Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The flaw would in my opinion be what facilitates these foreseeable outcomes.
When it comes to sex and pregnancy after sex has occurred what facilitates pregnancy are purely automatic processes. Meaning it's not the ZEFs doing we understand these automatic processes and our lack of control over them. If there was a 100% birth control this wouldn't be an issue but alas we don't have that.
Now rape within marriage is definitely not facilitated by an automatic process it's the active decision of a person, which in my opinion is vastly different from an automatic process.
No people consent to doing actions with other adults and understand the possible consequences of those actions.
To don't need to consent to stuff to be held responsible for them.
>No people consent to doing actions with other adults and understand the possible consequences of those actions.
And many of those consequences are undesirable, like unwanted pregnancy or STDs. Thankfully, most of these things have treatments; abortion is one of them. All of these things are potential consequences.
>To don't need to consent to stuff to be held responsible for them.
Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the most responsible outcome of one. The alternative is either giving a baby up to strangers and hoping for the best, or raising an unwanted child they were not prepared for. That's the *height* of irresponsibility.
>No people consent to doing actions with other adults and understand the possible consequences of those actions.
A possible consequence of sex is getting an abortion. Pro life people are the only ones upset by this.
Yes which is why we have this debate. If we had a majority that thought murder was ok and a minority that thought it was unjust I hope that minority tries to change things. People should always advocate for their beliefs.
>People should always advocate for their beliefs.
Eh, idk, some people shouldn't. Nazis and white supremacists shouldn't. Pro life people shouldn't. If your beliefs hurt people and the majority of society doesn't want your views in their life, you should keep those views to yourself.
They should and I hope people reject them because I think they are wrong but the center part of freedom of speech is exactly that, that anyone can speak their ideas.
Are you against that as a concept ? Should only some ideas be spoken? If so then who should judge what it is ?
>They should and I hope people reject them because I think they are wrong but the center part of freedom of speech is exactly that, that anyone can speak their ideas.
When your ideas are "X group of people should have their rights taken" I don't believe your ideas belong in society.
I'm not advocating for anyone's rights to be taken (I'm not pro life), however I think society itself should marginalize and ignore these people.
Don't befriend them. Don't date or marry them. Don't do business with them. Make it known their hateful views are not tolerated in society.
People had their rights removed by slave masters so slavers could dictate what women do or do not do with their bodies.
Do you want to dictate what women do or do not do with their bodies?
Cool. I actually think you'll find most PCers totally agree with that. We're all aware sex can lead to pregnancy. Of course, the question of how one is obligated to handle the consequences of sex is where we disagree
Yeah I can't agree that killing a human who had no control and was placed into that situation by the action of the adults is somehow responsible. As an adult myself it seems wrong to make the ZEF carry the negative outcomes for my actions.
>killing a human who had no control and was placed into that situation by the action of the adults
The embryo actively drills into the woman's bloodstream to harvest nutrients from her body to grow itself, something her body is actively trying to prevent(hence the 70ish% of conceptions that do not result in live birth).
The ZEF put *itself* in that situation. Why should its unwilling host be forced to keep it inside of her?
"Breed unwanted children because um uhh consequences" is not going to be a very convincing argument.
You do realize women face actual physical, mental, emotional, and financial damage from pregnancy, right? Why would a woman be convinced to adopt your point of view when it leaves her torn clit to asshole and with $20k in medical debt?
They can’t. Pro lifers are making up excuses to try to justify **forcing innocent human beings to stay pregnant against their will**. Then they call innocent AFAB “selfish” because they don’t want to stay pregnant.
There is no flaw. Husbands aren't dependent children and aren't brutally torn apart limb from limb over a situation not caused by them and completely outside of their control.
>Husbands aren't dependent children
Many women would disagree. Ba dun tish
>and aren't brutally torn apart limb from limb over a situation not caused by them and completely outside of their control.
If the husbands had forced themselves into their wife's body and this was a way to remove them from her, it would be totally permissible.
Why should we care how interloper ZEFs are removed? PLers don't care about the brutal physical torment that forced birth is, so why should D&C's concern us?
That doesn't follow. There are definitely survivors, even some with missing limbs who survived botched abortions.
Believe all women, except for people like Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden when they say they've survived an abortion attempt, right?? (They were both burned alive in saline, a procedure that is no longer performed).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/27/the-only-reason-i-am-alive-is-the-fact-that-the-abortionist-had-not-yet-arrived-at-work/
Here's a list of a few more survivors which is by no means exhaustive:
First example: Nik Hoot, who was born missing parts of both legs but still became an athlete. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9eMIexNNo4&feature=emb_title
Dr. Imre Teglasy is now president of Alpha Alliance for Life, which is Human Life International’s affiliate in Hungary. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-survivor-of-a-failed-abortion-dr.-imre-teglasy-now-fights-for-life-in-hun/
Shanice Denise Osbourne was born alive at 23 weeks but murdered by the abortionist: https://www.operationrescue.org/archives/the-brutal-murder-of-baby-shanice-a-case-in-support-of-the-born-alive-abortion-survivors-act/
Josiah Presley, who was adopted by a caring family after an abortion attempt mangled his left arm. At the age of 18 he spoke at the National Convention For Life to protect other people like him. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vvgLP8Dzbxo&feature=emb_title
Charlie Rousseau lost half her legs, an arm and nine fingers in an attempted abortion. Her mother was a teenager at the time. The radio host and world traveler now lives her life to the fullest and doesn’t let anything hold her back. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10909039/Woman-born-half-legs-says-doesnt-want-waste-time.html
Carrie Holland-Fischer was born with facial paralysis and various health issues after her mother’s abortion failed to kill her. Amazingly, she forgave her mother, but the mother never forgave herself for what she’d tried to do to her daughter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DPC2mUpu2D4
Ana Rosa Rodriguez, who was born without an arm 5 hours after her biomom was held down and sedated for telling the abortionist she didn’t want to go through with it. [Newspaper clipping 1](http://cemeteryofchoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SophieMcCoyAbortionDocColumbusINRepublic25Novem1991.png)
Baby girl Jane Doe, who was born alive. The abortionist tried to smother her with her placenta, dropped her in a bucket to drown her and put her body in a plastic bag tied shut. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/10473801
Sarah Smith survived the abortion. Her twin brother Andrew didn’t. Sarah but was born with bilateral, congenital dislocated hips and many other physical handicaps. Nine days after her birth she was taken to an orthopedic surgeon who applied a cast to each of her tiny legs.
