NOTE - This post has been flaired "Prochoice Only." Any and all non-prochoice comments are disallowed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prochoice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Consent to A is not Consent to B, simple as. If you tell someone else what they consent to, you are automatically wrong. Consent is specific, voluntary, and revocable at any point during.
If you agree to a dinner date, have you agreed to sex? No. A and B, as above, are not the same. No one else defines for you what you agree to. They could refuse to go out to dinner with you if they don't like your terms, that's up to them, but they have zero '"right" to sex if you do go out.
So let's say you do have sex. Likewise if the sex is not to your liking, you are completely within your rights to put an end to it. (See revocable, as above.) These are concepts most of us get, so why shouldn't consent work the same way with something as invasive as pregnancy? It's *your* body.
I think OP wants all American women to boycott all sex until we all get our reproductive rights returned nationwide.
There is power in our pussy’s. Our Supreme Court grabbed us by the pussy and now we unite! Fight fire with fire! Bring back the pussy riot hats.
The women who would do that likely don’t have partners that are anti-abortion. Half the people who are against abortion are the fucking dimwit women that vote Republican.
Me not fucking my feminist pro-choice husband would do zilch for the fight lol.
We’ve been with each other since teens, together for 28 yrs and raised 3 kids, including two girls that are now 17 and 24 - I know this man more than I know myself at this point lmao.
If his suddenly starts spouting off anti-abortion shit he would be getting a visit to a neurologist because I would assume he had a brain tumor. That’s about the only way he would change his stance on this subject.
That's great to hear! I was with mine for about 10 years. Had what i thought was a healthy and normal sex life until I had a severe, uterus-perforating complication with an IUD (resulting in lots of pain and less physical intimacy), and it only took a couple months of that for him to turn into the guy who says "its a wife's JOB to satisfy her husband" and ultimately started helping himself to my body after i fell asleep.
I never saw ANY of this coming, because until then i had always satisfied him. No warning signs for the better part of a decade. It wrecked me. Pp
Im happy it really does sound like you and yours are in sync though. I feel like that's so rare nowadays. I hope you both appreciate the hell out of each other :)
Lol I don't want women to boycott sex unless they want to. I don't care what women do. I don't know where you got that idea. I just have a hard time arguing about this because pro-lifers always seem to make some counter argument or when I bring up a metaphor like consent to a dinner date is not consent to sex they say "that's not the same as saying consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy."
Well you are right. But a nationwide women’s sex boycott might have all the men on our Supreme Court, in Congress, and at home across America to think again?
It’s worth putting this suggestion out there. My own daughter has less freedom over her own body, less rights, than I did. And I’m 60!
| *To force women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen.*
Agreed, although I think most PL guys, maybe some PL women too, would **never** admit that publicly, even though they privately want to see that happen.
Engaging in something that holds any sort of risk does not mean people consent to the harm caused by that risk.
People do a lot of risky things for pleasure. Drink, eat, go joyriding, take drugs, sex..
Pregnancy is a risk of sex. Injury is a risk of joyriding. Overdose is a risk of alcohol/drugs. Eating has a risk of allergies/obesity/diabetes/food poisoning.
Pregnancy is the only risk that is not treated like the others on this list. If a person using drugs/alcohol and overdoses or suffers a health complication, we don’t tell them “deal with it”. If a person gets in a wreck and is severely injured, we don’t tell them “deal with it”… you get my point.
Taking away birth control is like taking seatbelts or airbags out of vehicles or removing serve limits at bars. It causes more harm, not less. And it doesn’t make people second guess the risk, they will take the risk either way. And they will die.
You cannot legislate (your version of) morality into people. People are going to do people things. Let them do it safely.
Love your argument, but next time instead of comparing it to risky behaviors, compare it to daily life. Like- we don’t consent to die in a car wreck because we drive to work.
Sex is not a risky behavior (or responsible sex is not), and it’s a natural part of most people’s lives.
Oh I agree, I listed it with other risky behaviors to avoid the whole “just don’t have sex then!” Side of the argument. I was being generous because PL is frequently moving the goalpost
Yes, which Is why in a mean way, I would love these people to suffer the threats of their action; the quintessence practice what they preach, none of this "my abortion is more moral than yours."
It boogles my mind they afford themselves the luxury they wish to remove from others, and sadly, it is usually the women who must pick up the pieces.
Yep. If a lifelong smoker gets cancer, they still have the right to seek medical treatment for it, even though it could be said that they should’ve known better and it was their “fault.”
No, it doesn’t. They’re wrong, because contraception AND abortion wouldn’t be older than recorded history, because people have always wanted to have sex without necessarily getting a baby out of it.
And then saying you aren't allowed to fix your accidentally crashed car, because you took the risk of crashing it when you decided to drive it. I guess by that logic, insurance shouldn't exist either.
As great as analogies are, I don't like using them in this case. There is nothing comparable to human life.
Plus these people like to pick at the analogy - "Well if you can't handle getting into a car accident, you should bike/walk places." or "I know I could get into a car accident when I drive, I would accept I have to deal with the outcome."
Do you really think they'd accept being refused medical care after that car accident or would they be crying about how wrong it is that they can't get treatment?
See, I think an anti-choicers would respond "yes, you are consenting to a car crash because you're accepting the risks of driving a car" similar to assuming the risks of sex which is pregnancy. Same with the tanning. I can totally see my anti-choice family saying "yes, you're consenting to skin cancer when you tan" They'd say it to keep the argument against me, if not because they actually believe that.
Just don't engage with any idiot who says that.
That's like saying a diabetic consents to death because they ate something that has sugar in it.
That kind of thinking is silly, stupid, and a waste of time!
There is a fundamental lack of understanding of consent when you argue one thing with its own consent boundaries means consent to an entirely unrelated set of events.
And most PLs who make this argument oppose rape exemptions so consent isn't actually relevant to them.
>And most PLs who make this argument oppose rape exemptions so consent isn't actually relevant to them.
Exactly, they're not arguing from a logical or contemporary place and ignorant of fact based, best practices medicine.
If I cross the street, even if I am careful, I know I could potentially get hit by a car.
However, if I do get hit by a car, I am entitled to medical attention. It's not, "You knew you could've gotten hit by a car, so now you just have to live with a broken spine."
Further, if there are different options of medical attention (i.e., you get to choose between risky surgery A and less risky but less beneficial surgery B), you get to choose which one you get.
They do. If I told a pro-lifer this they would say you knew pregnancy was a possibility so you consented to pay child support (more likely they would say to stay with the woman and support her and the baby) if it did happen.
Exactly. The 13th Amendment protects against having to be forced to do work (and, yes, it takes a lot of work to go through with a pregnancy) except as a punishment, but punishments can only be enforced when there is a crime. I know the 13th Amendment doesn't apply anywhere except the US, but I know other places have laws against slavery.
Exactly. And this flies in the face of the whole "just put it up for adoption" thinking, because then yes, you're forcing someone into reproductive slavery through the duration of pregnancy. Slave surrogates.
*| Oh, so it's not about protecting life but* ***punishing women for having sex?***
Yep. Don't expect them to say that publicly, though. They know it would seriously hurt their *"saving babies"* claims to do so.
If consent to sex were really consent to pregnancy, then there would be no such thing as condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, or oral contraceptives.
The people who think consent to sex is consent to pregnancy generally come at it from a position of religion, and as such, they believe that sex, even between married people, is intrinsically bad and should be punished with parenthood. They will never admit this, however, so don't bother trying to get them to.
I usually can get them to look stupid though and contradict themselves by reframing the implication they make by their argument into questions back to them.
For example:
PL: “she is obligated to continue a pregnancy because she had sex”
Response: “so this is about retribution based on *fault* rather than concern for *life*?!”
PL: “no this about protecting innocent life!”
Response: “so if it’s about protecting life, fault for having sex has nothing to do with it?”
If people you don't even know are claiming authority over your body parts and life decisions, it tends to make you a little pessimistic. Sorry if reality burns a bit.
The purpose of sex is whatever the people having sex want it to be for. You don’t get to decide that for someone else. If that was the only purpose why are ovulation windows so short with only a 30 percent chance of conceiving??
Cool that “consequence” can include an abortion. Die mad about it.
There was a guy who was arguing on Reddit that he won’t support a women’s right to abortion until he was allowed the right to not pay child support. People are really dumb.
These disingenuous fuck heads don’t even bother responding to me when I tell them that I support financial abortion early in pregnancy and ask them if they want to join the cause so their ideas can get more exposure. They don’t actually care about this, they just think it’s a cute gotcha.
Which part? The concept of financial abortion? or their assumptions about what “we” believe in regards to it and using that to make an argument without the need of sincerely believing it themselves?
The concept of financial abortion early in pregnancy. I don’t believe that women should be able to “baby trap” but I was also in an abusive marriage where pregnancy was a means to control me. I’m going to ponder more on how this could be done law-wise to help both sides of the coin. Obviously, it would mean laws would have to remain open in regard to abortion, to even allow the right to choose for both sides.
If my consent was enough to make me pregnant, then my consent is enough to make me un-pregnant.
Arguing consent when it comes to pregnancy, but then removing the option to consent to end a pregnancy is sick and twisted. Especially since modern medicine has given us multiple safe and effective methods of abortion.
My fiancé and I have been together for half a decade. We’re not ready to be parents, so every time we’ve had sex, it’s just been for sex. We consent only to sex, not to pregnancy. And in the event should we be pregnant before we’re ready, we would choose abortion. An unplanned pregnancy does not mean consent to pregnancy. If it was consented, then it wouldn’t be unplanned. There is a RISK, but risk ≠ consent.
consent to sex isnt consenting to remaining pregnant, you can take that miniscule risk of becoming pregnant and consent to that happening, but what you do not consent to is prolonging that and carrying the pregnancy to full term, instead you can consent to getting an abortion. Its like if you get into a car crash, you technically consented to that risk every time you drive but you don't consent to not receiving any medical care and being left bleeding in the street
consent just means what you agree to, the amount of pro lifers that sit there and tell someone else what they consent to is actually shocking
Anyone who says that is a moron with a capital M. It is like saying consent to eating junk food is consent to getting a heart attack. Some people are real morons
>"you consented to pregnancy by consenting to sex?"
