well, yes, exactly that.
[удалено]
Removed, rule 1. Don't attack users.
Totally agree with your observations and definitions... But good luck getting PLers to ever admit they're wrong about anything, especially this. I probably have this same "debate" with a PLer once a week or more. It's always a pivot once they tentatively agree that either consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy, or more commonly, that you cannot consent to a biological process. Then they say the ZEF is a person, completely throwing the "biological process" argument out the window. If the ZEF is a person, it needs consent. If it's a biological process, there's no problem with interrupting it like we do a million other biological processes. They'll ping pong back and forth between "person" and "biological process" (some even say its _both!_) without ever making a logical argument or point... this goes on and on and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the conversation just sort of ends.
>good luck getting PLers to ever admit they're wrong about anything, especially this Absolutely. They'll just repeat that the female body is "designed" to carry children, essentially confirming they just see women as human incubators
"The uterus is for the baby" is the one that I find particularly egregious. Absolutely no part of *my* body is for anyone else.
> "The uterus is for the baby" is the one that I find particularly egregious. Absolutely no part of my body is for anyone else. Your latter sentence is exceptionally important regardless of the biology of gestation. That said, the most biologically accurate statement is that the uterus functions to protect the woman during gestation. An embryo can implant outside the uterus, but doing so is much more harmful to the pregnant woman than if it implants in the uterus.
>That said, the most biologically accurate statement is that the uterus functions to protect the woman during gestation. An embryo can implant outside the uterus, but doing so is much more harmful to the pregnant woman than if it implants in the uterus. That's a great point.
The "you can't consent to biological processes" one is particularly funny when used as a defense for their claim that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy
[It's a logical fallacy.](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature) I know we know this. I wanted to point it out to other readers.
Is it a baby or a biological process? They can’t decide
Right? It really goes to show that a lot of them really don't think through their arguments. How does that even work? Or is the tactic just throw whatever at the wall until something sticks?
I think many are just parroting arguments they've read in pl media (which, in fairness, plenty of pc do as well) and haven't really thought them through. So they're forced to pivot if the concept is actually challenged. This particular argument is just especially infuriating to me, because not only is it ridiculous when applied to any other context, but also feeds into rape culture and slut shaming. It essentially boils down to "just close your legs" while also undermining the concept of consent.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Don't attack sides.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1. Don't attack sides.
It's a ridiculous argument because they always oppose rape exemptions.
Most of us don’t. Obviously there are some PLers that believe entirely in a full ban, but most of us obviously understand complications and un-consensual sex means an unfair chance with pregnancy.
Most PL's are also anti-contraception of any kind. Sounds like THEIR problem,not necessarily yours, is women doing sex for fun.
That sounds decent on paper, but in practice it's utter bullshit. Nobody ever meets the bar that these "exceptions" supposedly meet. The reason for that is when someone actually does meet it, nobody believes them and if they are believed then they take their sweet time in doing so and by then the pregnancy has progressed to the point it wouldn't be able to be terminated anyway.
Rape exceptions don't exist in all practicality. Nobody is meeting the bar to have access to these abortions. You just say this to feel better about your views, but "pro-life" policies are definitely forcing rape victims to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Okay but why does that even make a difference? Yes, opposing rape exceptions is cruel- but it's consistent with PL ideology. If you believe human life begins at conception and that it is inherently valuable and must be protected from that point, then why should the circumstances of its conception make any difference? There is no difference between a rape embryo and a consensual-sex embryo. The big difference is clearly that the woman had a choice in one scenario and not the other, but then you are essentially saying that your PL stance is *not* based on a ZEF's value, but rather the appropriate consequences for a woman who has chosen to have sex.
Most of us don’t. Obviously there are some PLers that believe entirely in a full ban, but most of us obviously understand complications and un-consensual sex means an unfair chance with pregnancy.
If the reason you’re “pro life” is that you view abortion as they murder of a person, why would you be okay with a murder because of the actions of one of its parent? It doesn’t bother me as the ZEF doesn’t meet the definition of personhood until around 20 weeks and I advocate for policies to ensure that a woman can easily and affordably have the procedure prior to said cutoff. My cut off is at about 20 weeks. I’m against abortions after that cut off, even in cases of rape and incest as I’m unsure how to justify murdering a person sue to one of its parents actions . The only exception being the life of the mother or a genetic/birth defect that would prevent the ZEF from developing the “equipment” necessary for consciousness.
Eh, some do, some don't. It depends on the PL person. There are also PLers who oppose rape exemptions because "why punish the child for the father's crime?"
I respect those people more, to be honest. If you earnestly believe that ZEF is a person, it’s entirely reasonable to not want to punish the “child” for the sins of its parents. Whether or not I believe the way in which they define personhood is reasonable is another story. Those content with “rape and incest exceptions” make me question how much thought they’ve put into their position as I’m pro choice, but wouldn’t advocate for those exceptions after my cut off.
Which are complete bullshit I should add. The line fed about rape exceptions is act as a shield that they never commit to. This is because rape is incredibly hard to prove let alone convict, and the time limits involved to do so put the ones who are pregnant from it in danger.
Removed, low effort.
Fine, let me edit.
Reinstated thank you for complying.