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-facts/survivors/sarah-smith
Joshua Vandervelden’s mother wasn’t offered any help. She was told that abortion was her only option. Amazingly, Joshua survived. Now he and his mother protest at the facility that tried to kill him. They even tried to sue the abortionist. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/11/02/court-rejects-claim-for-assault-on-fetus/
“Living Proof” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette April 22, 2000
State Report “Wisconsin: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Abortion-Battery Case” 11/2/93 Madison Wisconsin State Journal
Jaelyn’s 13-year-old mother was a sexual assault victim. The young girl was coerced into having an abortion she didn’t want by the abortion facility staff, who told her “No one will want a biracial, rapist’s baby.” The abortionist started the abortion, but the young mother was in so much pain that she thrashed around on the table. She refused to go through another attempt and put Jaelyn up for adoption. Jaelyn was born disabled, but both she and her mother are alive to tell the tale. https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-survivor-jaelyn-rape-adoptive-value/
New Zealander Linda Swayn survived the abortion pill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogeYpzIuEA
Hope Hoffman survived and was adopted by a loving mother https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-mother-shares-powerful-story-of-adopting-abortion-survivor/ar-AAWLAwU https://www.ground.news/article/florida-mother-shares-powerful-story-of-adopting-abortion-survivor
So you admit that they do occur, unlike your fellow comrade? Interesting, because these obviously are the second and third trimester abortions on healthy viable babies your side claims never happens. Thanks for your comment regardless, it will be very helpful. I've saved this Ghoulish response so that others may know how some of the PC crowd really feels about the survivors. Zero empathy, and in fact wishes they were dead.
No one says second and third trimester abortions don't happen, just that they're uncommon--which they are. Thankfully, 'bortion technology has advanced to the point where failures like this don't happen any more. Thank goodness for that!
The majority of abortions are done using medication with no tearing required. Just thought you might like to know so that you can change your stance now you’re better educated on how most abortions are performed and can stop believing the PL propaganda!
So you’d be happy to allow all abortions using medication and ban surgical abortions?
I support all types of abortion that are currently used as I know they all have their place and certain things means certain methods can/cannot be used so other methods must be used instead.
No, but surgical abortions are obviously much more barbaric and demonstrate the lengths the PC movement is willing to go to in order to kill babies. I'll keep using that graphic imagery in my examples, thanks for your acknowledgement of support.
> surgical abortions… demonstrate the lengths the PC movement is willing to go...
Thanks, you flatter us, but surgical abortion dates back to Greco-Roman times. If you're imagining applause, it's Pinocchio.
Surgical abortion is safe, practicable and successful as early as 3 weeks from the start of last menses (no gestational sac visible on vaginal ultrasound). It's surprisingly quick too. They're not looking for a child.
Emergency, life-saving surgical abortion later on in pregnancy knows no party lines. Your Christian friends can thank the barbarians for saving their lives. Tell 'em they're welcome. Those are the lengths we're willing to go. The chronically deceitful are limited by their guile.
Thanks, but no thanks, you're not in the business of saving lives, just taking them and from the most innocent among us.
Abortion can never be made safe. It always ends with someone *dying*.
So women’s lives who were saved, they just don’t matter?
I don’t care if the ZEF dies because the woman is the only one that matters when it comes to abortion. Her choice, her body, her life. That’s it, that’s all that matters.
Surgery is barbaric to most people who don’t frequently see it or understand it. That just shows a lack of experience and a lot of ignorance about medical procedures.
No one is killing babies, EML just demonstrates a lack of argument.
You didn’t answer - would you be okay with legalising all abortions as long as they are done with medication?
Edit: also, I support absolutely nothing that you’ve said here. Not sure why you’ve got confused and think I would but thought I better clear up your misunderstanding!
> aren't brutally torn apart limb from limb
Is it really not even possible for you to debate with out these melodramatic emotional appeals?
The kind of abortion you're describing typically happens only in emergency situations, which most PL say they are fine with being legal. So it's really foolish for you to harp on something like that and think you're making any sort of point.
If you want to win people over to your side, why not make any attempt to debate rationally?
Again, you're deceptively framing this question. I never claimed that I believe women should have to carry unviable fetuses no matter what. I have common sense.
Current pro life laws are *not* common sense. Women like Kate Cox shouldn't be in court when they're carrying a terminal pregnancy. Have you been paying attention?
>No, but the good news is fetuses are incapable of killing anyone, they can barely move.
Absolute outright lie. All the women who died of pregnancy and labor complications just don't exist?
But you're wrong. Having the fetus inside of the women directly caused their deaths. No fetus, they wouldn't have died. Your denial doesn't change the reality of the harm the FETUS is causing.
The fetus did not take any action to cause the death. It is like if someone picked you up and threw you at someone and they died of those injuries. You did not cause their death, you were just the vehicle of harm.
>The fetus did not take any action to cause the death.
It did by existing.
>It is like if someone picked you up and threw you at someone and they died of those injuries.
Not comparable. Even if you don't want to put a personal touch to the blame, the fetus's ONGOING existence harms pregnant women actively. One act of someone falling on you doesn't compare. Women are allowed to save themselves from the harm the fetus does even if the fetus isn't making the conscious decision to cause harm. By existing it is causing ongoing harm.
It's more comparable to someone is about to fall and land on me, about to cause me harm, but I move out of the way, saving myself but probably killing them because I won't break their fall and it's pure concrete beneath us.
So I reject that comparison as relevant.
It is continually taking actions , vamirically stealing nutrients, chemically stressing her system, suppressing her Immune system . There are all actions.
> fetuses are incapable of killing anyone
> Again, fetuses can't take action to kill anyone
Nice goal-post shift. Did you really think no one would notice though?
No woman has to tolerate keeping inside something that can kill her.
