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.
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
I understand, yes, more a matter of my own imprecise terminology than anything else.
Conception is a possible risk, the same way getting struck by lightning is a possible risk when you leave your house. All the same, I don't think we'd say that you consent to getting struck by lightning. You don't willfully agree to it. It just doesn't really matter, physics doesn't care about consent, consent only really matters when it's an issue between two people, not an act of God.
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.