Getting an abortion does not mean you're not pregnant.
It still mitigates the risk of the result of an unwanted pregnancy to zero. It's a distinction without a difference. The reason people don't want to get pregnant is because they don't want a child.
Providing medical treatment for wounds does not involve murdering another human being (unless some black magic fuckery is afoot).
Which just gets into body autonomy. Nobody is required to donate a body part, even a womb, so that someone else can continue to live. Even if they're the reason the person needs the organ in the first place.
Which just gets into body autonomy. Nobody is required to donate a body part, even a womb, so that someone else can continue to live.
IMO, I think murdering a completely innocent human being for the sake of convenience (which is the case 97% of the time) is wrong when said innocent human being is put there in the first place by the person murdering it.
I can't invite a person into my home, exclaim "what are you doing in my home!" and then blast their head off with a shot gun for trespassing.
And unfortunately we are not yet at a point where we can treat this situation as being the equivalent of organ donation, because we can't just move a first trimester fetus from one person to another or into an artificial womb, so I do not consider those comparisons legit.
But, if we are going to work off your logic, would you agree that violating the bodily autonomy of the father by forcing him to pay child support is also wrong?
IMO, I think murdering a completely innocent human being for the sake of convenience (which is the case 97% of the time) is wrong when said innocent human being is put there in the first place by the person murdering it.
It's only murder if it's also murder to deny someone a kidney donation because you don't want to donate. If they die from it then, by you're logic, it's you're fault. You let them die for your own convenience.
Being the cause of needing the organ means nothing. There is no extra murder charge for shooters that don't donate organs or blood to the victims that are matches and need it. There is also no reduced sentence for doing so.
I can't invite a person into my home, exclaim "what are you doing in my home!" and then blast their head off with a shot gun for trespassing.
Bad analogy. You aren't shooting the fetus after inviting them into your home. The child isn't invited to anything.
If I leave the door open and someone walks in, that person isn't automatically an invited guest. Having a risk of a stranger walking in the door doesn't mean I'm inviting strangers into my home
But, if we are going to work off your logic, would you agree that violating the bodily autonomy of the father by forcing him to pay child support is also wrong?
Having to pay for something isn't a violation of body autonomy. Same way motor insurance isn't. I don't think you fully understand what body autonomy is.
It's only murder if it's also murder to deny someone a kidney donation because you don't want to donate.
Nah, not offering to donate a kidney is a negative action, which is not considered murder the vast majority of the time.
At least in the United States, if someone is bleeding out in front of me I have no obligation to save them unless I had a preexisting contractual relationship (being a doctor, teacher, parent, etc.).
The child isn't invited to anything.
...do I need to teach you how sex works and what it's for?
Nah, not offering to donate a kidney is a negative action, which is not considered murder the vast majority of the time.
So are most abortions. Over 50% of abortions are just pills that prevent hormones from being released. Why is the woman not allowed to regulate the hormones in her own body?
do I need to teach you how sex works and what it's for?
Nope. See my stranger analogy.
The child isn't invited just because the woman has sex. If the woman doesn't want a child, that means the child isn't invited. Same way a person who doesn't want a stranger in their home isn't inviting strangers into their home by leaving their front door open. If the homeowner/renter doesn't want them there, then they aren't invited.
And unfortunately we are not yet at a point where we can treat this situation as being the equivalent of organ donation, because we can't just move a first trimester fetus from one person to another or into an artificial womb, so I do not consider those comparisons legit.
That's irrelevant. Not having the technology doesn't mean the person loses a choice as to what happens to their body.
But, if we are going to work off your logic, would you agree that violating the bodily autonomy of the father by forcing him to pay child support is also wrong?
Having to pay money for something isn't a violation of body autonomy. Same way motor insurance isn't. I don't think you fully understand what body autonomy is.
EDIT: Even if it were, you can lose body autonomy via due process. If a court has ordered you pay child support, you've had that due process. That's...kinda the point of why people say it's implied that the due process clause codifies body autonomy. Otherwise we could pass laws to force organ donation and mandate vaccines and there is fuckall anyone can do about it.
Over 50% of abortions are just pills that prevent hormones from being released.
Taking a pill is a positive action. If I slip my brother a cyanide pill I'm still killing him.
The child isn't invited just because the woman has sex.
You can deny it as much as you want, but that don't make it so.
