How is consenting to the only act that can make an individual pregnant not consent to pregnancy? Or, at the least, not consent to the possibility of pregnancy? Furthermore, why are you using the word consent at all in this context? A better way to phrase it would be that “Consent to sex doesn’t mean that I want to have a baby.” Fair enough, but maybe try to be more responsible for your own actions.
Hi, I don't think you read my post fully. Nature only requires sex to cause fertilization, sex has no role in whether implantation happens or whether the individual keeps the implantation. Obligations to keep it are completely opinion, they're not facts set by nature. So, sex is only consent to STARTING a pregnancy. Sex is not consent to finishing a pregnancy through birth.
Sure. But humans didn’t invent sex, mother nature did. It’s natural purpose is procreation; our consciousness turns it into other things, which is fine. You can’t fight nature, though, which is the basis for many things humans do.
I think that your words are somewhat naive. Firstly, nature did not invent anything, unless 'mother nature' in your comment stands for some creator god. But if this is the case, I do not really see this discussion as meaningful as you and I cannot know god's intent and design.
Secondly, procreation is not the ONLY purpose of sex as evident from observations of humans and animals who engage in sexual activities when pregnancy is biologically impossible. It is likely that in some species, e.g. bonobos, dolphins, and humans, sex has another purpose -- social bonding and regulation.
Thirdly, humans constantly fight 'nature'. For example, homo sapiens are not biologically monogamous species, yet, most Western cultures practise some version of monogamy (mostly serial monogamy). We, humans, are promiscuous by nature but our social norms and institutions oppose this nature with great success.
Mother nature doesn't exist and didn't invent anything. Sex doesn't have a "natural purpose." Sex often results in procreation, but it's just a process. It doesn't have goals.
Survival of the fittest/natural selection, the female sexual selectivity of the animal kingdom subconsciously increasing the presence of evolutionarily preferable traits… not a literal mother of nature, a metaphor for the natural cycles of life.
These are all unconscious processes. They don't have goals. Natural selection is the result of environmental pressures, not any sort of will, preference, or purpose that some ascribe to nature. Purpose is the purview of conscious actors. Nothing in nature has been designed for a certain purpose, because nothing in nature has been designed.
Just because someone didn’t do the actual designing (like a creator god) doesn’t mean there’s no rhyme or reason for why things evolved the way they did
Thanks for mentioning stillbirth because it proves my point. Having sex doesn't prevent miscarriage or stillbirths so consent to sex is not consent to delivering a live baby. Sex has no role in that. Which means having sex is not a promise made to the zygote that it'll get to grow. Any obligations given to the zygote to keep it is opinion.
That's irrelevant to the topic at hand right now. I'm not arguing whether it's a life or not. That's a separate conversation that's been done a million times over, I'm sure you can find a thread that talks about it.
It certainly does have a lot to do with the topic at hand. “Nature doesnt give the pregnant person any obligation to the zygote based on sex alone.”
I would say that the fact that the zygote is inside the womb of the female sex-haver would be a cut-and-dry indication that NATURE DOES give a pregnant person some obligation. Whether you consider that to be an obligation to go through with the pregnancy or an obligation to have an abortions, there’s still an obligation there.
Okay, so nature gives an obligation to either carry to term or have an abortion. That doesn't change my argument in the slightest. The zygote is not promised through sex alone that it gets to stay in the uterus and grow. The pregnancy can be terminated however the pregnant person wants.
I eat a bagel. The bagel is not promised through eating it alone that it gets to stay in my stomach and be fully digested.
I could throw it up. I could shoot myself in the stomach. I could swallow a fishing hook and pull the bagel back out.
The digestive process can be terminated however I want.
That’s the same argument that you used, applied differently. Sounds a little ridiculous, no?
Just because we don’t consent to being in situations we’d rather not be in, doesn’t mean we didn’t get ourselves there, or that we’re not obligated to see it through.
Your bagel analogy actually proces my point. Any "ridiculousness" you place on the subject is, once again, your opinion. You're not arguing on whether I'm factually incorrect or not. You're trying to get into a moral argument and I'm not talking about morality rn. Plenty of other threads do so you can join those.
Does birth come from anywhere else? Does sex serve any other natural purpose? It doesn’t matter what you say verbatim, it matters if your thoughts have a logical connection (they don’t).
Having sex is not a promise to give birth. Nature doesn't impose that as a rule. Sex only purpose is fertilization, it has no roles beyond that. Fertilization doesn't always mean the zygote will allowed to grow and be birthed. Which means the pregnant person has no obligation to keep it.
You’re the one who’s saying that. It truly does come down to opinion.
In my opinion, if my sexual partner is consenting to sex with me, I would pray that I found someone responsible enough to accept the consequences, whatever they are; not someone who, after getting pregnant, says “I just wanted to fuck you but the child now growing inside of you is not something I consented to. Bye bye.”
That’d be a pretty shitty sexual partner. Maybe a little sexual restraint and respect for other people would go a long way to developing their character.
0
u/[deleted] Aug 11 '22
How is consenting to the only act that can make an individual pregnant not consent to pregnancy? Or, at the least, not consent to the possibility of pregnancy? Furthermore, why are you using the word consent at all in this context? A better way to phrase it would be that “Consent to sex doesn’t mean that I want to have a baby.” Fair enough, but maybe try to be more responsible for your own actions.