"Consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy" - an ethics analysis

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by kazenatsu, Jan 27, 2019.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is really more a philosophical ethics analysis rather than really being specifically about abortion but it applies very much to one of the big abortion issues here.

    Can doing something be okay in a situation but not be okay if you are the one who caused that situation?

    Let's start off with a quick example just to provide some illustration of what we're talking about.
    If a man is pulling out a gun and about shoot you, it's ethically okay to shoot him first. So far pretty clear and simple.
    But now suppose you were the one who created that situation. That man pulling out a gun is a security guard at a bank you're robbing.
    Setting off to the side for a moment the fact that robbing a bank is a wrong, it's also wrong ethically to shoot the man in this instance. Yes, he is pulling a gun on you, and yes you would be acting in defense of yourself if you shot him, but YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CREATED THAT SITUATION. Certain rights you otherwise might have you no longer have in that situation (ethically). If you kill him, you are to blame.

    So now let's take a look at pregnancy...

    It's often asserted by Pro-Lifers that "Consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy".
    This statement implies that there's something about abortion that's even worse when you are the one who consented to sex which led up to it.
    It's a separate additional argument besides just the simple "Killing a fetus inside of you is wrong" argument.

    Let's make two suppositions (just for the sake of the argument here). Let's suppose it would not be wrong for a woman to get an abortion if virgin women were getting pregnant out of nowhere all the time; and at the same time let's also suppose that it would be wrong for a woman to intentionally choose to go get pregnant and then decide to abort because she changed her mind.
    If one makes both of these assumptions for a moment, there's a lot between these two extremes.

    One could, for example, try to make an argument that risking pregnancy when you know you would just kill the fetus is okay if the risk of pregnancy was less than 10%. But maybe it would not be ethical if you knew going into it that the risk was over 40%, let's say.

    To make this argument you'd have to presume killing of a fetus when you find yourself pregnant is ethically acceptable, but that making certain prior choices that you knew could put you in that situation carry certain ethical obligations.

    Bowerbird brought up a point comparing having sex to getting into a car, and the possibility of pregnancy being like a car accident:
    She makes the argument that consenting to sex is not consent to pregnancy because pregnancy is only a risk, it only has a chance of occurring, and that was not the original intention.

    Well, when you get into a car, you are consenting to the possibility of accident.
    Often when you choose to partake in a potentially dangerous activity they'll make you sign a consent form, where you are consenting to the possibility of inherent dangers (like undergoing a major surgery, or skydiving). Obviously it's not your intent for something to go wrong, but you are consenting to the risk.

    But Bowerbird's point is not completely invalid. It's a matter of exactly how large the risk is (either perceived or inherent). And that goes back to my last example (the 10% versus 40% one).

    One of the big objections to the Pro-Life perspective is "But what if the condom breaks?!?"
    Obviously this refrain implies that a right to sex exists without having to take on any risk whatsoever of having a baby.
    But to have the right, and avoid taking on that risk, you may have to kill a fetus.
    You are putting yourself into a future situation where you may have to choose between carrying a pregnancy and killing a fetus.
    If having the sex isn't consent specifically to one of those, it's consent to either of them.

    It's [ kind of ] like making a promise that you're going to kill someone, by a certain date. You're either a liar or you'll be a murderer. You might still be in an ambiguous zone, but once the time arrives it will be clear exactly what ethical transgression you have made.
    I would say that making the promise in the first place is an implicit ethical wrong, because it will lead to an outcome—still yet to be determined—that is ethically wrong.
    The same could be said about sexual intercourse, if you know you're just going to get an abortion if you find out there's a fetus growing in there.

    I believe there's some inherent level of implicit consent.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  2. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is consent to living, a consent to cancer?
    Where does a line in the sand get drawn?
    And why does everyone have to live by one line?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, not really, because you didn't really have any other choices.
    (You could of course consent to not living, but then you'd be dead and that's basically the same sort of bad thing that cancer is)

    Exactly, that's the whole point of this thread, it's pretty provocative.

    The question is: How consistent will you be with that when it comes to other political issues?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One way to attempt to analyze this is to utilize something called game theory.
    To begin to analyze this we first off have to decide how many female orgasms are worth the life of one fetus.