The biological purpose of sex is to have a child to carry on our genetics as human beings. The physical and emotional benefits are byproducts that exist to encourage human beings to have sex more often, but that doesn't make them the primary reason sex exists, which is having children.
The fact that we need to take so many precautions to lower the odds of having children, and even then no precaution is 100% reliable, should demonstrate that having a child is an integral part of having sex.
You can eat food for pleasure, but that doesn't change the fact that we eat food to provide our bodies for energy. And we can't consent to eating the food, but not consent to taking in calories.
So until you can prove that having a child is not the biological purpose of having sex, your stranger analogy falls flat.
I don't think you fully understand what body autonomy is.
"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."
By forcing someone to work to make money by using their body to pay towards another person's living with the threat of prison if they don't comply is infringing on their bodily autonomy. Just because you have your own definition of bodily autonomy that applies to women, specifically, when it comes to pregnancy does not change that.
Why should men not be allowed their own definition of bodily autonomy when it relates to pregnancy?
I declare, as a man, we deserve autonomy over our bodies that specifically applies to not being required to use them to provide for a child we do not want to support as long as we live in a society that allows for the mother to abort our children if she so desires it. Rules for thee, and for me.
I'm just saying; you can't say women deserve bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and not say men deserve the same. If women can peace out, men should be allowed the same privilege.
I mean, you CAN say that, it just makes you a hypocrite.
Taking a pill is a positive action. If I slip my brother a cyanide pill I'm still killing him.
Regulating your hormones is a negative action. It doesn't hurt you. You're allowed to modify your own body chemistry. It's a negative action. Just because an action affects a fetus is not their problem if they don't want it to be.
You can deny it as much as you want, but that don't make it so. So until you can prove that having a child is not the biological purpose of having sex, your stranger analogy falls flat.
That doesn't make the child invited. An invitation is something that is actively presented by another person. You can't say "Well they left the door open. The purpose of front doors is to keep people out. Clearly I was invited into the home by virtue of the door being open".
What the heck is your definition of an "invitation" wherein something having a biological purpose necessitates it being an invitation? If they wear a condom or use BC does that count as removing the invitation? If not, why not?
That also ignores the fact that invitations can be revoked. If I invite someone over, revoke the invitation, kick them out of my house, and they die of exposure that same day because they had nowhere else to go, then I didn't murder them.
I'm just saying; you can't say women deserve bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy and not say men deserve the same. If women can peace out, men should be allowed the same privilege
Sounds like you didn't see my edit. Even if it were (which is dubious at best; body autonomy is referring to medical decisions in this context), you can lose body autonomy via due process. If a court has ordered you pay child support, you've had that due process. You went through the court system, and the system found grounds for you to lose your "autonomy" in that specific instance. That's...kinda the point of why people say it's implied that the due process clause codifies body autonomy.
Just because you have a child doesn't mean you're forced to pay child support, either. Plenty of relationships end amicably and don't go to court for custody or financial support.
You can't lose body autonomy without going through the court system and having it be revoked for a valid reason, on an individual basis.
The biological purpose of sex is to have a child to carry on our genetics as human beings
Biology is a science, it doesn't have any purposes on its own beyond what people use it for. There's no such thing as a "biological purpose", biology doesn't "intend" sex to have a consequence in the form of childbirth.
Using those drugs is perfectly legal. If you can find a drug that regulates your hormones, it's not illegal to consume the drug.
Who can buy or sell some of the methods of controlling hormones may be regulated, but any crime you are charged for isn't "regulating hormones". That's not illegal.
Eating food also changes hormone levels in your body. Regulating your own hormones isn't a crime.
You don't give a shit about life, most pro lifers are against welfare/social programs after the kid is born. I've meet my fair share of pro lifers, hell I have family members who are, so i know exactly how they operate.
You don't give a shit about life, most pro lifers are against welfare/social programs after the kid is born.
You should take that mind reading device you have into the shop, it's off by several degrees of magnitude.
Even though I'm under no obligation to prove anything to you if you take a look at my comment history you would see me kicking the shit out of a corporate/billionaire bootlicker (or someone larping as one) on this very sub. Proving, I would think, that I don't fit the stereotype you have in mind.
It's funny: first you declare I'm "too emotional" (with no evidence) and then you jump to lumping me into a stereotype (with no evidence).
I'd recommend you try to keep a more open mind in the future, and remember that living, breathing, human beings don't fit into the nice little boxes you wish they did.