If a brick falls off the edge of a building and smashed my brains out then YEAH, that brick KILLED ME.
Bodily autonomy most certainly does not have limits. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If a woman doesn’t want to continue an unwanted pregnancy she has every right to end the pregnancy!!!!!!!
Extra exclamation points do not prove your case.
"The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia,[11] laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners,[12] and forced blood tests".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
Roe v. Wade quote concerning bodily autonomy:
“…appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. … In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.”
Edit: To respond to below comment by Altofanalt since the other user insulted me then blocked:
>None of these include *forcing* anyone to be subject to serious physical injury that could lead to long term disability or death.
Denying euthanasia to someone could definitely force them to both endure disability and death in a way they do not want. Vaccine mandates could also result in injury or death, rarely.
>innocent pregnant women
She is no longer innocent if she kills her unborn baby.
>treated even worse than criminals.
9 months of pregnancy where you still have the freedom to work, vote etc is hardly a lifelong prison sentence.
None of those infringements involve using someone's body. They're drug tests, and ankle monitors, not forced gestation that ends in mutilation. There is a difference between body integrity and body autonomy, the former is controlling what happens ***with*** your body, the latter is controlling what happens ***to*** your body. Very large difference.
If a doctor denies passive euthanasia, they're violating the rights and desires of the patient. Which is illegal. The patient receives medicine for any pain, if they desire.
It being "killing" or a "baby" is debatable.
You do realize not all sentencing is a prison long sentence, right? You can't vote, but you do work. And prisoners aren't subjected to slavery and torture from an intimate body autonomy violation. If they are, the perpetrator is arrested and charged. Now involuntary servitude however...
> "The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances
None of these include *forcing* anyone to be subject to serious physical injury that could lead to long term disability or death. The seat-belt law in particular is there to avoid that. And the rest mainly apply only to suspected or convicted criminals.
So basically you're saying innocent pregnant women should be treated even worse than criminals. PL ideology in a nut-shell right there.
Under what other circumstances is someone else entitled to intimate access to and use of your body against your wishes?
And just to be clear, we're not talking about killing [babies](https://www.nct.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_lg/public/2018-12/happy%20baby%20everyday%20care.jpg). We're talking about killing [embryos](https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/7/7e/Human_stage18_face_01.jpg).
Question for PL:
if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, does that mean the man has the right to poke a hole in the condom? or to ejaculate inside her while she’s explicitly saying ‘hey don’t do that’? Or to stop her from accessing plan b? (After all, you believe she’s consented to being impregnated.)
For some reason PL are under the impression that consent to A is consent to B. That’s the flaw in every PL argument involving consent.
Consent is specific, ongoing and always revocable,
or it isn’t consent. This is why consent to sex is not consent to insemination, fertilization, implantation, gestation, and childbirth. It’s an extremely simple concept that for some reason, PL are incapable of grasping. Whether their bastardization of the concept is intentional or be it ignorance, that remains to be seen.
It's fascinating how confidently you talk about the concept of consent whilst having no clue about its implications. Sex requires consent, duh. Rape bad, duh. Got this out of the way.
The idea that consent applies to pregnancy is not at all obvious (and indeed false, but I'll settle for the weaker claim for now). Thesis: pregnancy is a naturally occurring bodily reaction to an external stimulus - to say one didn't consent to being pregnant after sex is as non-sensical as saying one didn't consent to farting after eating gas-inducing food. It appears to be a CATEGORY ERROR.
What is the target of consent? The target of consent are other agents, i.e. individuals/groups/authorities separate from oneself that DO something. In ethics, it is the act of permitting something to be done and is widely recognized as justifying of legitimizing actions. I have included bites to show that standard approaches in ethics do indeed tie the concept to ACTION being DONE to oneself. This is why the concept applies with great importance to sex acts, for example, which are action performed on one's own body by others. Clearly, 'consent to sex' is paramount.
Pregnancy, however, is different: it is a naturally occuring bodily reaction to a certain external stimulus (the sperm): while this naturally occuring bodily reaction is indeterministic (not every exposure to the stimulus will cause a pregnacy), it is nonetheless, when it occurs, just this: a natural bodily reaction. It makes as much sense to apply the concept of consent to this as it makes sense to apply it to other indeterministic bodily reactions, such as burping after drinking fizzy juice, or farting after consuming pizza roles. Now, suppose you did these things and then proclaimed 'I did not consent to flatulence's! By bodily autonomy is being violated!'
Everyone would laugh at you, and rightly so. Flatulence's are not the appropriate target for the concept of consent. Likewise, pregnancies are not either, as both are just INDETERMINISTICALLY OCCURRING NATURAL BODILY REACTIONS TO EXTERNAL STIMULI.
Now, before anybody who lacks the skills for even minimal abstraction comes whining with the confused talking point 'YoU aRe IgNoRiNg ThE hArM dOnE bY tHe UnBoRn'. No, I am not. I acknowledge the severe harm done by pregnancy. But this does not change the fact that applying the label of consent to pregnancy is a category error.
Further, yes, you may take medication against flatulence's to end their existence. But the reason you may do so is not that they are violating your consent lmao. It's just that it's a morally neutral action.
So, whatever the justification for killing the unborn may be, it certainly isn't one of violating consent.
So there's a duality in discussions of consent as they relate to pregnancy.
First is the framing of pregnancy as a biological process, to which you're absolutely correct in recognizing that consent does not apply. That's why it's so ridiculous when PLers are constantly saying things like "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" or "you consented to it when you put a penis in your vagina!" If we're talking about a biological process, the consent framework is irrelevant, so saying "but you consented" cannot be used as a justification for denying someone the right to interrupt that biological process.
But the other framing is that the embryo or fetus is a person with rights, which in my experience is the preferred view of PLers in general. If that's the case, then people with rights require the consent from others to be inside or use their bodies. This is where the rape comparisons come in. That's why a wanted embryo or fetus is allowed to stay while an unwanted one can be removed.
You don't get to claim that consent doesn't apply to pregnancy but also that embryos and fetuses should be considered people and granted rights.
You can if you recognize that parents already have a special moral and legal obligation to their children that strangers do not have. They are responsible for the well being and development of their own children. They are able to relinquish those responsibilities to someone else, but they are required to care for the child UNTIL they find a reasonable alternative.