    From there you multiply it by a probability factor.
    For example, if you have the opportunity to win 100 gold coins and there is a 10 percent chance of winning, the cost at which taking the chance is justified will be below 10 gold coins. ( 10 = 0.10 times 100 )

    That's just the beginning, and in reality a logical fully mathematical analysis would be far more complicated.
    Maybe we should appoint a supercomputer artificial intelligence to rule over us?
     
  5. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Human nature, as well as most every other living creature on earth has sex. It's inbred into the species, including humans.

    Yes, lines in the sand is provocative. But it doesn't have to be. Just let each person decide what is best for their own well being. Don't concern oneself what 7B other people on earth do. If you are not affected personally.

    Abortion should not be a political issue. It's a moral and personal issue. Based on each unique person and circumstance surrounding that individual. Now if the human species was in dire despair of extinction, that would be different. And maybe survival of the species has a bigger importance.

    Each political issue requires unique solutions, for each issue is unique.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see a connection between orgasms and fetus. Other than so many orgasms will likely result is some pregnancy.
    But we have technology to detect said pregnancy and let the one who had an orgasm decide what she wants.
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    https://abortionhistorymuseum.com/2015/06/04/is-consent-to-sex-consent-to-pregnancy/

    So, if she is “taking precautions” then she is NOT consenting to pregnancy. Those precautions may just be believing the man when he said he had had a vasectomy, but it is a pirecaution
     
    dairyair likes this.
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But if you're using a line of reasoning and underlying logic that is incompatibly different for each issue, there is something wrong.
    (They're known as "double standards")
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I often find that argument quite interesting and ironic. It's basically saying "Women are like animals and can't help themselves" but at the same time we hear "Women shouldn't be made to breed like animals".
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  10. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it's each issue isn't necessarily related to the other issue.
    The world is far from black and white. And each issue has many many solutions.

    There's more than 1 way to skin a cat, is an old saying.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A fetus can't decide to go ahead with an abortion.
    Just like a 9 year old girl can't decide to engage in incest with her own father.

    That was also one of the arguments for slavery ( just pointing it out).
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  12. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    just like consent to give up my kidney can be revoked at anytime before it leaves my body as it's mine - once it's in your body it is yours

    you do not have a right to be a parasite to another persons body
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  13. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Odd, you think the woman is the only sex involved in the act of sex where a pregnancy can occur.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the slave were affected personally. Would you not agree?
     
  15. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nothing wrong with having sex or having an abortion

    most women have at least one spontaneous abortion in their lifetimes.... just happens, not all fertilized eggs are born into this world
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  16. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you trying to bring out the tired "If it's in my body it's mine" argument?

    We've discussed this numerous other times in other threads and I thought we had talked it through and debunked it.

    That's a claim and not an argument.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And a fetus is not?
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless the woman is under some sort of obligation to give some of her nutrients and let them flow towards the fetus's way...
    Which is what this thread topic is about.

    Imagine I ran you over in a car accident and you needed an emergency transfusion of my exact rare blood type to survive.
    Don't you think I'd be under some sort of ethical obligation in that circumstance to give it to you?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  19. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not legally.
    The are not a human being in the eyes of the law. They only have the rights, legally, that the future mother affords it. And it's different for each mother under each circumstance. Should a fetus have a SS number and be claimed as a tax write off?
    You did bring up politics as an issue. Not individual morals.
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slaves were not citizens (Dred Scott vs Sandford, 1857 ).

    Isn't it interesting that the law allows mothers to convey rights onto their fetuses?

    Where do you suppose these rights originally came from (and I'm talking ethically) ?
    I suppose you're not talking about the concept of natural rights here?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Morals and ethics are up to the person. Sucks, but that is reality.
     
  22. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many human beings are not citizens of the USA, so what?
     
  23. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,613
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you all antsy because what I'm saying is beginning to sound logical?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
  24. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not odd at all.
    For a human being, actually a person, has a bigger right than something not yet born into this world.
    The rights came from the individual human being in question. Each mother who has to make that decision.
    There is no, 1 size fits all. In humanity, that is rarely an option, of 1 size fits all.
    You nor I should dictate what another has to endure and force them to do so.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  25. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one I've read in this thread is coming off as antsy. But maybe you are?
    And who has not sounded 'logical', so far?
     
    FoxHastings likes this.

Share This Page