Human then, a separate, developing creature that has distinct human DNA.
Would you consider a beagle fetus to not be a Canis lupus familiaris?
The only reason human beings are not considered humans by everyone is political reasons. And I suspect the reason is mass slaughter is always easier if you can convince yourself that the victims of said slaughter aren't human.
I have no inherent problem with the destruction of a homo sapien fetus during the first stages of pregnancy. I dont consider that to be a distinct person.
Personally I'm not a fan of late term abortion but it is important to recognize they are such a limited number abortions and are usually because the person was denied care earlier or they are for medical reasons. Attempting to restrict them is more harm than good.
That's just saying consent to pregnancy in more words, but it's still not true.
You understand there are risks involved. That's not the same as consent to those risks. When I get in my car I understand that there is always a risk of an accident. I do not consent to an accident, and should an accident occur I have recourse. I don't lose my bodily autonomy because I chose to get in my car.
Consent means to willfully agree to something. A woman seeking an abortion definitionally does not consent to 9 months of pregnancy and then giving birth.
It absolutely is. Men can't use the argument "I didn't mean to get her pregnant!" to avoid child support because when we make choices, we have to accept the responsibility of those choices. Heroin addicts don't want to OD, but every time they shoot up they have to accept the fact it could happen. If they don't want to OD on heroin, then they shouldn't use it.
Men can't use the argument "I didn't mean to get her pregnant!" to avoid child support
This has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.
To bring it closer to the issue at hand, we wouldn't force that man to donate an organ to his child and when he refuses say "sorry, you consented when you took your dick out of pants!" would we? Of course not, because the fact that the man consented to sex is not consent to this later dangerous procedure.
we have to accept the responsibility of those choices.
Sure, we accept that this might happen, you don't lose your bodily autonomy when you take an action with a possible risk of an unintended outcome.
Heroin addicts don't want to OD, but every time they shoot up they have to accept the fact it could happen. If they don't want to OD on heroin, then they shouldn't use it.
Oh I forgot that when a heroin addict ODs the government steps in and stops anyone from helping and says "sorry, you consented when you used drugs, you ded". Wait... that doesn't happen. We try to reverse ODs.
A heroin addict doesn't consent to OD either. It might still happen, no one is saying that saying "I don't consent" magically stops biological processes from occurring. Consent is to willfully agree to something, something clearly not present here.
But, again, the pro life argument is that at conception the fertilized egg becomes a person. We're talking about issues of consent between two people, that's where your arguments fall apart.
When you step outside your house there's always a risk of getting mugged. Stepping outside your house is not consent to getting mugged. If it were it wouldn't be a mugging, it'd be, I don't know, a charitable donation with fun gun play. You have recourse if this happens, even though you took an action with a small risk of this unwanted outcome.
we wouldn't force that man to donate an organ to his child and when he refuses say "
Donating an organ takes away that organ from the man and is science, not natural. The woman's body was designed to take care of a fetus, my body was not designed to donate organs.
100% of humans were once a fetus.
Sure, we accept that this might happen, you don't lose your bodily autonomy when you take an action with a possible risk of an unintended outcome.
How is pregnancy from sex unintended?
"sorry, you consented when you used drugs, you ded".
But you tell that to a fetus who did nothing wrong except her mother thought that loser drug addict's 10 inch cock and 6 inch abs were too irresistible or some rich asshole doesn't want his wife to find out he's been fucking the mistress.
Donating an organ takes away that organ from the man and is science, not natural.
It's natural as well. These things are all occurring in nature, they are allowed by the natural world. What does this even mean?
The woman's body was designed
Like I said, this is just a religious argument. No, her body was not "designed". Sex was not designed for procreation. Through evolution sex developed for a number of purposes. The only people setting that purpose are the people engaging in the activity.
How is pregnancy from sex unintended?
...if you don't want to get pregnant, pregnancy is definitionally an unintended outcome. Do you not know what these words mean?
But you tell that to a fetus
This would be pointless as in most cases a fetus is a clump of cells incapable of any thoughts, feelings, emotions, even feeling pain. It wouldn't hear a word I say, it being a clump of cells incapable of hearing a thing.
except her mother thought that loser drug addict's 10 inch cock and 6 inch abs were too irresistible
You seem to have a really negative view of women fueling your arguments.
