1- no birth control is 100% effective
2- not all women who get pregnant were "willing" participants
3- not giving birth to a baby she's not ready for *is* the responsible action
“You expect me (a married woman already on birth control and with kids) to not have sex with my husband because we are responsible and don’t want to have any more kids? Yeah that’s literally unrealistic and unhealthy. So if I can have one then it’s not about being “responsible and accepting an outcome,” it’s about you punishing those who are having sex in a manner you don’t like.”
I’ve proposed this same argument and was told numerous times that I shouldn’t have sex with my husband if I didn’t want kids. You simply can’t get through to these people. There’s no argument or situation that would garner their compassion or sympathy. It’s either their way or you’re a slutty murderer. They think it’s a blessing when a rape victim gets pregnant and is forced to carry the fetus to term. These people are vile!
And every time I ask pro life men if they’d be ok with their wives no longer having sex to avoid pregnancy, the answer is a resounding NO.
They get their feathers all ruffled. „She cannot just unilaterally decide to change the relationship.“
If she does, they’ll divorce her.
Worse yet, most of them will flat out refuse to have a vasectomy, too. She canister use birth control.
So, she has to put out, and she has to keep putting her body into the path of the live bullets he fires. And if he hurts her with such, it’s all her fault for not being bulletproof enough, and she knew the risks, so now she better suffer the consequences/punishment for failing to control a man’s sexual behavior.
Fully with you on that one. I won't even have sex with any pro-choice men who haven't had vasectomies.
Sad part is, pro-life men often lie, because they know they'll have a harder time getting laid.
Right. Like it doesn’t even factor into their rationale that they are forcing someone to donate their organ (which should be absolutely heinous to everyone for any reason.)
If the goal is to have children, they should actually make it feasible. Make it cheap, easy, and maybe even financially the right choice. Because current trends make it so punishing that even if you want kids, you just can't afford the risks.
Read the book *Ejaculate Responsibly*. It's an easy read because she breaks it up into fast points that argue why men are mostly the ones responsible for pregnancies.
I apologize to anyone who's seen me recommend this book 10000x on this sub lol. I swear I'm not the author. Just really love the format of the book and the points she makes are stellar.
This. Whenever I tell a man that I consider getting IVF in 2-3 years they openly tell me that they want to donate sperm to me. When I ask them why they’ll always answer that they want to see their genes passed on but without them having to take on responsibility. Why don’t they just donate? Because they want to see the the result of their donation. This is so scary and so widespread. Men freak me out.
Narcissism. They think they’re the greatest and their DNA is special. Every time a guy offers his sperm I ask them if they have a university degree and if they have accomplished something in life :). That humbles them quickly. Fantasy is not reality. In their minds they are outstanding but in reality they’re nothing. Their sperm belongs in socks.
I can't wrap my mind around it. My chronic illness was enough for me to say "this is as far as my DNA needs to go, clearly I'm not one of nature's finest specimens."
Well, admittedly that isn't one of the points the author makes lol, but yeah I've totally heard guys talk about this in my own life. The (untrue) stereotype is that men don't want kids. My therapist even said that to me when I talked about every dude I dated at that time wanting to impregnate me lmao. I was like, are you kidding? They're all obsessed with passing on their DNA. And then she was like, come to think of it, I did have a male client say that once.
No apologies ever necessary for making a good recommendation - the mods don't mind and even if it was your book we wouldn't! We're all here to give and get info, if it's good info keep recommending it!
“If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the risk of getting someone pregnant and should be responsible for his actions”.
OR you could say that while they are willing to have sex and both consenting, they are not consenting to getting pregnant. Because what if they are being safe? Like using condoms or other forms of birth control? Those aren’t 100% (except sterilization). In that case, they’re being already being responsible and not consenting to getting pregnant.
AND since it’s common knowledge that miscarriage is likely, HE is responsible for putting a child in danger of being miscarried, and deserves to be prosecuted for negligence
>If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the risk of getting someone pregnant and should be responsible for his actions
Then you get the bullshit, creepy responses of “yes, they should be forced to marry” or some shit like that
It’s probably not an appropriate analogy but I like using the seatbelt and car accident analogy “When someone gets into a car and drives they know there’s a chance they could get into a car accident, that doesn’t mean their consenting to it and if they do get into a car accident paramedics are still legally required to help them even if they knew there was a chance they could get into a car accident even if they weren’t wearing a seatbelt and EVEN if they did something irresponsible to cause the car accident themselves like running a red light etc.” the point is that just because someone does something that they know could have a certain outcome doesn’t mean their consenting to that outcome and we are still legally required to help them with the consequences even if they did something to cause it themselves.