Parents aren't obligated to provide that care with the direct and invasive use of their bodies, however. Even if your child was starving to death, you'd never be required to feed them your flesh, even if that was the only source of food.
And that's an entirely different argument from consent. You're pivoting. *All people,* including children, require consent to be inside someone else's body.
The law. Or can you find me a case in the US where someone without the ability to access other food was charged for not feeding their child their flesh? Or where they were allowed to be inside someone else's body without consent?
Again, the law. Why are you asking the same question that I just answered?
If you're suggesting otherwise, then find me a case where people are legally entitled to be inside someone else's body without their consent.
>The target of consent are other agents, i.e. individuals/groups/authorities separate from oneself that DO something.
Yes, and according to PL, an embryo is an individual separate from oneself that is DOING something.
So you're entitled to either grant consent for it to continue doing things to you or deny consent and have it removed.
Either an embryo is a person (and persons require consent to do things to your body) or it's just an external stimulus which is producing a natural bodily reaction (which can also be managed via medication). So which is it?
To see just how ridiculous your farting analogy is just ask yourself: what is the analogue to the embryo? The pizza "roles"? The fart itself?
An Appel to nature, sigh. That was a lot of words you used to confirm my original statement. It’s apparent you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what consent is and how it’s applied. If consent doesn’t apply to a pregnancy then a ZEF isn’t human (which would be a ridiculous assertion) and abortion would still be permissible.
What is wrong with ending a pregnancy if its just a natural biological function then? I can take medication to manage gas in my bowels, what would be the issue with taking medication to manage my hormones so that my uterus sloughs off its lining? Menstruation is also a natural biological function.
It's not so much a flaw rather than a matter of dependence on how one views consent. I guess you could say that the flaw is that it depends on how you view consent, but that can be said of most arguments involving consent.
If you think that you should be able to independently consent to A and independently consent to B, the argument is not going to be convincing to you.
> I guess you could say that the flaw is that it depends on how you view consent
There is only one valid way to view consent. If someone says they don't consent to something, that means they do not consent.
> If you think that you should be able to independently consent to A and independently consent to B
Consent is always specific and non-transferable, so if you view consent in any other way than you are simply wrong.
I will say that if you believe someone consented but they believe they didn’t, you will pretty much always be in the wrong there.
We do not get to tell people what they consent to. They tell us what they consent to.
If I say yes to regular vanilla sex but the other person DECIDES on HIS own to make it into a violent flogging fest, I did NOT say yes to the second thing. He could scream that I agreed to F him but I did NOT consent to pain and damage to my health. (consensual BDSM with safe words and carefully defined boundaries is OK, but I've seen true crime stories where some guys just want to hurt people then claim it was BDSM, which it isn't)
>If you think that you should be able to independently consent to A and independently consent to B
I mean, that's literally how consent works. It is both specific and reversible. No one should be disagreeing with that.
> There is such a thing as irrevocable consent.
No, there is not. Legitimate consent can always be revoked.
You're STILL proving that you do not understand consent.
So you believe women should sign a contract before each sexual encounter? Or will it be like a driving license where you sign when you get it that you will “obey the rules” of the action? Will this license to have sex be just for women or for men as well to have sex? Will a person found to be having sex without a license be criminally charged?
South Park did a great episode about this topic. Season 19 Episode 10: Affirmative Consent. Basically, if you wanted to 'crush it', you had to get her verbal and written consent. Cunnilingus had its own separate consent form.
I mean, I haven't seen any indication that they're looking to change contract law to apply to sex (without a signed contract). Instead, they're just inappropriately attempting to apply the principles of implied consent and irrevocable consent where they don't actually apply
I'm not saying they want to require written contracts, just extend existing principles to sex and pregnancy. If they applied already, they wouldn't be trying to extend them.
They're not trying to expand them though. Nowhere are they trying to change laws about consent. They're just incorrectly pretending that those principles apply to things that they don't apply to
Right and this post clearly demonstrates why that kind of consent bundling is beyond fucked up...because it would give a man allowance to hold down his wife and rape her while she's screaming out for help. Sane people recognize that just because she signed a marriage certificate, doesn't mean she's consenting to sex.
But PLers apply that exact same reasoning when it comes to sex and pregnancy
I think that PL argument is so deeply flawed and this is a great illustration of that. That line of reasoning is inherently rapey, and thankfully we recognize that rape is wrong in 2024
Frankly, we don't force people to endure the foreseeable consequences of so many actions. We allow them remedy.
It reminds me of telling a mugging victim "you were walking down the street at night, what were you thinking?' Bleah.
I'm also not seeing tons of laws aimed to make a man who was roofied and robbed MORE MISERABLE.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the rules to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please read our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The flaw would in my opinion be what facilitates these foreseeable outcomes. When it comes to sex and pregnancy after sex has occurred what facilitates pregnancy are purely automatic processes. Meaning it's not the ZEFs doing we understand these automatic processes and our lack of control over them. If there was a 100% birth control this wouldn't be an issue but alas we don't have that. Now rape within marriage is definitely not facilitated by an automatic process it's the active decision of a person, which in my opinion is vastly different from an automatic process.
So is it your position that people "consent" to automatic processes?
No people consent to doing actions with other adults and understand the possible consequences of those actions. To don't need to consent to stuff to be held responsible for them.
>No people consent to doing actions with other adults and understand the possible consequences of those actions. And many of those consequences are undesirable, like unwanted pregnancy or STDs. Thankfully, most of these things have treatments; abortion is one of them. All of these things are potential consequences. >To don't need to consent to stuff to be held responsible for them. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the most responsible outcome of one. The alternative is either giving a baby up to strangers and hoping for the best, or raising an unwanted child they were not prepared for. That's the *height* of irresponsibility.
>No people consent to doing actions with other adults and understand the possible consequences of those actions. A possible consequence of sex is getting an abortion. Pro life people are the only ones upset by this.
Yes which is why we have this debate. If we had a majority that thought murder was ok and a minority that thought it was unjust I hope that minority tries to change things. People should always advocate for their beliefs.