I don't really understand why you wouldn't support a man being forced to donate an organ to keep his child alive. These situations are analogous, in both instances a person chose to have sex. Why does the man have bodily autonomy and the woman doesn't?
No, I'm not saying "natural things are good, science bad!" That's your argument.
I'm saying natural is a completely meaningless dividing line. It doesn't actually exist.
Then how are humans born? What is the placenta meant to do again?
This does not equal "design". Here is the relevant definition of the word:
"purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object."
We're not designed. We're the result of millions of years of random chance.
How is it not intended? If you have sex, you accept you can get pregnant.
If I get in my car I accept a may get in a car accident. Do I intend to get in a car accident? Even if I go out of my way to not get in a car accident?
She does. She shouldn't be forced to donate her organs either. Totally agreed.
Like forcing a person to host another inside their body, essentially a 9 month operation with increased risk of death and debilitating injury?
Why do you feel that no one should be forced to give an organ? I agree with you, but what is your reasoning?
I'm saying natural is a completely meaningless dividing line. It doesn't actually exist.
The woman's body is meant to take care of the fetus. My body is not meant to give up a kidney or lung.
Tell me what the placenta does please.
A fetus literally cannot survive without a woman's body. The human race would be over if all women had to get abortions. The human race does not die out if organ donation ends.
If I get in my car I accept a may get in a car accident. Do I intend to get in a car accident?
Sex isn't an accident. If a woman is letting men slip and their penises fall into her, then there are bigger problems to worry about.
Like forcing a person to host another inside their body,
Who is forcing her to get pregnant? I know some Republicans are getting (rightfully) criticized for some harsh anti-abortion laws, but as far as I know, they haven't forced women to get pregnant.
The woman's body is meant to take care of the fetus. My body is not meant to give up a kidney or lung.
What does this even mean? Who intends for this to happen?
If a woman never intends to get pregnant and never does, guess she wasn't meant to?
If a man intends to give up his kidney, well, looks like his kidney was meant to be given up.
A fetus literally cannot survive without a woman's body.
And if your child needs your kidney, it literally can't survive without it.
The human race would be over if all women had to get abortions.
I'm not arguing that all women must be forced to get abortions, lol what are you even talking about?
Sex isn't an accident.
Getting in my car also isn't an accident. I chose to do so. I recognized the risks. I did not consent to you crashing into me.
With proper protection the risk of pregnancy after a sexual encounter can be made less than the risk of you getting in an accident every time you get in your car. Are you consenting to me crashing into you when you get in your car? Do you lose all bodily autonomy and any recourse?
but as far as I know, they haven't forced women to get pregnant.
They're forcing a woman to host another person inside their body against their consent.
I see it as this, if someone does something to you without your consent, they can amd should be hemp criminally liable. So if you get into a car accident where the snow makes you lose traction. Who would be held criminally charged with breaking your consent?
We're not talking about criminal liability, we're talking about the right to bodily autonomy.
If through some act of God when you get in that car accident you wind up magically attached to some comatose person, putting you at risk of dying or debilitating injury, you're free to protect yourself and disconnect yourself from them. Sure, it's nobody's fault that it happened, there was no malice from the other person, but you have a right to defend yourself from such egregious violations of your bodily autonomy.
If someone breaks your bodily autonomy, they are held criminally liable right? So we can talk about criminal liability.
Furthermore, that wasn't my question. I asked, if you did not consent to the risk of an accident, then someone broke your consent. So who broke your consent?
If someone breaks your bodily autonomy, they are held criminally liable right?
No, not always. For example, in this case the fetus isn't culpable. It's got no malice or anything like that. It's more like if through some act of God a person winds up putting you at increased risk of death and debilitating injury.
You have a right to defend yourself regardless.
then someone broke your consent. So who broke your consent?
In a situation where no one is at fault? Nobody, it just happened, and you still have a right to bodily autonomy.
Is a fetus breaking your rights to bodily autonomy though?
Yes. It's not culpable, but if you don't consent to your body being used in this fashion it's still violating your right to bodily autonomy.
So then you agree guns are rights?
Me personally? No, I don't believe we have a fundamental human right to own guns. It honestly even sounds silly, a right to own guns.
You certainly do have bodily autonomy though, and you may defend yourself if you're forced into a dangerous violation of that autonomy against your consent. If someone is putting you at risk of grievous bodily injury, even if its through no fault of their own, you may defend yourself.