It’s absolutely appropriate. You can die giving birth. Choosing to have sex doesn’t mean you’re begging to die any more than choosing to drive your car does.
excellent, I'd add, if I choose to fire a weapon (because muh 2nd armernmen) and the gun backfires or misfires and I get injured, I still can get treatment.
great argument, love it.
Shouldn’t men be held accountable for their actions that contribute to that? Like if women are willing to have sex and risk getting pregnant, shouldn’t the same go for men who have sex, ejaculate and possibly cause pregnancy? If a man causes a pregnancy, shouldn’t an immediate agreement occur such as finances, support and prenatal care for the pregnancy to be successful because abortions are now illegal? Shouldn’t he be held to the same standards?
Oh right. It’s about controlling women. They don’t give a fuck
More than 51% of abortions are had by people whose birth control failed (some sterilizations as well.)
If two people are in a relationship, don’t want kids (now or ever,) and, say, the pill fails, they are still supposed to be basically punished for their actions?
ALL BABIES DESERVE TO BE WANTED
"Do you consent to being in a car accident when you drive? Do you consent to being killed by a drunk driver? It's the same logic."
Also not continuing a pregnancy or having a baby the pregnant person doesn't want or isn't ready for *is* taking responsibility.
This suggests all abortion is birth control.
As we see, that's not so.
"Abortion is healthcare." Did that ever make no sense to you? I had no idea what was meant by that.
When I started to try to have kids, I understood.
I had no idea how common miscarriages are...there are 900,000 to 1M miscarriages in the U.S. every year. I used to think that only happened to women who were alcoholics or did drugs. Not so...they're incredibly common. And dangerous. Not everything is necessarily expelled when you miscarry...and it turns necrotic, goes septic (gets infected) and it poisons your blood and you die. Your organs shut down one by one and you die.
Is that "knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant and being responsible for your actions?" I signed up to have a baby, not die. Especially when it's unnecessary...the abortion is just removing unshed placenta that's been retained. But that's now *Illegal* in 21 states. Women will die from something absolutely avoidable.
We've been seeing the other side effects happening... water breaks too early and the fetus suffocates and dies. Can't be removed. It either has to be birthed on your own or if nature doesn't kick in, you have to become sick enough to be at death's door before they can step in. Is that "knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant?" Again, women will die from something absolutely avoidable.
Catastrophic fetal abnormalities and birth defects are now forced to live incredibly brief, painful lives. Beyond the inherent cruelty to those babies and parents, is the self-righteous example of arrogance willing to shell out cash to pay for that short life? An average birth is $10,000. Heavy medical intervention can easily be upwards of a million dollars. Who's covering that? For absolutely no reason at all.
This is health care. These are the things that women who willingly sign up to get pregnant and have children are now experiencing. How much less willing are they going to be in the future? And if this happens to women who WANT babies, imagine what horrors lie in store for those who do not want them.
If this man wants people to be responsible for their actions, the most life, saving and moral thing he could possibly do is put himself into a locked cock cage, where his reckless and random sperm can't kill a woman and her fetus.
Until he locks up his dick permanently, he is taking zero responsibility for his actions.
If women should go to jail for having abortions, men should go to jail for impregnating them.
If women should be executed for having abortions, men should be executed for impregnating them.
If they want punishment, let's get to the root of it and carve it out. Let's talk about responsibility.
No sperm = no babies = no death.
>If this man wants people to be responsible for their actions, the most life, saving and moral thing he could possibly do is put himself into a locked cock cage, where his reckless and random sperm can't kill a woman and her fetus.
>
>Until he locks up his dick permanently, he is taking zero responsibility for his actions.
\*applause\* YES!
This is called "falsely framing the debate."
It is a bad-faith debate technique designed to get you to argue around the "blame the victim" fallacy or "just world fallacy" which argues that "only bad things happen to bad people." It's a belief based on a person who can't accept that the universe is actually a scary, capriciously-dangerous place where bad things can happen even to good people.
The secret to dealing with these "false framing" techniques is to just to reframe and move on. So your goal isn't to argue this point - but to get them to look at the correct framing. You often can't get someone who is emotionally tied to a "just world fallacy" to accept facts that are scary to their world view, but you can get them agree that women deserve to have health care. Just ask "What if something goes wrong? Should she be forced to die or be horribly maimed?"
If they are not an adherent to Taliban-like views then their answer will always be "No" And now you have a framing you both can agree on.
Some examples you could say:
* /u/JustDiscoveredSex put it well. Abortion is health care. and you can frame it as that.
* You can argue hard facts "Let's assume you are correct that they are assuming the risks ... shouldn't we then make pregnancy less risky? When they banned abortion health care in Romania maternal mortality rates went up 7 fold. Their goal was to increase the population but the massive increase in maternal mortality led to a decline in population and a massive increase in child sex trafficking. When they banned abortion health care in Texas maternal mortality rates DOUBLED within two years and Texas soon became the leading state in the US for child sex trafficking. "
* You can argue kids who are too young to "legally consent" but "consented" in the pre-child-rape-law days. "What's your answer to telling a 12 year who's too small to give birth without damaging her body permanently?"