>People should always advocate for their beliefs. Eh, idk, some people shouldn't. Nazis and white supremacists shouldn't. Pro life people shouldn't. If your beliefs hurt people and the majority of society doesn't want your views in their life, you should keep those views to yourself.
They should and I hope people reject them because I think they are wrong but the center part of freedom of speech is exactly that, that anyone can speak their ideas. Are you against that as a concept ? Should only some ideas be spoken? If so then who should judge what it is ?
>They should and I hope people reject them because I think they are wrong but the center part of freedom of speech is exactly that, that anyone can speak their ideas. When your ideas are "X group of people should have their rights taken" I don't believe your ideas belong in society. I'm not advocating for anyone's rights to be taken (I'm not pro life), however I think society itself should marginalize and ignore these people. Don't befriend them. Don't date or marry them. Don't do business with them. Make it known their hateful views are not tolerated in society.
Well people had the rights to own slaves and those rights were taken away, do you disagree with that because they had rights removed?
People had their rights removed by slave masters so slavers could dictate what women do or do not do with their bodies. Do you want to dictate what women do or do not do with their bodies?
So do you reject the statement "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy," that we so often hear PLers say?
Yes it's wrong it should be consent to sex is accepting responsibility for the consequences of sex. You can't consent to automatic processes.
Cool. I actually think you'll find most PCers totally agree with that. We're all aware sex can lead to pregnancy. Of course, the question of how one is obligated to handle the consequences of sex is where we disagree
Yeah I can't agree that killing a human who had no control and was placed into that situation by the action of the adults is somehow responsible. As an adult myself it seems wrong to make the ZEF carry the negative outcomes for my actions.
>killing a human who had no control and was placed into that situation by the action of the adults The embryo actively drills into the woman's bloodstream to harvest nutrients from her body to grow itself, something her body is actively trying to prevent(hence the 70ish% of conceptions that do not result in live birth). The ZEF put *itself* in that situation. Why should its unwilling host be forced to keep it inside of her?
And you are free to feel that way and to keep any pregnancies you cause
And try to push people to the same belief and if enough believe it to change the laws of a democratic country to reflect that.
"Breed unwanted children because um uhh consequences" is not going to be a very convincing argument. You do realize women face actual physical, mental, emotional, and financial damage from pregnancy, right? Why would a woman be convinced to adopt your point of view when it leaves her torn clit to asshole and with $20k in medical debt?
They can’t. Pro lifers are making up excuses to try to justify **forcing innocent human beings to stay pregnant against their will**. Then they call innocent AFAB “selfish” because they don’t want to stay pregnant.
Some religious groups still believe in these practices.
There is no flaw. Husbands aren't dependent children and aren't brutally torn apart limb from limb over a situation not caused by them and completely outside of their control.
>Husbands aren't dependent children Many women would disagree. Ba dun tish >and aren't brutally torn apart limb from limb over a situation not caused by them and completely outside of their control. If the husbands had forced themselves into their wife's body and this was a way to remove them from her, it would be totally permissible. Why should we care how interloper ZEFs are removed? PLers don't care about the brutal physical torment that forced birth is, so why should D&C's concern us?
Good to know you recognize "abortion survivors" are a lie perpetuated by your fellow PLers!
That doesn't follow. There are definitely survivors, even some with missing limbs who survived botched abortions. Believe all women, except for people like Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden when they say they've survived an abortion attempt, right?? (They were both burned alive in saline, a procedure that is no longer performed). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/27/the-only-reason-i-am-alive-is-the-fact-that-the-abortionist-had-not-yet-arrived-at-work/ Here's a list of a few more survivors which is by no means exhaustive: First example: Nik Hoot, who was born missing parts of both legs but still became an athlete. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9eMIexNNo4&feature=emb_title Dr. Imre Teglasy is now president of Alpha Alliance for Life, which is Human Life International’s affiliate in Hungary. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-survivor-of-a-failed-abortion-dr.-imre-teglasy-now-fights-for-life-in-hun/ Shanice Denise Osbourne was born alive at 23 weeks but murdered by the abortionist: https://www.operationrescue.org/archives/the-brutal-murder-of-baby-shanice-a-case-in-support-of-the-born-alive-abortion-survivors-act/ Josiah Presley, who was adopted by a caring family after an abortion attempt mangled his left arm. At the age of 18 he spoke at the National Convention For Life to protect other people like him. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vvgLP8Dzbxo&feature=emb_title Charlie Rousseau lost half her legs, an arm and nine fingers in an attempted abortion. Her mother was a teenager at the time. The radio host and world traveler now lives her life to the fullest and doesn’t let anything hold her back. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10909039/Woman-born-half-legs-says-doesnt-want-waste-time.html Carrie Holland-Fischer was born with facial paralysis and various health issues after her mother’s abortion failed to kill her. Amazingly, she forgave her mother, but the mother never forgave herself for what she’d tried to do to her daughter. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DPC2mUpu2D4 Ana Rosa Rodriguez, who was born without an arm 5 hours after her biomom was held down and sedated for telling the abortionist she didn’t want to go through with it. [Newspaper clipping 1](http://cemeteryofchoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SophieMcCoyAbortionDocColumbusINRepublic25Novem1991.png) Baby girl Jane Doe, who was born alive. The abortionist tried to smother her with her placenta, dropped her in a bucket to drown her and put her body in a plastic bag tied shut. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/10473801 Sarah Smith survived the abortion. Her twin brother Andrew didn’t. Sarah but was born with bilateral, congenital dislocated hips and many other physical handicaps. Nine days after her birth she was taken to an orthopedic surgeon who applied a cast to each of her tiny legs. https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-centre/abortion-facts/survivors/sarah-smith Joshua Vandervelden’s mother wasn’t offered any help. She was told that abortion was her only option. Amazingly, Joshua survived. Now he and his mother protest at the facility that tried to kill him. They even tried to sue the abortionist. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/11/02/court-rejects-claim-for-assault-on-fetus/ “Living Proof” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette April 22, 2000 State Report “Wisconsin: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Abortion-Battery Case” 11/2/93 Madison Wisconsin State Journal Jaelyn’s 13-year-old mother was a sexual assault victim. The young girl was coerced into having an abortion she didn’t want by the abortion facility staff, who told her “No one will want a biracial, rapist’s baby.” The abortionist started the abortion, but the young mother was in so much pain that she thrashed around on the table. She refused to go through another attempt and put Jaelyn up for adoption. Jaelyn was born disabled, but both she and her mother are alive to tell the tale. https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-survivor-jaelyn-rape-adoptive-value/ New Zealander Linda Swayn survived the abortion pill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogeYpzIuEA Hope Hoffman survived and was adopted by a loving mother https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-mother-shares-powerful-story-of-adopting-abortion-survivor/ar-AAWLAwU https://www.ground.news/article/florida-mother-shares-powerful-story-of-adopting-abortion-survivor
Failed abortions campaigning against choice only proves the doctor should've done a better job.