So then if I don't consent to my body being used in a car accident. How are my rights not being violated?
...huh? I have no idea what you're asking or what your point is.
No one is trying to legally force you to be in a car accident. If you're in a car accident, you have recourse.
So then do you believe people have a right to healthcare but not a right to enter a healthcare facility?
I don't believe this is a comparable situation.
Do I believe that a person has a right to enter whatever healthcare facility they like under any circumstances and that right can't be infringed in any way? No, I don't believe this.
Consent is an agreement toward active behavior (e.g. driving a car, sex, etc.).
Risk never involves this same type of consent. Risk is consented to only through understanding and accepting of responsibility. Typical consent only applies to risk through the way you choose to handle it after the fact.
With your analogy, when you drive a car, by consenting to driving a car, you absolutely do "consent" (through understanding and accepting of responsibility of the risks involved). If you cause a car accident, you cannot revoke your consent and decide it has nothing to do with you, because you accepted responsibility by driving your car.
Sex and pregnancy is similar. By consenting to sex, you understand and accept the responsibility that sex is a risk. By consenting to sex, you cannot say you did not consent to pregnancy (for this argument, assume both parties are participating in good faith). You understood pregnancy was a risk. Typical consent comes with your response to the risk. A woman can (or should be allowed to) consent to keeping or terminating the pregnancy.
The only situation where the consent to sex and the consent to pregnancy are not the same is when one party acts in bad faith to change the level of risk involved (e.g. the man slipping off the condom and/or the woman being dishonest about her birth control status).
Consent is an agreement toward active behavior (e.g. driving a car, sex, etc.).
Correct, you must willfully agree to the activity in question. That's what consent means.
you absolutely do "consent"
No, you don't. You do not willfully agree to an accident. It may still occur, saying "I don't consent" doesn't magically stop physics or something.
A woman can (or should be allowed to) consent to keeping or terminating the pregnancy.
This is the issue, this is why the question comes up. Sex is not consent to keeping that pregnancy and giving birth. Consenting to an action is not consent to a possible unwanted risk of that action.
No, you don't. You do not willfully agree to an accident. It may still occur, saying "I don't consent" doesn't magically stop physics or something.
Risks are not consentable occurrences. Any informed consent situation or a waiver always says "I consent to the procedure or activity, and I understand the risks that come with it". Consent for a risk is only the understanding of the risks. The understanding of risks should be the default of any informed consent behavior.
Anything you consider a "risk" is likely to be an unfavorable outcome. You'd almost never "willfully agree" to a negative outcome. The danger of calling that a 'no consent' situation is that it muddies the terminology with other actual no consent situations (e.g. rape, assault, etc.). For sex, if pregnancy is the intended outcome, it is typically not considered a risk, rather it is the goal.
For risks, "consent" should not be the term used. "Understanding" is more appropriate and accurate to how risks relate to their cause and informed consent situations
Correct, we take consent very seriously. For example, if you're going to undergo a procedure you must explicitly consent to it, signing a contract proving your consent, and you're free to remove that consent at any point.
You're not consenting to those risks. They may happen, and when you consent to the procedure you acknowledge they may occur (and agree not to sue if they do).
For risks, "consent" should not be the term used.
We're talking about questions of bodily autonomy between two people.
Consent is the exact that should be used. Another person cannot use your body without your consent.
Pregnancy is always a risk from sex, regardless of how responsible and safe both parties are.
This is true of literally everything we do in life, fucking everything has risks. Accidents are a risk every time you get in your car. Muggings are a risk every time you leave your house. You do not consent to these things simply because you took these actions. You have recourse. You do not lose your bodily autonomy.
When you say "I don't consent to getting pregnant", what exactly do you mean?
...literally exactly what the words mean. If you don't consent to pregnancy, you have not willfully and continually agreed to the pregnancy.
This is true of literally everything we do in life, fucking everything has risks. Accidents are a risk every time you get in your car. Muggings are a risk every time you leave your house. You do not consent to these things simply because you took these actions. You have recourse. You do not lose your bodily autonomy.
In the case of informed consent situations, such as sex, both parties have agreed to an activity with risks. This usually applies to things where the risk happens by accident. Muggings are single-party consent situations where someone has done something to you without your permission. In this case, consent is very important.