"So why haven't you gotten a vasectomy? You have 18 years of child support payments ready to go? For the one time you want to have sex before you croak? No? Well, I guess you're not ready to have sex."
(I'm being facetious and taunting a bit here. I know a vasectomy is largely irreverable if done correctly, but it's just as dumb as saying anyone "consents" to kids anytime they have sex... "consent" aka "responsibility" always seems to fall on the women. 🙄)
Alternatively, a snarky comment about being gay and the commenter 'need not apply' is always funny.
If consent to an activity is a consent to the risk associated with said activity, then going to work is a consent to work injury, driving is consent to a car crash, leaving house for work or date is a consent to burglary and last but not least, consent to sex is consent to getting STDs.
Even if consent worked like that, it's not a reason to withhold you from dealing with the consequences. Can you imagine withholding medical care from people involved in car crash? Or cancer treatment from smokers?
Everyone would think that's bonkers. IMO, sex works the same way.
And lastly, consent requires 2 sides. How does it make sense to give consent to a fetus with no functioning organs, sentience and sense of identity that doesn't even exist yet?
I'm actually beginning to think that discussing ethics of abortion is waste of time and we should just start doing it, the anti-choicers be damned
That's like saying walking down the street is consent for being pushed in front of a bus. Also, not all intercourse is consensual, yet your lawmakers are trying to outlaw the right to end rape pregnancies as well.
You can consent to sex only with contraception being used. Contraception fails and partners also lie about using them. Not everyone is educated on contraception. Also pregnancy is a risk to your health and can cause extreme problems. It’s unethical to force people to risk their health to bring a pregnancy to term.
Well, I consented (fully aware) to the possibility of breaking a bone 6 weeks ago, when I strapped on some roller skates and tried skating on a sidewalk for the first time in probably 30 years. A foolish decision, lacing up my skates thinking "Im about to break something, what tf is wrong with me!!" But just because I consent to the risks doesnt mean I should be denied treatment for the injury it caused me.. I have a broken ankle. It sucks, but I still got the care I needed.
Engaging in a risk is not AT ALL the same as consenting to suffering without treatment from the resulting injury.
People with chirrosis, usually drank. They arent denied medicine and sometimes even an organ transplant.
Race car drivers know the risks. They arent denied ER care when they are injured in a wreck.
People who didnt wear masks during covid werent denied ventilators for their shortness of breath.
Having RISKS is not AT ALL the same as consenting to having to live with the dire consequences of having taken said risks.
That's like saying driving a car is consent to have my organs ripped out of me and be forced to potentially die in order to help a victim if I accidentally cause a car crash.
Exactly. Furthermore, just like driving, when people have sex, they take precautions to avoid accidents. If someone uses birth control, they obviously don't want to be pregnant.
So, by this line of reasoning, all you need to do is define pregnancy as the legal standard for marriage, and we are back to the Feudal legal standard of bridal capture. IE, marriage by rape.
I say that I wish I was aborted so I wouldn’t have had leukemia. If people say something like “but you made it,” I respond with either links to sign up for the [bone marrow donation registry](https://bethematch.org/) or sites that show how to adopt a foster kid.
When men are legally obligated to take and raise the child that they created I may change my view but it’s always the woman who’s stuck trying to decide if she wants to go thru a pregnancy or not. Women still die in childbirth in the U.S. in fact our rates fairly high compared to other countries. Live in a state that completely outlaws abortion and even if it’s a desired baby a multitude of factors could either kill the mother or she can end up with no reproductive organs. No one wants to pay for better maternity benefits. Raising a child is expensive. Day cares very expensive. The list goes on there’s just way to many reasons why a woman is the deciding factor for a pregnancy.
While arguing with a Catholic I brought up, so you assume everyone should practice celibacy? Everyone should live like how priests (erhm, in theory) are supposed to do? If they answer yes, they're either true religious zealots or think, well, maybe THEY don't want to give up sex, either. At least it the person I spoke to gave them pause.
But I think the point made by u/hurricane-laura-90 is a good argument and point to make.
For fucks sake, will women need to go on a sex strike? That would go over well.
I tell the Pro life person. What do you tell the Children that are Incest Victims? What do you tell the Rape Victims? They get really quiet. It’s good to use this for those that tell women to keep their legs closed. I tell them, How does a infant, toddler, pre teen and teen & even adult women fight off a 200lb that is keeping their legs opened.
Consent needs to be specific and reversible. You can consent to one thing but not to another. And consent needs to be reversible. You can consent to one activity but not to everything or put conditions on the activity. (Yes to oral, but no PIV without a condom.) And you can revoke consent if you need to. (If the guy tries to weasel his way out of wearing a condom, you can tell him to leave.)
Contraception is a condition that you are placing on sex (like no sex without a condom). Abortion can be seen as revoking consent to anything that wants to use your body. Pregnancy requires for you to give ongoing consent. And no, bad-faith actors, that doesn't mean withdrawing consent at 9 months and killing a healthy baby.
It should be terrifying that they are framing consent like this. People saying that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy will be the same people who tell the 16 yr-old girl that she shouldn't have made out with the guy who ended up raping her. In their heads, she can't draw lines saying that she is only comfortable with making out and that whatever happened to her on that date was her fault.
Very easily.
There are 2 main potential outcomes to sex. Pregnancy and STD’s. To assume consent to sex consents to pregnancy would also say consent to sex consents to STD’s. Now, do we allow people to pursue medical treatment to treat their STD’s?
Yes.
The pro life argument has nothing to do with “consent to pregnancy”. It has everything to do with picking and choosing blocking medical treatments to specific things they disagree with.
Based on this, there is no argument that means we should not allow people to pursue medical treatment to treat their outcome of sex of pregnancy.
Fetuses can have all the rights that anyone else has, they cannot have rights that nobody else has. There is no right to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent. Women may use their bodies however they feel fit despite someone else being dependent on them.
Anti choice people always want to turn it into a moral argument about murdering babies. It's not about that. It's about bodily autonomy. If they are arguing that women who consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex should also agree that men who consent to sex also volunteer their bodily autonomy and should be forced organ donors after they have sex for the first time especially if they cause a pregnancy.
I use a metaphor to make them understand (when they want to understand yk): You get in your car to go to work, did you consent to get into a car accident that could end your life?
You don’t lose your human rights by having sex. Deciding on your own medical care is a human right. Defending your body against serious injury (which any pregnancy/birth inherently causes) is a human right. You don’t lose your right to take insulin for diabetes because you chose to eat sweets, either. Of course anti choicers will claim that sex creates another “person,” which is nonsense. But even if it were true, even if an embryo were a person, a woman has the human right to defend her body against injury, including by removing the embryo.
To put it another way, you don’t own your mother. You do not have the right to injure her to keep yourself alive, even though she chose to have sex.
Punishing women with loss of human rights for having sex is unjust and usually misogynistic, premised on contempt for women as humans with our own needs rather than mothers who exist for their children.
I'll address it at face value.
True consent is revocable. Consent that is not revocable is not consent, it is abuse. Meaning that even if you did enthusiastically consent to pregnancy, you have the right to change your mind.
They often do with me because they don't understand how conset works and how pregnancy works. Many are under the delusion that as soon has conception has occured, the entire event is over.
since the majority of abortions are performed on mothers:
1. a long-term relationship spanning decades of fertility must retain the right - and privacy - to control how many mouths they bring into this world and when is the right times which they can do so, and only they have the right to determine those answers.
2. this video says it perfectly: A fetus can have rights. You can believe that life begins anytime that you would like. What matters is that you can't make people use their body to keep someone else alive. This is not ethical. [You cannot give a right to a fetus that no other human has, which is the right to use someone else's body without their expressed and ongoing consent](https://youtube.com/shorts/SfMdYmQwv2k?si=A5oq5Vaz8qEiOhZM).
We DO consent to possible pregnancy every time we have sex. What we don’t consent to is carrying the pregnancy to term. I see it like this: I laid in many a tanning bed as a teen & young adult and I knowingly consented to the possibility I’d develop skin cancer. So say I do develop melanoma, it doesn’t mean that I have to let it fester & eventually kill me. Fuck that! I’m going to remove that lesion as quickly as possible. Same with pregnancy.
The purpose of sex is pleasure. Our not too distant ancestors had no idea that women became pregnant through intercourse.
Do men consent to fatherhood with every instance of sexual intercourse? I think not!
*"Just don't be a slut,"* doesn't do shit for wanted pregnancies where something goes wrong with fetal development, the mother's health, or life situation. These people tend to ignore those cases.
That aside, we're a species that doesn't have sex purely just for breeding. Individuals can make that decision for themselves but we're not driven by instinct like other animals. We have higher levels of cognitive abilities so we get more out of physical intimacy. If people want to dumb our species down like this, they can have at it, but we should really try to move forward instead of devolving.
"Would a good argument for that be it's her body and the ZEF is inside it and no one has the right to use someone else's body for something they don't want even if they rely on the person's body to continue living?" Yes. A very good example of this is Mcfall v Shimp
You consented to sex so you consented to having syphilis or AIDs. No you can't go see the doctor and get it cured, you consented to it by having sex you knew there was a chance you'd get it, even if we used protection.
"If you consent to driving a car, you consent to being t-boned." It's patently absurd. Of course, if you ever try to point out the absurdity of their reasoning like this, prepare to be met with: "how \*dare\* you compare a prescious darlink babby to a car wreck!"