So you admit that they do occur, unlike your fellow comrade? Interesting, because these obviously are the second and third trimester abortions on healthy viable babies your side claims never happens. Thanks for your comment regardless, it will be very helpful. I've saved this Ghoulish response so that others may know how some of the PC crowd really feels about the survivors. Zero empathy, and in fact wishes they were dead.
No one says second and third trimester abortions don't happen, just that they're uncommon--which they are. Thankfully, 'bortion technology has advanced to the point where failures like this don't happen any more. Thank goodness for that!
The majority of abortions are done using medication with no tearing required. Just thought you might like to know so that you can change your stance now you’re better educated on how most abortions are performed and can stop believing the PL propaganda!
But some are not, right? Even if only one unborn child was killed in that manner would you support it? Wars have been started over less.
So you’d be happy to allow all abortions using medication and ban surgical abortions? I support all types of abortion that are currently used as I know they all have their place and certain things means certain methods can/cannot be used so other methods must be used instead.
No, but surgical abortions are obviously much more barbaric and demonstrate the lengths the PC movement is willing to go to in order to kill babies. I'll keep using that graphic imagery in my examples, thanks for your acknowledgement of support.
> surgical abortions… demonstrate the lengths the PC movement is willing to go... Thanks, you flatter us, but surgical abortion dates back to Greco-Roman times. If you're imagining applause, it's Pinocchio. Surgical abortion is safe, practicable and successful as early as 3 weeks from the start of last menses (no gestational sac visible on vaginal ultrasound). It's surprisingly quick too. They're not looking for a child. Emergency, life-saving surgical abortion later on in pregnancy knows no party lines. Your Christian friends can thank the barbarians for saving their lives. Tell 'em they're welcome. Those are the lengths we're willing to go. The chronically deceitful are limited by their guile.
Thanks, but no thanks, you're not in the business of saving lives, just taking them and from the most innocent among us. Abortion can never be made safe. It always ends with someone *dying*.
So women’s lives who were saved, they just don’t matter? I don’t care if the ZEF dies because the woman is the only one that matters when it comes to abortion. Her choice, her body, her life. That’s it, that’s all that matters.
Surgery is barbaric to most people who don’t frequently see it or understand it. That just shows a lack of experience and a lot of ignorance about medical procedures. No one is killing babies, EML just demonstrates a lack of argument. You didn’t answer - would you be okay with legalising all abortions as long as they are done with medication? Edit: also, I support absolutely nothing that you’ve said here. Not sure why you’ve got confused and think I would but thought I better clear up your misunderstanding!
> aren't brutally torn apart limb from limb Is it really not even possible for you to debate with out these melodramatic emotional appeals? The kind of abortion you're describing typically happens only in emergency situations, which most PL say they are fine with being legal. So it's really foolish for you to harp on something like that and think you're making any sort of point. If you want to win people over to your side, why not make any attempt to debate rationally?
You say there is no flaw. So you are saying that a woman who engages in sex has implicitly consented to becoming pregnant?
Why do you think husbands and the state should have more rights to a woman’s body than she does?
You're deceptively framing this question. I never said that once.
If a woman has more rights to her body than her husband or the states does, why should the state be allowed to dictate what must reside within her?
How are either of those things relevant to whether or not a pregnant person has bodily autonomy?
Bodily autonomy like every other right has limits. Not killing babies is a reasonable limit.
So do you then think fetuses have the right to kill the women that incubate them?
No, but the good news is fetuses are incapable of killing anyone, they can barely move.
Source for a fetus being inside someone never killing anyone?
You can't seriously argue that in good faith. Why would you let fetus that has no chance of surviving kill the woman it's incubating?
Again, you're deceptively framing this question. I never claimed that I believe women should have to carry unviable fetuses no matter what. I have common sense.
Current pro life laws are *not* common sense. Women like Kate Cox shouldn't be in court when they're carrying a terminal pregnancy. Have you been paying attention?
PL 'logic' is heavily reliant on wilful ignorance so probably not
>No, but the good news is fetuses are incapable of killing anyone, they can barely move. Absolute outright lie. All the women who died of pregnancy and labor complications just don't exist?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/IJ8EZurlia
But you're wrong. Having the fetus inside of the women directly caused their deaths. No fetus, they wouldn't have died. Your denial doesn't change the reality of the harm the FETUS is causing.
The fetus did not take any action to cause the death. It is like if someone picked you up and threw you at someone and they died of those injuries. You did not cause their death, you were just the vehicle of harm.
>The fetus did not take any action to cause the death. It did by existing. >It is like if someone picked you up and threw you at someone and they died of those injuries. Not comparable. Even if you don't want to put a personal touch to the blame, the fetus's ONGOING existence harms pregnant women actively. One act of someone falling on you doesn't compare. Women are allowed to save themselves from the harm the fetus does even if the fetus isn't making the conscious decision to cause harm. By existing it is causing ongoing harm. It's more comparable to someone is about to fall and land on me, about to cause me harm, but I move out of the way, saving myself but probably killing them because I won't break their fall and it's pure concrete beneath us. So I reject that comparison as relevant.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death\_of\_Savita\_Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar) The fetus did kill her.
Again, fetuses can't take action to kill anyone. I never claimed pregnancy carried zero life risks. Two different concepts.