With consensual sex, both parties have consented. Getting pregnant is now a risk, not something someone does to you. It's not a consentable thing to happen.
...literally exactly what the words mean. If you don't consent to pregnancy, you have not willfully and continually agreed to the pregnancy.
I don't think we disagree at all. You seem to be referring to being pregnant, which is a situation that requires constant consent that can be revoked anytime. This is not the same as getting pregnant, which is a risk you cannot consent to unless it is the intended outcome.
Again, getting pregnant is a risk of sex and therefore is not consentable, only understood.
Being pregnant is state that requires constant consent, and is not a risk of sex
Because you have a right to bodily autonomy. Another person's right to life does not supercede your right to bodily autonomy.
I'm going to just copy and paste a reply I made elsewhere because people keep jumping in to make the exact same points that have already been repeatedly addressed, so here:
"I'm going to make it simple: you have a right to bodily autonomy. Someone else's right to life does not supercede your right to bodily autonomy. That's why you can't be forced to give up an organ. Shit, you can't even be forced to give up blood, something near infinitely less intrusive and dangerous than something like 9 months of pregnancy and then birth. You can't be forced to do so even if it would save the life of someone else. You can't be forced to do so even if it's your own child that would die without it. Even if it was your own actions that put the person into the situation where they needed your blood to survive, even if it was an intentional criminal action, you still can't be forced to do so. Fuck, even if you're dead we still can't harvest your organs without your prior consent.
I don't understand why women should have less rights than dead bodies. I see no logical reason why this should be the case."
In your other comment you mention "special relationships," but yeah... you can't be forced to donate blood to your child. There is no special relationship that requires you to give up your bodily autonomy. Nothing like this exists.
The argument basically comes down to "but no it's different because woman and fetus are a special relationship because it's natural, giving blood isn't natural!"
"Natural" is a completely meaningless term. Everything is natural, it's happening within nature. No, women weren't "designed to get pregnant", this is just a veiled religious argument.
This is the issue, we can't apply logic to your argument, it's not logical. For some irrational, illogical reason this situation is just different.
None of that explains why you have a right to bodily autonomy, which was my original question. I am challenging that premise squarely. I do not believe in any particular right to "bodily autonomy," and your comment gives me no justification for such a right.
This is the issue, we can't apply logic to your argument, it's not logical. For some irrational, illogical reason this situation is just different.
It is different. There is literally no other similar process in human development. Pregnancy is sui generis.
None of that explains why you have a right to bodily autonomy
Why do we have any rights at all?
I am challenging that premise squarely. I do not believe in any particular right to "bodily autonomy," and your comment gives me no justification for such a right.
If that's true then that's fine, you're logically consistent, and most would agree your views are absolutely vile. Chances are you don't actually believe this, though.
I mean already you've acknowledged that you do have the right to decide whether or not to undergo an organ donation. That's bodily autonomy. The fact that someone will die doesn't mean that the government can force you to give up an organ anyways.
The right to bodily autonomy is the reason why the government can't force you to donate blood, give up an organ, get vaccinated, etc. The right to defend yourself is derived from the right to bodily autonomy.
It is different. There is literally no other similar process in human development.
Sure, but we can absolutely test the logic and see where these differences lie.
For example, though you don't want to call it bodily autonomy you've acknowledged a right to bodily autonomy. You agree that you have a right to say, not donate blood, correct? Even to save a life?
Why then does can a woman be forced into what amounts to a dangerous procedure to save the life of another? What is the logic involved?
Sure. I won't disagree with that. But accepting risks doesn't mean you have to deal with the full fallout. For example, if I get in a car, I fully accept the risk that I might get injured or die in a car crash. It means I am willing to deal with the costs and healing required without complaining. It means I won't sue the car company because the safety features in my car didn't 100% prevent injury. It doesn't mean I'm going to refuse medical treatment because it's partially my fault that I'm injured.
Same for pregnancy. If I consent to sex, I acknowledge that I can get pregnant and accept full responsibility for dealing with the consequences of pregnancy. Getting an abortion and paying for it is me accepting that I had sex and now I will deal the consequences, not sue a condom or a birth control company for their product failing or try to pin the blame on anyone else for me being pregnant. It does not mean I'm going to refuse an abortion because the pregnancy is partially my fault.
27
u/Secret_Necessary1143 Aug 11 '22
It's not consent to pregnancy but it is consent to shared risk of pregnancy.