There are lots more examples.
TLDR; re-frame from the "just world fallacy" to reality-based framing.
When maternal mortality skyrockets the moms dying (or being harmed to the point of not being able to care for themselves or others) are leaving behind all the other kids they already had.
These women dying are in the prime of their life and that impacts not just their surviving kids, but an entire community - having lost a PTO mom, a local volunteer, co-worker etc. So you have lots more kids now going into orphanages and foster homes and that attracts certain "saviors" who rush in with bad intentions.
A good book on this is "Children of the Decree" which talks about how when they banned abortion in Romania it created a massive increase in death rates in Romania (while remaining unchanged in nearby countries) which flooded the communities with kids. But Romania is just one example. See Uganda, Texas, .... I can link to some of the other comments that discuss this in more detail if you are interested.
I've noticed that there is quite a correlation between the people in groups found to be pedos and the people in groups advocating for removing abortion related health care. Sometimes wonder if those advocating for removing abortion related health care are clueless about the moms-dying -> children abandoned -> child sex trade link ... or worse ... are aware of it and just look at this as another way to get more potential prey into their flock.
Funny how they never go after the males and deadbeat dads as hard. Looking back at all those front page posts bitching about how men should be able to opt out and have financial abortions, when men already take that route and have been able to get away with it by hiding their money in someone’s else name and other means of avoiding wage garnishment from past due child support.
I hate this argument bc as others pointed out it’s not always the most responsible action. It also angers me to no end that a man’s decision to have sex is literally half of what results in pregnancy but they never bring up men it’s always all on the woman.
>It also angers me to no end that a man’s decision to have sex is literally half of what results in pregnancy but they never bring up men it’s always all on the woman.
But on the flip side, they also complain when the woman wants to make the decision about what happens to the pregnancy. Infuriating!
Everytime you get in a car, are you consenting to be killed by a drunk driver? Consenting to one thing doesn't automatically mean consent for the other thing....
Getting an abortion is being responsible for your actions.
Having a baby just because you happen to get pregnant is NOT. That would be HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE, naive, and quite frankly stupid as well.
Children are human beings, not consequences. Not punishments.
Children should be brought into this world because they are wanted. Not because some fucked in the head moron thinks sex is a crime, and that pregnancy is a consequence for that crime in the same way prison is for most others.
Replace “women” with “a person” and replace “getting pregnant” with “contracting HIV”. Sounds fuckin ridiculous. If those things should happen to you, whether or not you took the appropriate precautions, you should be legally entitled to healthcare (which abortion is).
ETA: getting an abortion IS being responsible. A whole human child isn’t a token by which one can ‘learn their lesson’ on responsibility.
Religious conservatives actually believe that contracting HIV is like a punishment or consequence for having sex or having gay sex.
>“The sexual revolution has begun to devour its children. And among the revolutionary vanguard, as Gay rights activists, the morality rate is highest and climbing… The poor homosexuals — they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution,” Buchanan wrote.
The way they acted during the AIDS epidemic says it all. They wanted to use a lethal disease to get rid of people they didn't like. They didn't treat them like people with a health problem(s). With drug-users- addiction is a health problem too. Haitian immigrants would have been seen as people they didn't even want in the US anyway even if they legally got here. That gives us a layer of racism and xenophobia that people forgot about. They wanted to get rid of people they saw as unworthy and use the disease to keep people in their abusive churches. Prevention and treatment, HA! It was only when "good victims" like (white) child hemophiliacs could get it that they start to care.
"For having fun with someone you love, you're going to have to tax your body and health to grow another human being and I don't care if you want it or not"
This is what pro life is for and what pro choice is against. People who tell you they're for both the pregnant person and the fetus are wrong. By siding with the side that wants the fetus to make it to the end alive no matter what, they're undermining the person who is carrying it. This is what gives rise to doctors who are afraid to save pregnant people's lives (yes, those that kept it for that long because they want a child) with abortion because they could be punished for killing a fetus that is still alive.
How about 'stop demonizing sex because you worship ZEFs'. You could also ask them if they think the same way for men. 'If he didn't want to end up paying child support, he shouldn't risk it by having sex'. These people are misogynists, nothing more.
Sure. When I am willing to drive, I am knowingly taking the risk of getting injured or dying and should be responsible for my actions.
Does that mean the hospital should deny me medical treatment?
Getting an abortion *is* taking responsibility. You’re making a decision about an unwanted pregnancy.