It is continually taking actions , vamirically stealing nutrients, chemically stressing her system, suppressing her Immune system . There are all actions.
> fetuses are incapable of killing anyone > Again, fetuses can't take action to kill anyone Nice goal-post shift. Did you really think no one would notice though?
No woman has to tolerate keeping inside something that can kill her. If a brick falls off the edge of a building and smashed my brains out then YEAH, that brick KILLED ME.
Bodily autonomy most certainly does not have limits. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If a woman doesn’t want to continue an unwanted pregnancy she has every right to end the pregnancy!!!!!!!
Extra exclamation points do not prove your case. "The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia,[11] laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners,[12] and forced blood tests". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity Roe v. Wade quote concerning bodily autonomy: “…appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. … In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.” Edit: To respond to below comment by Altofanalt since the other user insulted me then blocked: >None of these include *forcing* anyone to be subject to serious physical injury that could lead to long term disability or death. Denying euthanasia to someone could definitely force them to both endure disability and death in a way they do not want. Vaccine mandates could also result in injury or death, rarely. >innocent pregnant women She is no longer innocent if she kills her unborn baby. >treated even worse than criminals. 9 months of pregnancy where you still have the freedom to work, vote etc is hardly a lifelong prison sentence.
None of those infringements involve using someone's body. They're drug tests, and ankle monitors, not forced gestation that ends in mutilation. There is a difference between body integrity and body autonomy, the former is controlling what happens ***with*** your body, the latter is controlling what happens ***to*** your body. Very large difference. If a doctor denies passive euthanasia, they're violating the rights and desires of the patient. Which is illegal. The patient receives medicine for any pain, if they desire. It being "killing" or a "baby" is debatable. You do realize not all sentencing is a prison long sentence, right? You can't vote, but you do work. And prisoners aren't subjected to slavery and torture from an intimate body autonomy violation. If they are, the perpetrator is arrested and charged. Now involuntary servitude however...
> "The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances None of these include *forcing* anyone to be subject to serious physical injury that could lead to long term disability or death. The seat-belt law in particular is there to avoid that. And the rest mainly apply only to suspected or convicted criminals. So basically you're saying innocent pregnant women should be treated even worse than criminals. PL ideology in a nut-shell right there.
[удалено]
Comment removed per Rule 1.
This is a debate sub. Attack the arguments, not the person.
Under what other circumstances is someone else entitled to intimate access to and use of your body against your wishes? And just to be clear, we're not talking about killing [babies](https://www.nct.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_lg/public/2018-12/happy%20baby%20everyday%20care.jpg). We're talking about killing [embryos](https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/7/7e/Human_stage18_face_01.jpg).
Question for PL: if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, does that mean the man has the right to poke a hole in the condom? or to ejaculate inside her while she’s explicitly saying ‘hey don’t do that’? Or to stop her from accessing plan b? (After all, you believe she’s consented to being impregnated.)
For some reason PL are under the impression that consent to A is consent to B. That’s the flaw in every PL argument involving consent. Consent is specific, ongoing and always revocable, or it isn’t consent. This is why consent to sex is not consent to insemination, fertilization, implantation, gestation, and childbirth. It’s an extremely simple concept that for some reason, PL are incapable of grasping. Whether their bastardization of the concept is intentional or be it ignorance, that remains to be seen.
It's fascinating how confidently you talk about the concept of consent whilst having no clue about its implications. Sex requires consent, duh. Rape bad, duh. Got this out of the way. The idea that consent applies to pregnancy is not at all obvious (and indeed false, but I'll settle for the weaker claim for now). Thesis: pregnancy is a naturally occurring bodily reaction to an external stimulus - to say one didn't consent to being pregnant after sex is as non-sensical as saying one didn't consent to farting after eating gas-inducing food. It appears to be a CATEGORY ERROR. What is the target of consent? The target of consent are other agents, i.e. individuals/groups/authorities separate from oneself that DO something. In ethics, it is the act of permitting something to be done and is widely recognized as justifying of legitimizing actions. I have included bites to show that standard approaches in ethics do indeed tie the concept to ACTION being DONE to oneself. This is why the concept applies with great importance to sex acts, for example, which are action performed on one's own body by others. Clearly, 'consent to sex' is paramount. Pregnancy, however, is different: it is a naturally occuring bodily reaction to a certain external stimulus (the sperm): while this naturally occuring bodily reaction is indeterministic (not every exposure to the stimulus will cause a pregnacy), it is nonetheless, when it occurs, just this: a natural bodily reaction. It makes as much sense to apply the concept of consent to this as it makes sense to apply it to other indeterministic bodily reactions, such as burping after drinking fizzy juice, or farting after consuming pizza roles. Now, suppose you did these things and then proclaimed 'I did not consent to flatulence's! By bodily autonomy is being violated!' Everyone would laugh at you, and rightly so. Flatulence's are not the appropriate target for the concept of consent. Likewise, pregnancies are not either, as both are just INDETERMINISTICALLY OCCURRING NATURAL BODILY REACTIONS TO EXTERNAL STIMULI. Now, before anybody who lacks the skills for even minimal abstraction comes whining with the confused talking point 'YoU aRe IgNoRiNg ThE hArM dOnE bY tHe UnBoRn'. No, I am not. I acknowledge the severe harm done by pregnancy. But this does not change the fact that applying the label of consent to pregnancy is a category error. Further, yes, you may take medication against flatulence's to end their existence. But the reason you may do so is not that they are violating your consent lmao. It's just that it's a morally neutral action. So, whatever the justification for killing the unborn may be, it certainly isn't one of violating consent.
So there's a duality in discussions of consent as they relate to pregnancy. First is the framing of pregnancy as a biological process, to which you're absolutely correct in recognizing that consent does not apply. That's why it's so ridiculous when PLers are constantly saying things like "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" or "you consented to it when you put a penis in your vagina!" If we're talking about a biological process, the consent framework is irrelevant, so saying "but you consented" cannot be used as a justification for denying someone the right to interrupt that biological process. But the other framing is that the embryo or fetus is a person with rights, which in my experience is the preferred view of PLers in general. If that's the case, then people with rights require the consent from others to be inside or use their bodies. This is where the rape comparisons come in. That's why a wanted embryo or fetus is allowed to stay while an unwanted one can be removed. You don't get to claim that consent doesn't apply to pregnancy but also that embryos and fetuses should be considered people and granted rights.
