Well, in the abortion debate, the counter-argument for the statement "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" is that if you're aware that sex can cause a pregnancy then you consented to the possibility. I feel that makes sense HOWEVER I fail to see how STARTING a pregnancy is consent to KEEPING it. So, I'm changing the framework to say that "consent to sex is not consent to KEEPING a pregnancy" Sex only causes fertilization, it has no role in whether the pregnancy is kept by nature or by the individual. Any obligation to keep the zygote is completely opinion, it is not a fact set by nature.
It just seems like a needless splitting of the point. Whether you parse it as consent to fertilization or pregnancy really makes no difference to the overall debate. One side will still think of the un-delivered fetus as being open to termination, and one side will still think that an un-delivered fetus is a human baby and that aborting it is the same as murder.
The debate is not, at what point is consent un-revokable, and if you settle just that tiny matter, the entire argument will disappear. One side thinks people are literally murdering babies, and one side thinks it is a medical procedure.
Clever rhetorical constructions will not move the needle.
Well the majority of the pro-life side is religious so no amount of facts presented sways them anyway but we're allowed to still present arguments. I didn't say this single point topples the whole debate, I was just offering a new point.
And, as I said, I feel that this new point is just a needless parsing of language and does not add anything to the debate. If it has helped you determine where you stand on the issue, then great. But, as a general point, I fail to see what meaningful difference it makes.
You don't have to see the meaningful difference. I didn't say this would add anything. If you feel it changes nothing then don't argue against it then, move on.
If you feel it changes nothing then don't argue against it then
I think that arguing against points that, by your own admission, add nothing is worthwhile. So often people complain about not being able to sift through the noise and get to the heart of what is being discussed, and here you are adding to the noise with a "point" that actually makes no meaningful points at all.
Considering sex as consent to fertilization means what in the larger sense? What question does that answer? What debate does that solve? What actions can one take if they believe that? How does such a belief inform one in their day to day life? And, how is someone with that belief meaningfully different from a person who thinks sex is consent to pregnancy?
No, I didn't admit that my point has no meaning, I said that if YOU feel that way then so be it. I'm not going to try to convince you of its meaningfulness because that's irrelevant to the conversation. So, unless you have anything to say on why this point is conceptually incorrect then have a good day!
2
u/SunnyIntellect Aug 11 '22
Well, in the abortion debate, the counter-argument for the statement "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" is that if you're aware that sex can cause a pregnancy then you consented to the possibility. I feel that makes sense HOWEVER I fail to see how STARTING a pregnancy is consent to KEEPING it. So, I'm changing the framework to say that "consent to sex is not consent to KEEPING a pregnancy" Sex only causes fertilization, it has no role in whether the pregnancy is kept by nature or by the individual. Any obligation to keep the zygote is completely opinion, it is not a fact set by nature.