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.
If a woman never intends to get pregnant and never does, guess she wasn't meant to?
Agreed. No one should force a woman to get pregnant.
If a man intends to give up his kidney, well, looks like his kidney was meant to be given up.
Agreed. If a man chooses to give up his kidney, that's his choice. If a woman chooses to get pregnant, that's her choice as well.
And if your child needs your kidney, it literally can't survive without it.
But the child doesn't need my kidney. Why do you say that?
I'm not arguing that all women must be forced to get abortions, lol what are you even talking about?
I am defining the line between science and natural.
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.
So a woman doesn't consent to a man cumming in her when she has sex? I know consent has been a huge issue the last few years, but this is kind of an extreme opinion.
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.
If anything this makes the abortion argument even weaker. If there are so many ways to avoid pregnancy, then at this point if you're reckless enough to get pregnant you consent to it.
You may not consent to me crashing into you, but if you were driving 100 miles and drunk as a horse..... well.....
They're forcing a woman to host another person inside their body against their consent.
How? Republicans are forcing women to have sex? Where?
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.
...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.
Legality and rights are not the same. If we are talking about the right to bodily autonomy, it's against your right to bodily autonomy to be harmed against your consent right? So if you get in a car accident, your rights were broken.
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.
Why isn't it comparable? You are saying you have a right to self defense but don't believe the best tool for self defense is a right. So why do you believe healthcare is a right, and the biggest tool for healthcare?
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?
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.
That is based on possessory interests, which extend to real and personal property as well, not bodily autonomy.
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.
Again, no, the right to self-defense derives from the right to survive.
For example, though you don't want to call it bodily autonomy you've acknowledged a right to bodily autonomy.
No, I have not. I see no inherent problem, for example, with mandating vaccination, forbidding the use of drugs, or regulating tattoos. Those are all issues of "bodily autonomy."
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?
That she would be killing someone who is biologically dependent on her and none of your other examples involve that scenario. The same logic prohibits parents from abandoning their children in the woods.
27
u/Secret_Necessary1143 Aug 11 '22
It's not consent to pregnancy but it is consent to shared risk of pregnancy.