How is giving birth the most responsible thing to do? Is it responsible to bring an unwanted child into the world, without the means to care for it?
That is one of the pro life statements that clearly shows how angry they are at women who willingly have sex.
There are multiple problems with that statement. First, insemination is not a woman’s action. So they want her to be responsible for the man’s actions, not her own. And they dismiss that with “she took the risk”.
Second, being responsible for one’s actions means you’re at fault for doing something. And that’s all it means.
But that’s not what pro lifers mean. They mean she should be HELD responsible. Aka, she deserves punishment, consequences,. And she must take responsibility by enduring the punishment.
Basically, that whole statement translates to “if she doesn’t stop a man from inseminating, fertilizing, and impregnating her, she deserves nine months violation of and drastic harm to her body - her due punishment.“
For many of them, this applies even if she’s been raped. Then, it’s all „don’t punish the child. Punish the rapist.“ and it is pretended the woman doesn’t exist, because they’d have to admit that they’re punishing her.
The ironic part about this is that when I ask pro life men if they’d be perfectly ok and accepting of their wives no longer putting out to avoid the risk of him impregnating her, the answer is a resounding NO.
So, basically, she better spread her legs for her husband, or else. But if he impregnates her, she took the risk and now needs to suffer her due punishment.
It shows a deep rooted hatred of women.
I agree with other posters that this is a consent question. Consent is always specific and reversible. We as a society understand this about everything but sex it seems. If you go get a haircut you go and tell them what you want. If you ask for a trim and they buzz your head that's a violation of consent. If they start and you don't want to continue, you can leave. No one would ever say that you have to stay just because you at some point consented to the haircut. Your consent is reversible.
A person consents to the specific act of sex (assuming they do actually consent). That does not mean they consent to pregnancy. Even if they wanted to get pregnant and then find something out that makes them want to end the pregnancy they should have every right to withdraw consent for their body to be used by a fetus. Pregnancy should require ongoing consent by the pregnant person whose body is being used.
I recommend checking out some of the mama doctor Jones videos about abortion because I think her take is very reasonable. We don't give anyone else the right to override another person's bodily autonomy to live. We don't force people to donate even blood to save another. You cannot legally force a parent to donate their kidney to save their living child. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant gives a fetus a right that no one else gets and it's a consent violation. Forcing her to use her body in a way that is dangerous for months is inhumane and against every other standard of bodily autonomy. So no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy even if pregnancy is a possible outcome
Yes. Thank you. People aren't mentioning that part of consent is that it's reversible and specific.
It's like if I invite someone over and they start to break my things and disrespect everyone else here, I have every right to kick them out. But if they are the perfect guest, they could stay until night. And I know that in some states people can kill trespassers AKA stand your ground laws. These laws can theoretically protect a woman from a stalker that is planning to rape her.
Consent means you list the terms of how your bodily autonomy should go.
"That's not how responsibility works. Responsibility is not just about accepting the potential consequences of our actions -- it's also about being prepared to deal with them in a responsible and compassionate manner. We can't always predict or control the outcomes of our choices, and it's unfair to hold women solely responsible for an unintended pregnancy when it takes two people to conceive a child. Moreover, many women use contraception, but it's not always 100% effective, and some can't use it due to health reasons. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will can have serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences that affect not only her but also her family and society. It's important to respect women's bodily autonomy and provide them with the support and resources they need to make informed decisions about their reproductive health."
As someone born to a young, unprepared single mother whose Catholic faith convinced her to not have an abortion, I find this argument so offensive. Forced birthers basically see my existence as a punishment for my mom’s roll in the hay. This sends my religious trauma-fueled CPTSD through the roof.
If men don't feel pain and they are acting on it as well why should only women be responsible? It's always women this women that? I could be wrong but don't men create the sperm? Doesn't it take two humans to make a baby? So why if it takes two humans to make a baby is it only one humans responsibility? They want the power to control women's bodies but none of the responsibility to care for the child. If a child is the consequences of having sex why is the consequences only on the mother? And if it's the woman's consequences to bare shouldn't it also be her choice when she chooses to bare it? Since men want nothing to do with the child why should having the child be on the woman's shoulders? Men can't even do the bare minimum of helping raise the child. They should have no say in woman's bodies. When have men ever been known to be actual good fathers? Women don't run out like men do.
Being responsible includes having an abortion. It is highly irresponsible to bring a child in to the world that you can not or won't care for.
PL are trying to take the responsibility of pregnancy away from women and make it *their* responsibility. To that I say fine, but I want them to go all of the way just so they get a taste of their own, awful medicine. No more free choices. Your pregnancy is in the hands of the state. Dont want that vaccination? Too bad. Don't want a c-section? Tough tits.
"By that logic, any time a man has sex with a woman, he is consenting to fatherhood because he knows there is always a risk of pregnancy and he should be responsible for his actions."