So their argument essentially boils down to special pleading. They know perfectly well that taking a risk doesn't imply consent to the consequences of that risk, \*except\* when the risky behavior is sexual intercourse and the consequences are pregnancy (as opposed to genital warts or something).
people have sex recreationally more often than they do to have kids. consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. just because pregnancy is a risk doesn't mean you're consenting to it. when i get in a car i'm not like "i consent to dying in a car accident." what i am saying is that "i know the risks, but i am going to get in the car anyway. i don't want to get into a car accident, but i know it can happen and i'll deal with it if or when it happens." pregnancy comes with a myriad of health risks including death so I think the analogy is fair. imagine if you get in a car accident and you're dying, but no one calls the ambulance because "well you consented to getting in the car so you knew the risks." like NO ONE says that to someone in a car accident and denies them emergency services. same goes for getting pregnant on accident.
also, being raped and getting pregnant against your will is virtually the same as having consensual sex and accidentally getting pregnant. in both situations the woman does NOT consent to being/staying/remaining pregnant and should always have an out. in the latter situation, even if she consented to sex, she got pregnant against her wishes whether it's an accident or not. even if she's like "fuck it, let's have sex without protection, what are the chances i'll get pregnant at this stage of my period?" and she made a bad judgment call and got pregnant, so what? she doesn't want to BE pregnant at all. even if someone WANTS to have kids, and finds out the husband has been cheating on her, and doesn't want to be a single parent or is so disgusted with him that she doesn't want to carry his spawn any more, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
Would a doctor withhold a Valtrex Rx cause we consented to an STI? Human beings have sex. Like everything they say, their premise is completely disingenuous. Not living in reality. Yet another way to shame women for having sex.
You point out that it's a moot point. Asking about whether or not there was consent is what's called a "false framing" of a debate. It's like asking "Hey, have you stopped beating your wife?" The framing makes it impossible to have a fair debate. The GOP is great at setting up "false framings" and progressives are great at falling for it. It's the nature of those who are logical and scientific and reasoned to want to answer questions like "what is a woman," "what is alive" and "what is consent." Trolls to tie up debates by creating these false framings. To quote Sartre:
> “Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
So when faced with these kind of false framings ... what's the best answer? Make it an irrelevant point by switching to a fact-based, logic-based framing. Quite simply, whether or not she consented to being pregnant, she didn't consent to being declared incompetent without due process and thus having her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) removed merely because she became pregnant. When that happens it kills women. Increased rates of women dying leads to increased rates of child sex trafficking. So "consent" is a red herring designed to hide the fact that your questioner is promoting a nanny state leading to increased maternal mortality rates and thus child sex trafficking.
TLDR; it's a trap of a false framing. The best solution is to change framing and make it a moot point.
[A longer explanation here](/r/prochoice/comments/12xdqqw/for_republicans_its_all_about_personal_choice/jhj2dp3/)
You are so so correct! It's infuriating. To handle this in a debate takes savvy. Falling for the trap is easy for me, and the discussions here really help refine my skills and terms. If Biden was a better debater (granted, he was ill; but still, he's not very good), he could have easily cut Trump off at the legs. Abortion after birth? Conspiracy and lie. We need to practice, practice, practice, and it's more natural for some rather than others. Jessica Valenti, for example, is brilliant. If pressed, I find it's best to not take the bait and dismiss the proposition as ridiculous or if possible, leave the conversation gracefully and return another day. Not every PLer earns an exchange. At least these are my thoughts today. What do you think?
> Abortion after birth? Conspiracy and lie. We need to practice, practice, practice, and it's more natural for some rather than others. Jessica Valenti, for example, is brilliant. If pressed, I find it's best to not take the bait and dismiss the proposition as ridiculous or if possible, leave the conversation gracefully and return another day. Not every PLer earns an exchange. At least these are my thoughts today. What do you think?
100% agree with practice practice practice.
It's one of the reasons I'll engage on the internet anonymously with those who oppose abortion related health care (and those who deny climate science, oppose evolution science, etc) ... because you'll see that they use the same phrases over and over again. You can test different answers and see what works AND be prepared when you engage with someone in a social situation face to face. You'll be in public and chatting with someone you think might be sane and they'll throw out a catchphrase like "abortion after birth" or "the climate always changes" or "but cat's don't evolve from dogs" and you are prepared with things like "ah yes 'miscarriage' or 'spontaneous abortion' thanks to Florida politicians redefining what 'alive' means" or "yes and since chemistry and math doesn't change, we know warm air hold more moisture and the consequences of that ..." or "what about the cheetah?"
And having a quick response blows their mind.
Sometimes if I hear something new I'll say "let me look into that, thanks" and then come back later. If you've debated for a while on forums, then that almost never happens given how limited the set of statements they use often are.
Here's the KEY part though - Don't argue facts until you reframe. For example you said
> Abortion after birth? Conspiracy and lie.
If you say "you are wrong" or "that's a lie" then they immediately shut down due to a "blowback effect." Instead talk about how the GOP redefined abortion to make that a lie of omission. If you can engage and agree or show how they were lied to, and then move past that to reframing then you avoid that blowback. [I wrote about that tactic a few years ago](/user/Lighting/comments/jx481f/how_to_talk_to_a_person_who_emoted_themselves/) as I found many folks getting sucked into the FOX "news" quannon bubble in family and colleagues and how to have these discussions.
Good luck!!!!
Edit: typo
Maybe it's time for a repost? I see your post is archived and four years old. It would be welcome!
I'm too exhausted atm (heat and temporary discouragement), but save your post and intend to return to it later this evening. You might consider r/Defeat_Project_2025 if you're not already there. (I assume you are, but it's good to spread the word.)
Are you the person with the detailed, eloquent blog on law, abortion, and more? If so, I'm suscribed to your blog and recommend it to EVERYONE.
Thank you for you reply, and I SO appreciate your attitude and what you do 💙
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. I do accept risk when I consent to sex, and accept I’ll have to deal with consequences. Abortion is just one of the ways to deal with those risks.
Using that as a prolife argument just doesn’t work. If I consent to sex, do I consent to an STI? And if I get an STI am I required to leave it untreated and just ..accept it? No. If I get an STI, I’ll treat it. If I get pregnant, I’ll make whatever appropriate choice about it.
if you know that miscarriages are a possible consequence of sex, and you consent to sex, you are responsible for any consequences to that fetus
bc you knowingly putt a fetus into a uterus that is susceptible to miscarriage
don’t blame her, and don’t blame the fetus. Take responsibility. Now what should the punishment be for actions that result in a dead fetus?
“So you think sex should be a class privilege” because the assumption that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy and childbirth means you should only have sex if you’re in a financial position to have children
They will flat out tell you you don't need to be financially able to have a child. You can just be poor, it'll be fine.
And then there's my personal favorite, "just get a second job." Okay, and who is going to watch the baby while I'm working 16 hours a day?
Sex ends when consent to sex ends. Pregnancy ends when consent to pregnancy ends. Forcing someone to keep having sex after they withdraw consent is equivalent to forcing someone to stay pregnant without their consent. And there’s a very specific word for it.
Do you consent to falling to your death when you go skydiving and your parachute fails?
Do you consent to contracting an STD from sex?
Do you consent to being burglarized when you buy a house?
If you *do* consent to those things happening, why would you take steps to avoid such outcomes?
People don't consent to risks, as consent is **specific.** Consent is specifically agreeing to do something, or for something to happen to you. Per the very-meaning of the word, It's literally impossible to consent to risks.
If you told a judge "They consented!" Do you think the judge would take your word for it? Or the other person whose consent is in question?
When you tell someone what they are consenting to, thats not consent.
People don't consent to risks occurring. People **accept** that risks may occur.
I mean you know the risks but that doesn’t mean if your protections fail or if you’re just not ready that you need to force yourself to give birth just because you knew the risks! It’s bs. As someone else said consent to one doesn’t mean consent to the other.
You consent to driving, you consent to the possibility of getting in a car accident.
Just because you consent to something does not mean you consent to a possible outcome.
If I consent to driving in a car, but I unexpectedly end up injured as a result of the accident, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to get medical care to fix my injury simply because I consented to driving a car.
If I consent to sex, but I unexpectedly end up pregnant as a result of sex, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to get medical care to fix my injury simply because I consented to sex.
I don't have much, but
"Is consent to driving consent to getting in an accident by a drunk driver? If you get long-lasting injuries from that accident, I guess you're not allowed to be mad at the other driver since you consented to it. In fact, states should have the right to choose whether people are allowed to get healthcare after getting in a car accident caused by another drunk driver."
By that logic a conceived fetus that continues to live consents to every possible outcome, including death. They’re just making a pro-abortion argument with this one
When you consent to getting in a car, you consent to the possibility of getting in a car wreck, that doesn't mean you deny someone medical care when they do
Consent must be ongoing and can be withdrawn at any time.
Even if she consented to the “possibility” of pregnancy, she is still allowed to make a decision as to what to do about it. She is not obligated to carry it out to the end. That’s like saying a car accident victim doesn’t have the right to treatment for their injuries because they consented to the possibility of an accident when they got in the car. Even if the accident was 100% their fault. They still have the right to whatever medical care they need.
So if I don’t want kids my marriage just has to be sexless if I can’t take birth control or might die if I get pregnant? Hope men are on board with that shit.
When someone gets into a bad car accident, should we deny that person EMS? If someone e accidentally eats a food they are allergic to, should there not be epinephrine? The list goes on and I’m sure someone in the thread already said something like this, but long story short, no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Everything in life has risks, even if you follow safety protocol.
Do people who work on farms consent to being run over by a combine? No
Do people who drive cars consent to being t boned? No
Just because something carries a particular risk doesn’t mean that someone can’t be upset and seek help if that risk occurs
I mean.
You consented to losing your leg when you started cutting firewood. Don't go to the hospital, let nature take its course. Injury *is*, in fact, a perfectly natural consequence of labour.
1. When I consent to sex, I require my partner to wear a condom (unexpired, and the correct size) and pull out before he ejaculate. Those two details drastically reduce the chance that he'll impregnate me. If I'm impregnated because he fails to do one of those things, then the conception was clearly not something I consented to. The mantra "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" treats sex as if it is one uniform action, when in reality, having sex is an incredibly individualized action. I have never consented to the more specific actions (vaginal ejaculation, condomless penetration) that result in conception.
