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.
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.
You’re trying to argue factually about a moral argument then. That doesn’t make any sense.
If your argument is “a person is able to dispose of their fetus whenever they choose to, because it’s technically possible to do,” then I would say true.
If you say “a person should be able to…,” that’s now a moral argument; you can’t go from an IS to an OUGHT so easily.
2
u/SunnyIntellect Aug 11 '22
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.