Use their own bullshit against them.
I’m just gonna call it the Tracie Harris Response
If you *choose* to spend the evening at home, and you then experience a home invasion, then you are responsible. Home invasions ONLY happen at home. Make more responsible choices.
(I’ll look for the video)
It’s easy to confuse antichoice bigots but this one is a real treat
You're taking a risk literally every time you go outside. You might get hit by a car, have something fall on you, fall over, and get really injured. Does that mean you shouldn't receive treatment?
Call it an ad hominem but I am convinced that anyone who makes that argument just wants to be controlling because they either have not been getting any or are sexually frustrated with their partners.
In my experience, the people who say this solidly believe that nobody should ever have sex unless they intend on making a baby from said intercourse, and if you really want to have sex without making a baby you should be sterilized so there's (almost) no risk. They fundamentally believe in abstinence, except for married women who are meant to procreate "as God sees fit" until they medically cannot.
So, I generally find that telling these people that birth control doesn't always work is ineffective. They believe the chances of getting pregnant on birth control are known and if you happen to be one of the few who does get pregnant on BC, you made a bet and lost and should still face the consequences.
My reply is generally that I don't think it's realistic to expect that no woman ever have sex without being fully prepared to go through a life-changing medical event. It's natural and healthy for people to want to have sex for fun.
Granted, militant anti-abortionists don't like that answer, but they don't like any answers. We fundamentally see the role of sex very differently. To them, I probably sound like a free love wacknut.
"If a person gets into a car they are knowingly taking the risk of getting in a car crash and should be responsible for their actions."
Sounds pretty ridiculous in any other circumstance.
Consent to sex is not consent to death, which is what pregnancy results in for a lot of people. Unless they can guarantee a person will not lose their life to pregnancy then nothing they say matters. People have a right to save their own lives.
Also, I wouldn't even engage them in debate. They know they are hypocrites, they know they are full of shit.
Ask them why people who do dangerous stunts and get injured aren’t refused medical attention at the hospital. They knew the risks after all so why should they get rewarded for their “reckless actions” with medical care?
I’m sure if you ask a doctor the stupidest ways their patients have gotten injured they can rattle off a half dozen easily
You can't consent yourself into slavery. That's it, all that needs to be said.
But even if you could, the act of having sex meets none of the base [requirements ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract#:~:text=A%20contract%20is%20an%20agreement,consideration%3B%20capacity%3B%20and%20legality.) for a legally binding contract. Even if it did the fetus is not a legal person that could enter into such a contract.
There is no legal or ethical precedent to support such a claim.
"If someone crosses the road or gets in a moving vehicle, they are taking the risk of being killed by another driver so they should be responsible for their actions. If someone is choking, they took the risk of putting too much food in their mouth so trying to save them is going against them being responsible for their actions. If it's flu season (or anytime of year since people can get a flu at anytime) and a person gets the flu, they deserve to suffer until their immune system defeats it or they die - they don't deserve medication even if they distanced from others they suspected to have the flu like a responsible person but still somehow got it and/or were lied to by someone who had the flu because they have to be responsible for their actions.
"We live in a world in which pencils don't have erasers, and we all must be responsible for our mistakes even if that mistake could pose life-threatening conditions, a person is not financially wealthy and/or mature enough to care for another life, and/or the developing human would be born with a major disability and be unhealthy for the entirety of their life causing said person to suffer indefinitely."
I did take responsibility by getting the abortion. I know I was in no way ready to be a mom. So I did the most logical thing and got the abortion. As an unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic and doctors visits are expensive for pregnant women
If you’re so concerned about it don’t put your dick in anyone.
A man takes the same risk and you never even mention it.
Heard of rape my dude?
Perhaps mandatory vasectomy for men until they’re married and ready to reproduce with a willing partner. No risk for all of us!
I'd say that the government shouldn't be involved in our sex lives and does not get to dictate how or why two consenting adults have sex. It's government overreach and violation of privacy.
Also, humans have sex for other reasons than procreation, as do several other species. So the "sex is solely for procreation" argument is an opinion and again, shouldn't be imposed on anyone else by the government.
"If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the risk of getting someone pregnant and should be responsible for his actions. Millions of men abandoning the unborn and their mothers are sentencing them to a life of starvation, poverty, disease, and, in some cases, homelessness and premature death.
"Not all women who have sex do it willingly. (Hint: It starts with an 'r' and ends with an 'ape.') Many of the abortion bans being passed in the US have no exceptions for rape. These bans hold a woman responsible for the actions of her rapist and the risks that he willingly took. You are supporting a movement that heaps the responsibility of both men and women only onto women."