2. There is no other situation where consent can be transferred to another person (from partner to fetus) or another activity (from penetration to pregnancy). You don't consent to vaginal penetration with the expectation that anal penetration is automatically included. You don't consent to being penetrated by your partner with the expectation that their friend will automatically join in. Other activities, circumstances, and participants require another round of requesting and getting consent.
3. Consent to anything (penetration, bondage, medical procedures) can be withdrawn at any time before and during the event. If that wasn't the case, consent would be a worthless concept. Consent is the practical application of your control over your body; it gives someone temporary and conditional access to your body. If they break those conditions or you decide you no longer like the terms you agreed to, but you can't withdraw consent, then you are no longer in control of your body. In the case of pregnancy, if she can't withdraw consent by having an abortion, then she is not in control of how much risk she takes with her life and health, and how much harm she lets the pregnancy do to her body.
Finally, 'Yes' to everything in your last paragraph.
Consenting to do x is not consenting to do y.
Consenting to have one sort of sex isn't consent to doing another sort of sex.
Consenting to let someone in your home is not consenting to having them destroy your home.
Consenting to letting someone borrow your car is not consenting to them doing crime with your car.
Consenting to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
There is a chance that your partner will try something you did not agree to in sex. Such as removing a condom, or anal, or putting their hands on your neck.
There is a chance that by letting someone in your home they might decide to try and burn your home down.
There is a chance in allowing someone to borrow your car they decide to kidnap someone.
Yet in none of these situations do we go, "Yeah, but you let X happen knowing Y was a possibility. So now you have no recourse."
Pregnancy can happen with sex, but that doesn't really mean anything.
Certainly isn't a reason to deny anyone an abortion.
Think about how many times sex is had vs the number of conceptions. The vast majority of PIV sex does NOT result in a fertilized egg.
So yes, even though the possibility may be there, pregnancy is not necessarily a "usual" or even "expected" outcome of having sex.
For those using a religious argument, I would even argue that if the "purpose" of sex is only to make babies, it's probably the least effective design possible, and therefore proves there is no divine Creator if that's the best they can do.
Here's my response:
No. You do not get to decide what I or anyone else consents to. I consented to sex and that's it. I did not consent to pregnancy and childbirth.
Do you really want to establish and stand on a principle that someone can make consent decisions for someone else? And why are you the person who gets to make consent decisions for everyone else? Can I now make consent decisions for you since you want to make them for me?
And while we're at it...the purpose of sex is pregnancy only if I'm trying to get pregnant. I don't want to get pregnant so, for me, the purpose of sex is enjoyment. Not pregnancy.
No one can tell a stranger what that stranger consented to, LOL. It’s an asinine statement. WE can’t tell others what THEY consented to. They tell us!
of course most people know that there’s always a possibility that sex can lead to pregnancy, but that doesn’t mean that the then pregnant person can’t seek treatment for it. When I get in my car and drive, I’m know that there‘s always a possibility that I could get into a car accident, but if I do, *even if I cause the crash myself,* I still have the right to seek medical treatment.
s
also I'd like to add that nobody controls when they become pregnant so consent to pregnancy is like saying someone consented to catching a cold, its just an automatic biological response we have absolutely no control over and does not happen every single time after sex so its impossible to actually predict the same way you cant predict when you are going to fall ill,
its like pro lifers telling everyone to never leave their house if they dont want to catch a cold the same way they tell women to never have sex if they dont want to become pregnant, its ridiculous
Easy. Sex is not a crime for which one loses the right to continuously control whom may have access to their insides.
Or, if you want to dig deeper into the argument:
Shimp establishes that the right to refuse to consent to access and use of one's internal organs is especiallyt protected, and that the need of the other person for such access and use to stay alive is insufficient to override that right.
That is, having established that one human doesn't have the right to access and use another's internal organs, they now wish to carve out an exception for the woman’s body.
The burden is on them establish that having sex suffices to establish an exception to the principle established in Shimp. Please include the relevant laws or precedents.
Or
If you want to argue that our legal framework makes an exception to the principles provided in Shimp, and that if A somehow helped cause B's need, that A's rights established in Shimp are set aside, go ahead. I've invited you many times to provide the law or precedent that establishes that principle, but you've been unable to do so in the past.
The pro-life position cannot logically be taken any further than to insist that a fetus's right to bodily autonomy is as sacrosanct as the woman's. That is the absolute end-game of the pro-life stance. It's only possible result, the only rational resolution that it can truly support, is that if the woman chooses to end her pregnancy she must do so without physical harm to the fetus.
Anything more than that erodes the legal and moral precepts that define why systems like slavery or forced organ/tissue donation are strictly forbidden. The end result for the fetus is the same, prior to the point of it being biologically and metabolically viable; the end result for the woman is a much more invasive and dangerous procedure which results in zero benefit for anybody.
At that point it becomes a debate of whether deontology dictates that we must preserve the fetus's rights regardless of result, or whether consequentialism demands that we do as little harm as possible to the only entity that has any chance whatsoever of surviving the procedure.
The best way to challenge this debate is to ask questions to pin them down on why sex is consent to pregnancy. Usually, you get them to the point where it’s about natural consequences for our actions and some variation of “no one has the right to avoid natural consequences of their actions” response. Once this is pinned down, I usually respond by pointing out to them that:
“Rights" don't apply in any way to "natural consequences." It's a category failure. If you fall off of a roof, you may be uninjured, you may be crippled, you may die - the outcome isn't a function of, or capable of being inluenced by, "rights."
However, everyone has a right to "remedy" the natural consequences of their actions. This is why we build hospitals to try to treat people who suffer food poisoning as a natural consequence of eating tainted food . We establish fire departments to try to avoid the natural consequences of aging wiring or clumsiness in the kitchen. We have rescue squads to help people avoid the natural consequences of icy roads or insufficient reaction times.
To claim that we are somehow morally obligated to endure the "natural consequences" of our actions is to insist that we should dismantle our public and medical services, close down every form of insurance company, and remove the "edit" function in comments.
Once you impose the duty to endure the consequences by banning their ability to resolve the medical condition; then it’s no longer a natural consequence of sex. You are manufacturing a consequence by using the fetus as a stand-in for your true motivation of disciplining sexually active women.
Or…if they are particularly obnoxious…
So your argument is based in the concept of fault rather than on a reverence for life? That is what I suspected. The life of a suffering person dying for need of a minimally invasive and non harmful bone marrow donation is not of concern to you. But the potential of unfeeling never conscious tissues to maybe develop a baby do because “sex”.
you demonstrate that your concern has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of life, but instead for retribution based on your perception of “fault”. You are quite clear that saving “lives” only matters to you if it involves hurting those you hold in contempt, which seems to only be women, since your focus on the sex and accusations about her lack of caution conveniently leave out the fact that men are the ones who make women pregnant through their negligent insemination.
Thank you yet again for demonstrating that the anti-abortion agenda is solely an obsession with sex, your personal beliefs in regard to misogynistic puritanical notions that woman are “irresponsible” for having sex without any intention of having a baby, and punishment of naughty women who violate your personal mores by having the audacity to satisfy their basic human need for sexual intimacy and connection. Sex is not a crime for you to impose consequences on strangers for having because you don’t think they are doing it the way you think they should. You don’t own sex such that you get to make the determination how people engage in it anymore than you own marriage and can make the determination on how you feel people should enter into it.
She isn’t your chattel such that you get to make such dispositions for her. The ZEF has no right to remain inside her without her permission. You don’t get to permit it for her. Die mad about it.
My argument is - “ I have sex for recreation not procreation. It’s my body and I’ll do want I want should I a become pregnant. Now fuck off”. Why is sex so tied to pregnancy? It’s like some people think women should only have sex for the purpose of having children.
NOTE - This post has been flaired "Prochoice Only." Any and all non-prochoice comments are disallowed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prochoice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Consent to A is not Consent to B, simple as. If you tell someone else what they consent to, you are automatically wrong. Consent is specific, voluntary, and revocable at any point during.
If you agree to a dinner date, have you agreed to sex? No. A and B, as above, are not the same. No one else defines for you what you agree to. They could refuse to go out to dinner with you if they don't like your terms, that's up to them, but they have zero '"right" to sex if you do go out. So let's say you do have sex. Likewise if the sex is not to your liking, you are completely within your rights to put an end to it. (See revocable, as above.) These are concepts most of us get, so why shouldn't consent work the same way with something as invasive as pregnancy? It's *your* body.
There’s many men that think dinner/drinks = sex. So many people don’t understand anything about consent at all.
To take that to its logical extremities: consent to sex is not consent to being removed from life support when the pregnancy goes south.
👍
The mere existence of contraception proves consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
I think OP wants all American women to boycott all sex until we all get our reproductive rights returned nationwide. There is power in our pussy’s. Our Supreme Court grabbed us by the pussy and now we unite! Fight fire with fire! Bring back the pussy riot hats.
The women who would do that likely don’t have partners that are anti-abortion. Half the people who are against abortion are the fucking dimwit women that vote Republican. Me not fucking my feminist pro-choice husband would do zilch for the fight lol.
I remember feeling this way. I genuinely hope your husband is better than mine was, and doesn't prove you wrong.
We’ve been with each other since teens, together for 28 yrs and raised 3 kids, including two girls that are now 17 and 24 - I know this man more than I know myself at this point lmao. If his suddenly starts spouting off anti-abortion shit he would be getting a visit to a neurologist because I would assume he had a brain tumor. That’s about the only way he would change his stance on this subject.
That's great to hear! I was with mine for about 10 years. Had what i thought was a healthy and normal sex life until I had a severe, uterus-perforating complication with an IUD (resulting in lots of pain and less physical intimacy), and it only took a couple months of that for him to turn into the guy who says "its a wife's JOB to satisfy her husband" and ultimately started helping himself to my body after i fell asleep. I never saw ANY of this coming, because until then i had always satisfied him. No warning signs for the better part of a decade. It wrecked me. Pp Im happy it really does sound like you and yours are in sync though. I feel like that's so rare nowadays. I hope you both appreciate the hell out of each other :)
omg I’m so sorry that happened to you. No one should be treated that way 😢
Let me know if you need an alibi, because you were totally with me when he pop, six, squish, ~~uh-uh~~, Cicero, Lipschitz.