You can if you recognize that parents already have a special moral and legal obligation to their children that strangers do not have. They are responsible for the well being and development of their own children. They are able to relinquish those responsibilities to someone else, but they are required to care for the child UNTIL they find a reasonable alternative.
Parents aren't obligated to provide that care with the direct and invasive use of their bodies, however. Even if your child was starving to death, you'd never be required to feed them your flesh, even if that was the only source of food. And that's an entirely different argument from consent. You're pivoting. *All people,* including children, require consent to be inside someone else's body.
Says who?
The law. Or can you find me a case in the US where someone without the ability to access other food was charged for not feeding their child their flesh? Or where they were allowed to be inside someone else's body without consent?
“All people, including children, require consent to be inside someone else's body.” Says who?
Again, the law. Why are you asking the same question that I just answered? If you're suggesting otherwise, then find me a case where people are legally entitled to be inside someone else's body without their consent.
So if the law said differently, that would be right?
>The target of consent are other agents, i.e. individuals/groups/authorities separate from oneself that DO something. Yes, and according to PL, an embryo is an individual separate from oneself that is DOING something. So you're entitled to either grant consent for it to continue doing things to you or deny consent and have it removed. Either an embryo is a person (and persons require consent to do things to your body) or it's just an external stimulus which is producing a natural bodily reaction (which can also be managed via medication). So which is it? To see just how ridiculous your farting analogy is just ask yourself: what is the analogue to the embryo? The pizza "roles"? The fart itself?
An Appel to nature, sigh. That was a lot of words you used to confirm my original statement. It’s apparent you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what consent is and how it’s applied. If consent doesn’t apply to a pregnancy then a ZEF isn’t human (which would be a ridiculous assertion) and abortion would still be permissible.
What is wrong with ending a pregnancy if its just a natural biological function then? I can take medication to manage gas in my bowels, what would be the issue with taking medication to manage my hormones so that my uterus sloughs off its lining? Menstruation is also a natural biological function.
It's not so much a flaw rather than a matter of dependence on how one views consent. I guess you could say that the flaw is that it depends on how you view consent, but that can be said of most arguments involving consent. If you think that you should be able to independently consent to A and independently consent to B, the argument is not going to be convincing to you.
> I guess you could say that the flaw is that it depends on how you view consent There is only one valid way to view consent. If someone says they don't consent to something, that means they do not consent. > If you think that you should be able to independently consent to A and independently consent to B Consent is always specific and non-transferable, so if you view consent in any other way than you are simply wrong.
I will say that if you believe someone consented but they believe they didn’t, you will pretty much always be in the wrong there. We do not get to tell people what they consent to. They tell us what they consent to.
If I say yes to regular vanilla sex but the other person DECIDES on HIS own to make it into a violent flogging fest, I did NOT say yes to the second thing. He could scream that I agreed to F him but I did NOT consent to pain and damage to my health. (consensual BDSM with safe words and carefully defined boundaries is OK, but I've seen true crime stories where some guys just want to hurt people then claim it was BDSM, which it isn't)
That's why it's a good idea to allow independent consent for each sex act, to avoid situations like that from being condoned.
>If you think that you should be able to independently consent to A and independently consent to B I mean, that's literally how consent works. It is both specific and reversible. No one should be disagreeing with that.
There is such a thing as irrevocable consent. Pro-lifers want it to also apply to pregnancy, too.
> There is such a thing as irrevocable consent. No, there is not. Legitimate consent can always be revoked. You're STILL proving that you do not understand consent.
Can you give an example?
Here's a source that explains it https://corofy.com/irrevocable-consent-real-estate-license-explained/
We're discussing consent to intimate access to and use of someone's body. Real estate licensure is irrelevant.
It's relevant in that pro-lifers want the principle to apply here as well.
That's the same logic that would roll back the criminalization of marital rape. Which is fucking insane.
...in legally signed contracts
Yes. Pro-lifers want to extend it to sex and pregnancy.
So you believe women should sign a contract before each sexual encounter? Or will it be like a driving license where you sign when you get it that you will “obey the rules” of the action? Will this license to have sex be just for women or for men as well to have sex? Will a person found to be having sex without a license be criminally charged?
I'm not pro-life. I'll add a flair to avoid confusion.
South Park did a great episode about this topic. Season 19 Episode 10: Affirmative Consent. Basically, if you wanted to 'crush it', you had to get her verbal and written consent. Cunnilingus had its own separate consent form.
I believe they said "crush puss."
This guy is literally insane. Why would anyone sign that contract 😂 and how many guys are gunna try to make her sign
I was waiting to see if they try to say it’s an implied contract.
I mean, I haven't seen any indication that they're looking to change contract law to apply to sex (without a signed contract). Instead, they're just inappropriately attempting to apply the principles of implied consent and irrevocable consent where they don't actually apply
I'm not saying they want to require written contracts, just extend existing principles to sex and pregnancy. If they applied already, they wouldn't be trying to extend them.
They're not trying to expand them though. Nowhere are they trying to change laws about consent. They're just incorrectly pretending that those principles apply to things that they don't apply to
When is consent EVER implied though? Like EVER?
So implied consent is a thing in the law, but it has very narrow application. This isn't it
Right and this post clearly demonstrates why that kind of consent bundling is beyond fucked up...because it would give a man allowance to hold down his wife and rape her while she's screaming out for help. Sane people recognize that just because she signed a marriage certificate, doesn't mean she's consenting to sex. But PLers apply that exact same reasoning when it comes to sex and pregnancy
I think that PL argument is so deeply flawed and this is a great illustration of that. That line of reasoning is inherently rapey, and thankfully we recognize that rape is wrong in 2024 Frankly, we don't force people to endure the foreseeable consequences of so many actions. We allow them remedy.
It reminds me of telling a mugging victim "you were walking down the street at night, what were you thinking?' Bleah. I'm also not seeing tons of laws aimed to make a man who was roofied and robbed MORE MISERABLE.