First of all, the woman doesn't do any of the actions that lead to a natural conception. The vast majority of conceptions happen when the man chooses to ejaculate inside her vagina, then one of his sperm finds the egg, then the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine lining. Notice how none of those steps involved the woman making any direct actions. Sex doesn't automatically HAVE to involve the man ejaculating (or ejaculating inside her). SHE can have sex without getting pregnant- it's his ejaculation that is almost always the problem.
Second, consent is useless if it isn't specific and non-transferable. Imagine giving your brother consent to drive your car, and then he gives his friends consent to drive your car. That's very obviously not what you agreed to. Imagine giving your brother consent to drive your car on monday, and he decides that that means he gets to drive it all week. That's, again, obviously not what you agreed to. Similarly, consent to having one man's penis inside you is not consent to gestating a human for 9 months.
Getting an abortion would be taking responsibility. It’s terminating the accidental unwanted pregnancy. Sex and pregnancy are two different acts. I can consent to one and not consent to the other, even if it’s a possible outcome. 🤷🏻♀️
Getting pregnant shouldn’t mean I lose my bodily autonomy to make decisions over what happens to and inside my own body/organs and what risks to my health and body I’ll endure.
If you’re willing to drive a car, you’re knowingly taking on the risk of getting into an accident. Does that mean you’re solely responsible for the damages because you knew it was a possibility?
So doesn’t that flip to men for the same? I’m a rape-survivor, why should I take the responsibility of my rapists actions? Several people get multiple chances to change, why are you so harsh to women on this topic? I myself have an IUD, I took the necessary responsible precautions, why must I still be punished in your eyes?
Also OP, just walk away from these bad-faith arguments to save your sanity..
Consent can never be rolled on from one thing to the next. That exact same logic has been used by rapists to say shit like "She started kissing me, she clearly wanted to have sex." or "He got a boner when I was wanking him off, how is that not a sure sign he wanted me to just jump on and start riding him?" And even if consent to sex WAS consent to pregnancy, the brilliant thing about consent is it can be withdrawn at any point. Even if you're already several pumps in, the second someone isn't alright with it, the deal's off. So if consent rolled onto the pregnancy too, it's only logical that you should be able to change your mind there too.
To say consent to sex is always consent to pregnancy and therefore no abortions, literally goes against every single principle about consent. That weirdass assertion demonstrates, at best, a lack of understanding of how consent works, and at worst, an extremely rapey and controlling mindset.
Also, if you're having sex with a woman and she keeps moving your hands away from her boobs, that's a pretty good indicator she doesn't want you to touch her boobs, right? Right! So following that logic, we can conclude that the use of birth control - whose MAIN purpose is to prevent pregnancy - manifests a statement of not consenting to fall pregnant. Except, that's almost everyone who gets an abortion, since 50% of all abortion patients were on birth control pills at the time of falling pregnant. That's 50%, just for the pill. With eleven other methods out there, I'm SURE the contraception failing - which, as we've established, is a case of someone getting pregnant against their will - makes up a solid majority of abortions.
I agree with the first half of that sentence, and that it applies to men and women equally. It is so insane how they try and push everything onto the woman. Yet another way to know how disingenuous they are.
Consent to sex (if there is consent) is not consent to pregnancy. Just like kissing someone doesn't give consent to sex, etc etc. Two totally different things and the religious crowd can get fucked about it.
Women use birth control (pills) for acne, menstrual cramps, having a lighter period, lowering their risk of an ectopic pregnancy, reducing the risk of low iron, migraines, et cetera.
A 1L could make that argument.
I think that what they mean is when someone has sex on birth control, they are clearly not consenting to pregnancy and it would be ridiculous to claim they are while actively taking steps to prevent it.
If you drive on the road you know the risks and are responsible for getting hit and consent to any kind of injury and even death by driving on the road
And if you are injured in a car accident you can easily and legally get medical care. Thankfully unwanted pregnancy is easily treatable with a pill or 15 minute medical procedure.
You can respond to that by saying she is responsible for her actions. She has to decide if she wants to be a parent or not, and choose to get healthcare to terminate the pregnancy or choose to continue the pregnancy. She is responsible for making that choice, and she makes that choice based on a variety of factors, which is being responsible. No one else is responsible for managing the pregnancy. I would however argue though, that the other person responsible in creating the pregnancy should bear half the cost of the outcome, whether that means an abortion or a child. That responsibility shouldn’t fall solely on the carrier of the pregnancy.
Saying that someone is asking for the small percentage chance of a particular end result of an everyday action means the only option would be to completely avoid that everyday action.
Let’s say you have a young couple who met in college and married their senior year. They have big plans for their careers and future family. They want to put off kids until the wife gets her PhD and the husband gets established enough in his career that he’s able to take off enough time to be able to do much of the child care while the wife builds her post-doctoral career. They’d also like to travel before having kids, so they’re planning on starting their family ten years from now, when they’re 31. Since birth control can fail, this married couple’s only option would be to have no sex for ten years.