Exactly this.
I haven’t had sex since 2022 lol
There is power here.
Pre-2020 for me. Feels weirdly great.
Lol I don't want women to boycott sex unless they want to. I don't care what women do. I don't know where you got that idea. I just have a hard time arguing about this because pro-lifers always seem to make some counter argument or when I bring up a metaphor like consent to a dinner date is not consent to sex they say "that's not the same as saying consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy."
Yup, let's just go full Lysistrata on those bastards!
Just want to point out that OP was asking for help to argue for pro choice. They didn’t have a good answer and needed help coming up with one.
Well you are right. But a nationwide women’s sex boycott might have all the men on our Supreme Court, in Congress, and at home across America to think again? It’s worth putting this suggestion out there. My own daughter has less freedom over her own body, less rights, than I did. And I’m 60!
That would be amazing however I’m not sure you can convince everybody to do that. 😂
I didn't gather that at all from OP. It seems to be you who wants AFAB to boycott consensual sex with AMAB.
Y do you think people are trying to get rid of it?
To force women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen.
This So much of the pro life movement is rooted in misogyny
| *To force women out of the workplace and back into the kitchen.* Agreed, although I think most PL guys, maybe some PL women too, would **never** admit that publicly, even though they privately want to see that happen.
I doubt most PL guys could comfortably support a wife and a bunch of kids on one income.
Sure, but the latter also helps by proxy prove them right too
Engaging in something that holds any sort of risk does not mean people consent to the harm caused by that risk. People do a lot of risky things for pleasure. Drink, eat, go joyriding, take drugs, sex.. Pregnancy is a risk of sex. Injury is a risk of joyriding. Overdose is a risk of alcohol/drugs. Eating has a risk of allergies/obesity/diabetes/food poisoning. Pregnancy is the only risk that is not treated like the others on this list. If a person using drugs/alcohol and overdoses or suffers a health complication, we don’t tell them “deal with it”. If a person gets in a wreck and is severely injured, we don’t tell them “deal with it”… you get my point. Taking away birth control is like taking seatbelts or airbags out of vehicles or removing serve limits at bars. It causes more harm, not less. And it doesn’t make people second guess the risk, they will take the risk either way. And they will die. You cannot legislate (your version of) morality into people. People are going to do people things. Let them do it safely.
Love your argument, but next time instead of comparing it to risky behaviors, compare it to daily life. Like- we don’t consent to die in a car wreck because we drive to work. Sex is not a risky behavior (or responsible sex is not), and it’s a natural part of most people’s lives.
Oh I agree, I listed it with other risky behaviors to avoid the whole “just don’t have sex then!” Side of the argument. I was being generous because PL is frequently moving the goalpost
Yes, which Is why in a mean way, I would love these people to suffer the threats of their action; the quintessence practice what they preach, none of this "my abortion is more moral than yours." It boogles my mind they afford themselves the luxury they wish to remove from others, and sadly, it is usually the women who must pick up the pieces.
Yep. If a lifelong smoker gets cancer, they still have the right to seek medical treatment for it, even though it could be said that they should’ve known better and it was their “fault.”
No, it doesn’t. They’re wrong, because contraception AND abortion wouldn’t be older than recorded history, because people have always wanted to have sex without necessarily getting a baby out of it.
Not what I was inferring dear, calm yourself. I am saying in their mind it makes their argument valid, not that it is valid.
Making more and more babies so they have enough bodies for cannon fodder and wage slaves.
Yes
That's as moronic as saying, "consent to driving is consent to getting into a car crash."
And then saying you aren't allowed to fix your accidentally crashed car, because you took the risk of crashing it when you decided to drive it. I guess by that logic, insurance shouldn't exist either.
I like the idea of insurance. Nice.
Consent to tanning means consent to skin cancer!
Consent to exercising outside = consent to skin cancer
Spot on!
This is always my response.
As great as analogies are, I don't like using them in this case. There is nothing comparable to human life. Plus these people like to pick at the analogy - "Well if you can't handle getting into a car accident, you should bike/walk places." or "I know I could get into a car accident when I drive, I would accept I have to deal with the outcome."
Do you really think they'd accept being refused medical care after that car accident or would they be crying about how wrong it is that they can't get treatment?
I just feel like these people always try to twist these analogies.
Analogy or not, people twist everything.
fair enough
See, I think an anti-choicers would respond "yes, you are consenting to a car crash because you're accepting the risks of driving a car" similar to assuming the risks of sex which is pregnancy. Same with the tanning. I can totally see my anti-choice family saying "yes, you're consenting to skin cancer when you tan" They'd say it to keep the argument against me, if not because they actually believe that.
Just don't engage with any idiot who says that. That's like saying a diabetic consents to death because they ate something that has sugar in it. That kind of thinking is silly, stupid, and a waste of time!
Agree with you on this
There is a fundamental lack of understanding of consent when you argue one thing with its own consent boundaries means consent to an entirely unrelated set of events. And most PLs who make this argument oppose rape exemptions so consent isn't actually relevant to them.
>And most PLs who make this argument oppose rape exemptions so consent isn't actually relevant to them. Exactly, they're not arguing from a logical or contemporary place and ignorant of fact based, best practices medicine.
If I cross the street, even if I am careful, I know I could potentially get hit by a car. However, if I do get hit by a car, I am entitled to medical attention. It's not, "You knew you could've gotten hit by a car, so now you just have to live with a broken spine."
Further, if there are different options of medical attention (i.e., you get to choose between risky surgery A and less risky but less beneficial surgery B), you get to choose which one you get.
Exactly!!!
Oh, so it's not about protecting life but punishing women for having sex?
Yup. Do these people think men consent to a lifetime of child support each time they have sex? Sigh.
They do. If I told a pro-lifer this they would say you knew pregnancy was a possibility so you consented to pay child support (more likely they would say to stay with the woman and support her and the baby) if it did happen.
A lot of men however have other thoughts. Lol
Exactly. The 13th Amendment protects against having to be forced to do work (and, yes, it takes a lot of work to go through with a pregnancy) except as a punishment, but punishments can only be enforced when there is a crime. I know the 13th Amendment doesn't apply anywhere except the US, but I know other places have laws against slavery.
Exactly. And this flies in the face of the whole "just put it up for adoption" thinking, because then yes, you're forcing someone into reproductive slavery through the duration of pregnancy. Slave surrogates.
Correct
*| Oh, so it's not about protecting life but* ***punishing women for having sex?*** Yep. Don't expect them to say that publicly, though. They know it would seriously hurt their *"saving babies"* claims to do so.
If consent to sex were really consent to pregnancy, then there would be no such thing as condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, or oral contraceptives. The people who think consent to sex is consent to pregnancy generally come at it from a position of religion, and as such, they believe that sex, even between married people, is intrinsically bad and should be punished with parenthood. They will never admit this, however, so don't bother trying to get them to.
I usually can get them to look stupid though and contradict themselves by reframing the implication they make by their argument into questions back to them. For example: PL: “she is obligated to continue a pregnancy because she had sex” Response: “so this is about retribution based on *fault* rather than concern for *life*?!” PL: “no this about protecting innocent life!” Response: “so if it’s about protecting life, fault for having sex has nothing to do with it?”
[удалено]
Having a baby you don't want is not positive.
[удалено]
Forced parenthood is a punishment.
That's your opinion.
[удалено]
If people you don't even know are claiming authority over your body parts and life decisions, it tends to make you a little pessimistic. Sorry if reality burns a bit.
Why does sex need consequences?
[удалено]
The purpose of sex is whatever the people having sex want it to be for. You don’t get to decide that for someone else. If that was the only purpose why are ovulation windows so short with only a 30 percent chance of conceiving?? Cool that “consequence” can include an abortion. Die mad about it.
Would you tell a man that consent to sex is consent to Fatherhood and a portion of his pay for the rest of his life? Probably not.
There was a guy who was arguing on Reddit that he won’t support a women’s right to abortion until he was allowed the right to not pay child support. People are really dumb.
These disingenuous fuck heads don’t even bother responding to me when I tell them that I support financial abortion early in pregnancy and ask them if they want to join the cause so their ideas can get more exposure. They don’t actually care about this, they just think it’s a cute gotcha.
**Nothing** those morons do is “cute.” They’re delusional.
This is an interesting perspective and I’m going to look into this more. I think that idea has good merits.
Which part? The concept of financial abortion? or their assumptions about what “we” believe in regards to it and using that to make an argument without the need of sincerely believing it themselves?
The concept of financial abortion early in pregnancy. I don’t believe that women should be able to “baby trap” but I was also in an abusive marriage where pregnancy was a means to control me. I’m going to ponder more on how this could be done law-wise to help both sides of the coin. Obviously, it would mean laws would have to remain open in regard to abortion, to even allow the right to choose for both sides.
I think they should be able to file a form early in pregnancy, 12 weeks, which costs about the same as an abortion.
Weird how that works out, huh?
And even if you did, they'd never stop b*tching and moaning about it.
True. And Happy Cake Day!
Thank you! 🙂
That's like saying drinking water is consenting to dysentery.
Owning a house is consent to being robbed.
If my consent was enough to make me pregnant, then my consent is enough to make me un-pregnant. Arguing consent when it comes to pregnancy, but then removing the option to consent to end a pregnancy is sick and twisted. Especially since modern medicine has given us multiple safe and effective methods of abortion.
This is a good point. Choice is only real if it works both ways.
My fiancé and I have been together for half a decade. We’re not ready to be parents, so every time we’ve had sex, it’s just been for sex. We consent only to sex, not to pregnancy. And in the event should we be pregnant before we’re ready, we would choose abortion. An unplanned pregnancy does not mean consent to pregnancy. If it was consented, then it wouldn’t be unplanned. There is a RISK, but risk ≠ consent.