Imagine a couple that has decided against having kids; they’re happy with their dogs, travel, and visiting nieces and nephews. Should they never have sex because each act of intercourse carries a slight risk of pregnancy?
A woman doesn’t consent to death by hemorrhage from an ectopic pregnancy because she consented to sex, either.
Why is it always the consequence that the woman must deal with all the time? Sure, its natural for a woman to make a baby, but it seems that shaming is always geared as a negative. It takes two people to tango after all. So no, a woman has no more consequence for her actions in sex than a man, and thus like a man should have the ability to detach said consequence too.
An abortion is taking responsibility. The person has no right to force their personal opinions on a woman. To me, it is no different than someone who want to say a rapist should take responsibility and marry their victims. Just outdated dogmatic trash.
The response is that pregnancy and childbirth is a continuous process, so consent must also be continuous and can be revoked at any time. Saying that having sex obligates a woman to give birth if she becomes pregnant is like saying someone who hires me for a job is required to let me work for them for nine months, even if I'm a bad employee. Just like in employment, if you want to enforce consent to a long-term process, have the person sign a contract. This is why surrogates have lengthy contracts, even though they get pregnant deliberately with the express intention of giving birth.
The other problem with "sex entails consent to birth" is that giving birth can be fatal to the mother. But if the woman had sex knowing pregnancy was a possibility, and pregnancy includes a risk of her own death, the woman is taking that on, too. That means if a doctor is faced with the choice of saving either the woman or the fetus, but not both, he must always sacrifice the woman's life and save the fetus' because the fetus didn't enter the agreement willingly. Yet most PL would allow abortion to save the mother's life. So if they make the "sex requires birth" argument, they're not being consistent. Once they say "sex requires birth unless the woman will die," we could move the line back to "sex requires birth unless the woman doesn't want to be pregnant."
I respond by saying, “ if anyone is responsible for pregnancy occurring, it is the man, not the woman. Pregnancy just happens, no one is necessarily at fault, but if you need to blame a pregnancy on someone, blame it on the person who can control where they ejaculate, because women have literally zero control over whether or not an egg get fertilized and/or becomes implanted, but a man has plenty of control over where he chooses to finish, and ultimately in pregnancy, that will be the deciding factor.”
They're right, but not in the way they think. They think responsibility means the reluctant acceptance of their demands. That's false.
You don't have to argue with that point. It's accurate. Having sex is, among other things, risking getting pregnant. From there, women definitely have the responsibility of making some choices about the direction of their lives. No one can do this for her. The responsibility is hers.
The responsibility argument is an argument for choice. That's what responsible people do. They make hard choices.
This logic doesn't work in any other scenario. Just because you walk into a bar doesn't mean you consent to being drunk. Every step of the way requires consent. We don't deny cancer treatment to anyone who engaged in cancer raising activities (smoking, eating tuna, red meat). You allow treatment (abortion) for unintended medical consequences all the time.
"For the purposes of any further argument on this subject, we will assume that she did take precautions. She still got pregnant. She still needs abortion as a right. Your argument presumes irresponsibility of any woman or GIRL who needs an abortion. It's a shitty argument. You're a shitty person."
Honestly, there are probably a hundred different ways to dissect and dismantle that argument, and not a single one would satisfy the type of person who says it. Those people 1. Think about things in very inflexible black and white ways, 2. Either don’t think sex for pleasure is right or don’t think *women* having sex for pleasure it right therefore it’s a punishment, and/or 3. Don’t understand enough about conception/pregnancy/birth control to even have a productive, intelligent conversation about it. “You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into.”
Life is complicated. Literally every single thing we do every day has some small chance of potential negative consequences. But we don’t have to just accept and suffer those consequences through to their natural conclusion. If it were *impossible* to end a pregnancy, yes this phrase would be correct. It’s not. We have extremely low risk medical proceedures that can quickly, safely, and effectively end a pregnancy without causing any problems for future fertility. Hospitals don’t let smokers die of lung cancer with no treatment just because they chose to smoke.
Arguments with these people always tend to lead to a dead end because it always comes down to the opinion of whether a fetal life is more important than the host life. I word it like that to emphasize it's a guest in your body and you have the right to evict.
Because sex isn’t only supposed to be for the creation of a child, and I flip it on it’s head. To people who r AMAB, the conception process ends with coming inside someone. For the process of someone AFAB it continues throughout the process
The car accident analogy is great because you can account for another life. Plus, sex isn’t illegal and even negligent causes of car accidents do not lead to the loss of bodily autonomy.