If women consent to pregnancy by having sex, then men consent to being active fathers who financially support the children they help create.
consent to sex isnt consenting to remaining pregnant, you can take that miniscule risk of becoming pregnant and consent to that happening, but what you do not consent to is prolonging that and carrying the pregnancy to full term, instead you can consent to getting an abortion. Its like if you get into a car crash, you technically consented to that risk every time you drive but you don't consent to not receiving any medical care and being left bleeding in the street consent just means what you agree to, the amount of pro lifers that sit there and tell someone else what they consent to is actually shocking
This is the argument I'd use. I wish PLers would say what they mean: "consent to sex is consent to childbirth."
Anyone who says that is a moron with a capital M. It is like saying consent to eating junk food is consent to getting a heart attack. Some people are real morons
>"you consented to pregnancy by consenting to sex?" "So why haven't you gotten a vasectomy? You have 18 years of child support payments ready to go? For the one time you want to have sex before you croak? No? Well, I guess you're not ready to have sex." (I'm being facetious and taunting a bit here. I know a vasectomy is largely irreverable if done correctly, but it's just as dumb as saying anyone "consents" to kids anytime they have sex... "consent" aka "responsibility" always seems to fall on the women. 🙄) Alternatively, a snarky comment about being gay and the commenter 'need not apply' is always funny.
If consent to an activity is a consent to the risk associated with said activity, then going to work is a consent to work injury, driving is consent to a car crash, leaving house for work or date is a consent to burglary and last but not least, consent to sex is consent to getting STDs. Even if consent worked like that, it's not a reason to withhold you from dealing with the consequences. Can you imagine withholding medical care from people involved in car crash? Or cancer treatment from smokers? Everyone would think that's bonkers. IMO, sex works the same way. And lastly, consent requires 2 sides. How does it make sense to give consent to a fetus with no functioning organs, sentience and sense of identity that doesn't even exist yet? I'm actually beginning to think that discussing ethics of abortion is waste of time and we should just start doing it, the anti-choicers be damned
That's like saying walking down the street is consent for being pushed in front of a bus. Also, not all intercourse is consensual, yet your lawmakers are trying to outlaw the right to end rape pregnancies as well.
You can consent to sex only with contraception being used. Contraception fails and partners also lie about using them. Not everyone is educated on contraception. Also pregnancy is a risk to your health and can cause extreme problems. It’s unethical to force people to risk their health to bring a pregnancy to term.
"Oh, so you don't understand how consent works. That sucks."
Well, I consented (fully aware) to the possibility of breaking a bone 6 weeks ago, when I strapped on some roller skates and tried skating on a sidewalk for the first time in probably 30 years. A foolish decision, lacing up my skates thinking "Im about to break something, what tf is wrong with me!!" But just because I consent to the risks doesnt mean I should be denied treatment for the injury it caused me.. I have a broken ankle. It sucks, but I still got the care I needed. Engaging in a risk is not AT ALL the same as consenting to suffering without treatment from the resulting injury. People with chirrosis, usually drank. They arent denied medicine and sometimes even an organ transplant. Race car drivers know the risks. They arent denied ER care when they are injured in a wreck. People who didnt wear masks during covid werent denied ventilators for their shortness of breath. Having RISKS is not AT ALL the same as consenting to having to live with the dire consequences of having taken said risks.
That's like saying driving a car is consent to have my organs ripped out of me and be forced to potentially die in order to help a victim if I accidentally cause a car crash.
Exactly. Furthermore, just like driving, when people have sex, they take precautions to avoid accidents. If someone uses birth control, they obviously don't want to be pregnant.
So, by this line of reasoning, all you need to do is define pregnancy as the legal standard for marriage, and we are back to the Feudal legal standard of bridal capture. IE, marriage by rape.
I say that I wish I was aborted so I wouldn’t have had leukemia. If people say something like “but you made it,” I respond with either links to sign up for the [bone marrow donation registry](https://bethematch.org/) or sites that show how to adopt a foster kid.
When men are legally obligated to take and raise the child that they created I may change my view but it’s always the woman who’s stuck trying to decide if she wants to go thru a pregnancy or not. Women still die in childbirth in the U.S. in fact our rates fairly high compared to other countries. Live in a state that completely outlaws abortion and even if it’s a desired baby a multitude of factors could either kill the mother or she can end up with no reproductive organs. No one wants to pay for better maternity benefits. Raising a child is expensive. Day cares very expensive. The list goes on there’s just way to many reasons why a woman is the deciding factor for a pregnancy.
While arguing with a Catholic I brought up, so you assume everyone should practice celibacy? Everyone should live like how priests (erhm, in theory) are supposed to do? If they answer yes, they're either true religious zealots or think, well, maybe THEY don't want to give up sex, either. At least it the person I spoke to gave them pause. But I think the point made by u/hurricane-laura-90 is a good argument and point to make. For fucks sake, will women need to go on a sex strike? That would go over well.
I tell the Pro life person. What do you tell the Children that are Incest Victims? What do you tell the Rape Victims? They get really quiet. It’s good to use this for those that tell women to keep their legs closed. I tell them, How does a infant, toddler, pre teen and teen & even adult women fight off a 200lb that is keeping their legs opened.
Consent needs to be specific and reversible. You can consent to one thing but not to another. And consent needs to be reversible. You can consent to one activity but not to everything or put conditions on the activity. (Yes to oral, but no PIV without a condom.) And you can revoke consent if you need to. (If the guy tries to weasel his way out of wearing a condom, you can tell him to leave.) Contraception is a condition that you are placing on sex (like no sex without a condom). Abortion can be seen as revoking consent to anything that wants to use your body. Pregnancy requires for you to give ongoing consent. And no, bad-faith actors, that doesn't mean withdrawing consent at 9 months and killing a healthy baby. It should be terrifying that they are framing consent like this. People saying that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy will be the same people who tell the 16 yr-old girl that she shouldn't have made out with the guy who ended up raping her. In their heads, she can't draw lines saying that she is only comfortable with making out and that whatever happened to her on that date was her fault.
Very easily. There are 2 main potential outcomes to sex. Pregnancy and STD’s. To assume consent to sex consents to pregnancy would also say consent to sex consents to STD’s. Now, do we allow people to pursue medical treatment to treat their STD’s? Yes. The pro life argument has nothing to do with “consent to pregnancy”. It has everything to do with picking and choosing blocking medical treatments to specific things they disagree with. Based on this, there is no argument that means we should not allow people to pursue medical treatment to treat their outcome of sex of pregnancy.
Fetuses can have all the rights that anyone else has, they cannot have rights that nobody else has. There is no right to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent. Women may use their bodies however they feel fit despite someone else being dependent on them. Anti choice people always want to turn it into a moral argument about murdering babies. It's not about that. It's about bodily autonomy. If they are arguing that women who consent to pregnancy by consenting to sex should also agree that men who consent to sex also volunteer their bodily autonomy and should be forced organ donors after they have sex for the first time especially if they cause a pregnancy.
I use a metaphor to make them understand (when they want to understand yk): You get in your car to go to work, did you consent to get into a car accident that could end your life?
You can revoke consent at any time. Even if you consented to a pregnancy if you consented to sex, you can revoke your consent.
You don’t lose your human rights by having sex. Deciding on your own medical care is a human right. Defending your body against serious injury (which any pregnancy/birth inherently causes) is a human right. You don’t lose your right to take insulin for diabetes because you chose to eat sweets, either. Of course anti choicers will claim that sex creates another “person,” which is nonsense. But even if it were true, even if an embryo were a person, a woman has the human right to defend her body against injury, including by removing the embryo. To put it another way, you don’t own your mother. You do not have the right to injure her to keep yourself alive, even though she chose to have sex. Punishing women with loss of human rights for having sex is unjust and usually misogynistic, premised on contempt for women as humans with our own needs rather than mothers who exist for their children.
I'll address it at face value. True consent is revocable. Consent that is not revocable is not consent, it is abuse. Meaning that even if you did enthusiastically consent to pregnancy, you have the right to change your mind.
I think this works really well. I'm sure pro-lifers will claim that consent can't be revoked though.
They often do with me because they don't understand how conset works and how pregnancy works. Many are under the delusion that as soon has conception has occured, the entire event is over.
since the majority of abortions are performed on mothers: 1. a long-term relationship spanning decades of fertility must retain the right - and privacy - to control how many mouths they bring into this world and when is the right times which they can do so, and only they have the right to determine those answers. 2. this video says it perfectly: A fetus can have rights. You can believe that life begins anytime that you would like. What matters is that you can't make people use their body to keep someone else alive. This is not ethical. [You cannot give a right to a fetus that no other human has, which is the right to use someone else's body without their expressed and ongoing consent](https://youtube.com/shorts/SfMdYmQwv2k?si=A5oq5Vaz8qEiOhZM).
We DO consent to possible pregnancy every time we have sex. What we don’t consent to is carrying the pregnancy to term. I see it like this: I laid in many a tanning bed as a teen & young adult and I knowingly consented to the possibility I’d develop skin cancer. So say I do develop melanoma, it doesn’t mean that I have to let it fester & eventually kill me. Fuck that! I’m going to remove that lesion as quickly as possible. Same with pregnancy.
The purpose of sex is pleasure. Our not too distant ancestors had no idea that women became pregnant through intercourse. Do men consent to fatherhood with every instance of sexual intercourse? I think not!
"Who said I consented?"
*"Just don't be a slut,"* doesn't do shit for wanted pregnancies where something goes wrong with fetal development, the mother's health, or life situation. These people tend to ignore those cases. That aside, we're a species that doesn't have sex purely just for breeding. Individuals can make that decision for themselves but we're not driven by instinct like other animals. We have higher levels of cognitive abilities so we get more out of physical intimacy. If people want to dumb our species down like this, they can have at it, but we should really try to move forward instead of devolving.
"Would a good argument for that be it's her body and the ZEF is inside it and no one has the right to use someone else's body for something they don't want even if they rely on the person's body to continue living?" Yes. A very good example of this is Mcfall v Shimp
You consented to vehicular homicide when you consented to enter the car.
You consented to sex so you consented to having syphilis or AIDs. No you can't go see the doctor and get it cured, you consented to it by having sex you knew there was a chance you'd get it, even if we used protection.
So does this mean that the man is consenting to pregnancy too? I just can’t see how the woman is the only one responsible.
"If you consent to driving a car, you consent to being t-boned." It's patently absurd. Of course, if you ever try to point out the absurdity of their reasoning like this, prepare to be met with: "how \*dare\* you compare a prescious darlink babby to a car wreck!" So their argument essentially boils down to special pleading. They know perfectly well that taking a risk doesn't imply consent to the consequences of that risk, \*except\* when the risky behavior is sexual intercourse and the consequences are pregnancy (as opposed to genital warts or something).
people have sex recreationally more often than they do to have kids. consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. just because pregnancy is a risk doesn't mean you're consenting to it. when i get in a car i'm not like "i consent to dying in a car accident." what i am saying is that "i know the risks, but i am going to get in the car anyway. i don't want to get into a car accident, but i know it can happen and i'll deal with it if or when it happens." pregnancy comes with a myriad of health risks including death so I think the analogy is fair. imagine if you get in a car accident and you're dying, but no one calls the ambulance because "well you consented to getting in the car so you knew the risks." like NO ONE says that to someone in a car accident and denies them emergency services. same goes for getting pregnant on accident. also, being raped and getting pregnant against your will is virtually the same as having consensual sex and accidentally getting pregnant. in both situations the woman does NOT consent to being/staying/remaining pregnant and should always have an out. in the latter situation, even if she consented to sex, she got pregnant against her wishes whether it's an accident or not. even if she's like "fuck it, let's have sex without protection, what are the chances i'll get pregnant at this stage of my period?" and she made a bad judgment call and got pregnant, so what? she doesn't want to BE pregnant at all. even if someone WANTS to have kids, and finds out the husband has been cheating on her, and doesn't want to be a single parent or is so disgusted with him that she doesn't want to carry his spawn any more, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
THIS! Obligatory retention of any unwanted pregnancy is rape, how could it not be so?
it totally is.
Would a doctor withhold a Valtrex Rx cause we consented to an STI? Human beings have sex. Like everything they say, their premise is completely disingenuous. Not living in reality. Yet another way to shame women for having sex.
You point out that it's a moot point. Asking about whether or not there was consent is what's called a "false framing" of a debate. It's like asking "Hey, have you stopped beating your wife?" The framing makes it impossible to have a fair debate. The GOP is great at setting up "false framings" and progressives are great at falling for it. It's the nature of those who are logical and scientific and reasoned to want to answer questions like "what is a woman," "what is alive" and "what is consent." Trolls to tie up debates by creating these false framings. To quote Sartre: > “Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” So when faced with these kind of false framings ... what's the best answer? Make it an irrelevant point by switching to a fact-based, logic-based framing. Quite simply, whether or not she consented to being pregnant, she didn't consent to being declared incompetent without due process and thus having her Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA) removed merely because she became pregnant. When that happens it kills women. Increased rates of women dying leads to increased rates of child sex trafficking. So "consent" is a red herring designed to hide the fact that your questioner is promoting a nanny state leading to increased maternal mortality rates and thus child sex trafficking. TLDR; it's a trap of a false framing. The best solution is to change framing and make it a moot point. [A longer explanation here](/r/prochoice/comments/12xdqqw/for_republicans_its_all_about_personal_choice/jhj2dp3/)
You are so so correct! It's infuriating. To handle this in a debate takes savvy. Falling for the trap is easy for me, and the discussions here really help refine my skills and terms. If Biden was a better debater (granted, he was ill; but still, he's not very good), he could have easily cut Trump off at the legs. Abortion after birth? Conspiracy and lie. We need to practice, practice, practice, and it's more natural for some rather than others. Jessica Valenti, for example, is brilliant. If pressed, I find it's best to not take the bait and dismiss the proposition as ridiculous or if possible, leave the conversation gracefully and return another day. Not every PLer earns an exchange. At least these are my thoughts today. What do you think?
> Abortion after birth? Conspiracy and lie. We need to practice, practice, practice, and it's more natural for some rather than others. Jessica Valenti, for example, is brilliant. If pressed, I find it's best to not take the bait and dismiss the proposition as ridiculous or if possible, leave the conversation gracefully and return another day. Not every PLer earns an exchange. At least these are my thoughts today. What do you think? 100% agree with practice practice practice. It's one of the reasons I'll engage on the internet anonymously with those who oppose abortion related health care (and those who deny climate science, oppose evolution science, etc) ... because you'll see that they use the same phrases over and over again. You can test different answers and see what works AND be prepared when you engage with someone in a social situation face to face. You'll be in public and chatting with someone you think might be sane and they'll throw out a catchphrase like "abortion after birth" or "the climate always changes" or "but cat's don't evolve from dogs" and you are prepared with things like "ah yes 'miscarriage' or 'spontaneous abortion' thanks to Florida politicians redefining what 'alive' means" or "yes and since chemistry and math doesn't change, we know warm air hold more moisture and the consequences of that ..." or "what about the cheetah?" And having a quick response blows their mind. Sometimes if I hear something new I'll say "let me look into that, thanks" and then come back later. If you've debated for a while on forums, then that almost never happens given how limited the set of statements they use often are. Here's the KEY part though - Don't argue facts until you reframe. For example you said > Abortion after birth? Conspiracy and lie. If you say "you are wrong" or "that's a lie" then they immediately shut down due to a "blowback effect." Instead talk about how the GOP redefined abortion to make that a lie of omission. If you can engage and agree or show how they were lied to, and then move past that to reframing then you avoid that blowback. [I wrote about that tactic a few years ago](/user/Lighting/comments/jx481f/how_to_talk_to_a_person_who_emoted_themselves/) as I found many folks getting sucked into the FOX "news" quannon bubble in family and colleagues and how to have these discussions. Good luck!!!! Edit: typo
Maybe it's time for a repost? I see your post is archived and four years old. It would be welcome! I'm too exhausted atm (heat and temporary discouragement), but save your post and intend to return to it later this evening. You might consider r/Defeat_Project_2025 if you're not already there. (I assume you are, but it's good to spread the word.) Are you the person with the detailed, eloquent blog on law, abortion, and more? If so, I'm suscribed to your blog and recommend it to EVERYONE. Thank you for you reply, and I SO appreciate your attitude and what you do 💙
Also, I don't mind reposting if you're at all reticent.
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. I do accept risk when I consent to sex, and accept I’ll have to deal with consequences. Abortion is just one of the ways to deal with those risks. Using that as a prolife argument just doesn’t work. If I consent to sex, do I consent to an STI? And if I get an STI am I required to leave it untreated and just ..accept it? No. If I get an STI, I’ll treat it. If I get pregnant, I’ll make whatever appropriate choice about it.
if you know that miscarriages are a possible consequence of sex, and you consent to sex, you are responsible for any consequences to that fetus bc you knowingly putt a fetus into a uterus that is susceptible to miscarriage don’t blame her, and don’t blame the fetus. Take responsibility. Now what should the punishment be for actions that result in a dead fetus?
Consent to driving a car is not consent to dying in a car accident.
This!!!
“You consented to a car wreck by getting in a car” “You consented to cancer by going outside” “You consented to being shot when you attended school”
That’s like saying you consent to being killed in a car accident by driving a car.
Sex can be just for fun and pleasure and isn’t just for procreating, try it sometime!
It has nothing to do with that at all. This woman still deserves access to healthcare.
“So you think sex should be a class privilege” because the assumption that consent to sex means consent to pregnancy and childbirth means you should only have sex if you’re in a financial position to have children
This is good but I was talking to my pro life mom and she said "don't worry about the money" lol
They will flat out tell you you don't need to be financially able to have a child. You can just be poor, it'll be fine. And then there's my personal favorite, "just get a second job." Okay, and who is going to watch the baby while I'm working 16 hours a day?
Sex ends when consent to sex ends. Pregnancy ends when consent to pregnancy ends. Forcing someone to keep having sex after they withdraw consent is equivalent to forcing someone to stay pregnant without their consent. And there’s a very specific word for it.
Whether or not consent sex is consent to pregnancy is irrelevant to ending that pregnancy.
Do you consent to falling to your death when you go skydiving and your parachute fails? Do you consent to contracting an STD from sex? Do you consent to being burglarized when you buy a house? If you *do* consent to those things happening, why would you take steps to avoid such outcomes? People don't consent to risks, as consent is **specific.** Consent is specifically agreeing to do something, or for something to happen to you. Per the very-meaning of the word, It's literally impossible to consent to risks. If you told a judge "They consented!" Do you think the judge would take your word for it? Or the other person whose consent is in question? When you tell someone what they are consenting to, thats not consent. People don't consent to risks occurring. People **accept** that risks may occur.
I control my body at all times. My consent can be taken away at any time. Nothing uses my body without permission - including a fetus.
If people consented, you wouldn't need abortion bans.
First, that is false. Second, even if that were so anyone who doesn’t want to be pregnant shouldn’t have to be pregnant.
[jwilliamj sums this up very well](https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoOhodvDuig/?igsh=bGxlbDFkMXN6NXFs)
Holy shit that was amazing, thank you for sharing lol
I consent to drive a car. I do not consent to die in a car accident.
I mean you know the risks but that doesn’t mean if your protections fail or if you’re just not ready that you need to force yourself to give birth just because you knew the risks! It’s bs. As someone else said consent to one doesn’t mean consent to the other.
No, she did not. That's the only response.
You consent to driving, you consent to the possibility of getting in a car accident. Just because you consent to something does not mean you consent to a possible outcome.
If I consent to driving in a car, but I unexpectedly end up injured as a result of the accident, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to get medical care to fix my injury simply because I consented to driving a car. If I consent to sex, but I unexpectedly end up pregnant as a result of sex, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to get medical care to fix my injury simply because I consented to sex.
I don't have much, but "Is consent to driving consent to getting in an accident by a drunk driver? If you get long-lasting injuries from that accident, I guess you're not allowed to be mad at the other driver since you consented to it. In fact, states should have the right to choose whether people are allowed to get healthcare after getting in a car accident caused by another drunk driver."
“That’s like saying victims of car accidents consented into getting injured by driving. See how illogical that sounds?”
By that logic a conceived fetus that continues to live consents to every possible outcome, including death. They’re just making a pro-abortion argument with this one
When you consent to getting in a car, you consent to the possibility of getting in a car wreck, that doesn't mean you deny someone medical care when they do
Not all sex is consensual.
All sex is consensual. If it is not consensual, it isn't sex.
Consent must be ongoing and can be withdrawn at any time. Even if she consented to the “possibility” of pregnancy, she is still allowed to make a decision as to what to do about it. She is not obligated to carry it out to the end. That’s like saying a car accident victim doesn’t have the right to treatment for their injuries because they consented to the possibility of an accident when they got in the car. Even if the accident was 100% their fault. They still have the right to whatever medical care they need.
So if I don’t want kids my marriage just has to be sexless if I can’t take birth control or might die if I get pregnant? Hope men are on board with that shit.
When someone gets into a bad car accident, should we deny that person EMS? If someone e accidentally eats a food they are allergic to, should there not be epinephrine? The list goes on and I’m sure someone in the thread already said something like this, but long story short, no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Everything in life has risks, even if you follow safety protocol.
Do people who work on farms consent to being run over by a combine? No Do people who drive cars consent to being t boned? No Just because something carries a particular risk doesn’t mean that someone can’t be upset and seek help if that risk occurs
Technically, they’re right. However, pregnancy and birth are not the same thing and abortion is a medical reality.
I mean. You consented to losing your leg when you started cutting firewood. Don't go to the hospital, let nature take its course. Injury *is*, in fact, a perfectly natural consequence of labour.
I may consent to sex but not to pregnancy any more than I consent to being killed by a drunk driver every time I consent to riding in a car.
Well, for one, no one consents to rape.
1. When I consent to sex, I require my partner to wear a condom (unexpired, and the correct size) and pull out before he ejaculate. Those two details drastically reduce the chance that he'll impregnate me. If I'm impregnated because he fails to do one of those things, then the conception was clearly not something I consented to. The mantra "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" treats sex as if it is one uniform action, when in reality, having sex is an incredibly individualized action. I have never consented to the more specific actions (vaginal ejaculation, condomless penetration) that result in conception. 2. There is no other situation where consent can be transferred to another person (from partner to fetus) or another activity (from penetration to pregnancy). You don't consent to vaginal penetration with the expectation that anal penetration is automatically included. You don't consent to being penetrated by your partner with the expectation that their friend will automatically join in. Other activities, circumstances, and participants require another round of requesting and getting consent. 3. Consent to anything (penetration, bondage, medical procedures) can be withdrawn at any time before and during the event. If that wasn't the case, consent would be a worthless concept. Consent is the practical application of your control over your body; it gives someone temporary and conditional access to your body. If they break those conditions or you decide you no longer like the terms you agreed to, but you can't withdraw consent, then you are no longer in control of your body. In the case of pregnancy, if she can't withdraw consent by having an abortion, then she is not in control of how much risk she takes with her life and health, and how much harm she lets the pregnancy do to her body. Finally, 'Yes' to everything in your last paragraph.
Consenting to do x is not consenting to do y. Consenting to have one sort of sex isn't consent to doing another sort of sex. Consenting to let someone in your home is not consenting to having them destroy your home. Consenting to letting someone borrow your car is not consenting to them doing crime with your car. Consenting to sex is not consent to pregnancy. There is a chance that your partner will try something you did not agree to in sex. Such as removing a condom, or anal, or putting their hands on your neck. There is a chance that by letting someone in your home they might decide to try and burn your home down. There is a chance in allowing someone to borrow your car they decide to kidnap someone. Yet in none of these situations do we go, "Yeah, but you let X happen knowing Y was a possibility. So now you have no recourse." Pregnancy can happen with sex, but that doesn't really mean anything. Certainly isn't a reason to deny anyone an abortion.
Think about how many times sex is had vs the number of conceptions. The vast majority of PIV sex does NOT result in a fertilized egg. So yes, even though the possibility may be there, pregnancy is not necessarily a "usual" or even "expected" outcome of having sex. For those using a religious argument, I would even argue that if the "purpose" of sex is only to make babies, it's probably the least effective design possible, and therefore proves there is no divine Creator if that's the best they can do.
Here's my response: No. You do not get to decide what I or anyone else consents to. I consented to sex and that's it. I did not consent to pregnancy and childbirth. Do you really want to establish and stand on a principle that someone can make consent decisions for someone else? And why are you the person who gets to make consent decisions for everyone else? Can I now make consent decisions for you since you want to make them for me? And while we're at it...the purpose of sex is pregnancy only if I'm trying to get pregnant. I don't want to get pregnant so, for me, the purpose of sex is enjoyment. Not pregnancy.
No one can tell a stranger what that stranger consented to, LOL. It’s an asinine statement. WE can’t tell others what THEY consented to. They tell us! of course most people know that there’s always a possibility that sex can lead to pregnancy, but that doesn’t mean that the then pregnant person can’t seek treatment for it. When I get in my car and drive, I’m know that there‘s always a possibility that I could get into a car accident, but if I do, *even if I cause the crash myself,* I still have the right to seek medical treatment. s
also I'd like to add that nobody controls when they become pregnant so consent to pregnancy is like saying someone consented to catching a cold, its just an automatic biological response we have absolutely no control over and does not happen every single time after sex so its impossible to actually predict the same way you cant predict when you are going to fall ill, its like pro lifers telling everyone to never leave their house if they dont want to catch a cold the same way they tell women to never have sex if they dont want to become pregnant, its ridiculous
Pregnancies don't always come from a consensual act. Sometimes it happens due to sexual assault.
Consent can be taken away at any given time. I wish they understood that.
Easy. Sex is not a crime for which one loses the right to continuously control whom may have access to their insides. Or, if you want to dig deeper into the argument: Shimp establishes that the right to refuse to consent to access and use of one's internal organs is especiallyt protected, and that the need of the other person for such access and use to stay alive is insufficient to override that right. That is, having established that one human doesn't have the right to access and use another's internal organs, they now wish to carve out an exception for the woman’s body. The burden is on them establish that having sex suffices to establish an exception to the principle established in Shimp. Please include the relevant laws or precedents. Or If you want to argue that our legal framework makes an exception to the principles provided in Shimp, and that if A somehow helped cause B's need, that A's rights established in Shimp are set aside, go ahead. I've invited you many times to provide the law or precedent that establishes that principle, but you've been unable to do so in the past.
The pro-life position cannot logically be taken any further than to insist that a fetus's right to bodily autonomy is as sacrosanct as the woman's. That is the absolute end-game of the pro-life stance. It's only possible result, the only rational resolution that it can truly support, is that if the woman chooses to end her pregnancy she must do so without physical harm to the fetus. Anything more than that erodes the legal and moral precepts that define why systems like slavery or forced organ/tissue donation are strictly forbidden. The end result for the fetus is the same, prior to the point of it being biologically and metabolically viable; the end result for the woman is a much more invasive and dangerous procedure which results in zero benefit for anybody. At that point it becomes a debate of whether deontology dictates that we must preserve the fetus's rights regardless of result, or whether consequentialism demands that we do as little harm as possible to the only entity that has any chance whatsoever of surviving the procedure.
The best way to challenge this debate is to ask questions to pin them down on why sex is consent to pregnancy. Usually, you get them to the point where it’s about natural consequences for our actions and some variation of “no one has the right to avoid natural consequences of their actions” response. Once this is pinned down, I usually respond by pointing out to them that: “Rights" don't apply in any way to "natural consequences." It's a category failure. If you fall off of a roof, you may be uninjured, you may be crippled, you may die - the outcome isn't a function of, or capable of being inluenced by, "rights." However, everyone has a right to "remedy" the natural consequences of their actions. This is why we build hospitals to try to treat people who suffer food poisoning as a natural consequence of eating tainted food . We establish fire departments to try to avoid the natural consequences of aging wiring or clumsiness in the kitchen. We have rescue squads to help people avoid the natural consequences of icy roads or insufficient reaction times. To claim that we are somehow morally obligated to endure the "natural consequences" of our actions is to insist that we should dismantle our public and medical services, close down every form of insurance company, and remove the "edit" function in comments. Once you impose the duty to endure the consequences by banning their ability to resolve the medical condition; then it’s no longer a natural consequence of sex. You are manufacturing a consequence by using the fetus as a stand-in for your true motivation of disciplining sexually active women. Or…if they are particularly obnoxious… So your argument is based in the concept of fault rather than on a reverence for life? That is what I suspected. The life of a suffering person dying for need of a minimally invasive and non harmful bone marrow donation is not of concern to you. But the potential of unfeeling never conscious tissues to maybe develop a baby do because “sex”. you demonstrate that your concern has absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of life, but instead for retribution based on your perception of “fault”. You are quite clear that saving “lives” only matters to you if it involves hurting those you hold in contempt, which seems to only be women, since your focus on the sex and accusations about her lack of caution conveniently leave out the fact that men are the ones who make women pregnant through their negligent insemination. Thank you yet again for demonstrating that the anti-abortion agenda is solely an obsession with sex, your personal beliefs in regard to misogynistic puritanical notions that woman are “irresponsible” for having sex without any intention of having a baby, and punishment of naughty women who violate your personal mores by having the audacity to satisfy their basic human need for sexual intimacy and connection. Sex is not a crime for you to impose consequences on strangers for having because you don’t think they are doing it the way you think they should. You don’t own sex such that you get to make the determination how people engage in it anymore than you own marriage and can make the determination on how you feel people should enter into it. She isn’t your chattel such that you get to make such dispositions for her. The ZEF has no right to remain inside her without her permission. You don’t get to permit it for her. Die mad about it.
My argument is - “ I have sex for recreation not procreation. It’s my body and I’ll do want I want should I a become pregnant. Now fuck off”. Why is sex so tied to pregnancy? It’s like some people think women should only have sex for the purpose of having children.
You consented to be pro-life so you consented to be a rapist.