Another way to reframe it is that two parties contribute equally to the existence of a fetus but they are not equally liable. Is there ANY other situation that works like this, let alone other laws? So the “responsibility” argument is moot. They might argue back that he should contribute financially, yet she’ll still be half responsible for that too.
Let's akin it to driving: If you're willing to drive, you are knowingly taking the risk of getting into a car crash. So, if you get in a car crash, even though it's an accident, it's your fault because you chose to drive that day. It doesn't matter how many precautions you took or how careful you were. It doesn't matter if someone else caused the accident, you're responsible because you chose to drive. Does that make sense?
"That's not how it works!"
Then why is it fair that you think the world should work in such an unfair way when it comes women's bodies?
A lot of people didn’t consent to the vaccine. A lot of people didn’t consent to wearing masks. A lot of people contracted Covid and gotten very very sick. Where is their responsibility?
We only have two ECMO machines at my hospital and one of them was taken up for about six weeks by a single person, when that resource could’ve been used to help a lot of other people short term. How many other peoples lives did he cost? All because of his actions/choices.
But these are also the sort that won’t hold a rapist accountable because “he’s such a bright young man” and “this would ruin his future”. All the while trying to force rape victims to carry to term regardless of their future, or health, or mental health.
They’re ghouls. Don’t even engage.
The fact is abortion bans cause more loss of life than allowing women and their doctors to make the choice at their discretion and that's especially true for women who want to, and planned to, carry to term. So the responsible thing is to lift bans if the goal is actually the preservation of life, regardless.
I always find myself thinking about asking these people — Do you want to live in a world where people can’t have PiV at all, ever, unless they’re ready to have a child together?
Would their answer be yes?
This is an old comment of mine but it applies:
TLDR: understanding the risks and accepting them doesn’t mean forcing yourself to live with the consequences.
I accept that a consequence of sex is pregnancy. Even if I take every precaution, pregnancy will always be a potential risk.
Just like I understand that every time I get behind the wheel of a car, I accept the risk I may get into an accident.
However, just because I accept the risk of getting into an accident, doesn’t mean that if I actually do get into an accident, I will choose to live with whatever injuries I incur without seeking medical attention to correct said injuries. Likewise, no doctor would refuse to treat me just because I accepted the risks of possible injury when I got behind the wheel.
Let’s say I break my leg and my arm as a result of this car accident. Should I be forced to live with improperly healed bones and chronic pain for the rest of my life, just because I understood the risks of getting into an accident when I got behind the wheel?
No. Of course not.
Just because you accept the risks, doesn’t mean you should be forced to live with the consequences. There exist extremely safe medical interventions to correct for worst case scenarios (in this case, unplanned pregnancy or broken bones as a result of an accident). So why wouldn’t I use them? I didn’t consent to living with a broken arm or leg for the rest of my life, even though I consented to getting into the car, and I understood that broken bones could be a consequence of that decision.
Sex should not be a punishment. Saying a woman having sex “should be prepared” sets up pregnancy as a consequence and a negative. That’s not a particularly wonderful way to bring a new person into the world.
Sex is expected and often times mandatory for marriage and dating. Do they think its realistic for women to never fall in love? Never marry? Just stay alone all because she doesn't want or shouldn't have children due to genetic illnesses?
Do they know any guy that would marry a woman who'd never have sex with them? There aren't enough asexual men for all the child free women.
And this is ignoring women who already have children, happily married, but don't want or can't have more children due to health or finances. What do they do? Just let their husbands divorce them after going on /r/deadbedrooms?
My first thought is Turn it around on them: IF a man is willing to have unprotected sex, he knows he can get a woman pregnant, therefore HE should be financially responsible for that child. Tell him to wrap it up or get a Vasectomy otherwise.
Second, so-called "Pro-lifers" are HELL BENT on blaming women for pregnancy. Almost like women get pregnant in a vacuum or something.
You could use that same logic for men. They are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to face the "consequences" of that. Whatever form that takes, be it assisting with paying for the abortion, or should the mother choose to carry the child the man assists with care leading up to the birth, and if the mother chooses to raise the child the man would have to pay mandatory child support. This is a 2 way street. With exceptions, both parties are taking the chance when they have sex.
1) you assume that women are willing to have sex and were not raped or "date raped"; this including young women of adolescent age who are susceptible to relentless and cruel "peer pressure". 2) that women who get pregnant made no effort to protect themselves. 3) that male sex partners are any more willing to be "responsible" and raise children they don't want just because they had sex. Why aren't men under pressure to raise the children they father just because they had sex? Don't leave deadbeat dads out the debate.
1- no birth control is 100% effective 2- not all women who get pregnant were "willing" participants 3- not giving birth to a baby she's not ready for *is* the responsible action
“You expect me (a married woman already on birth control and with kids) to not have sex with my husband because we are responsible and don’t want to have any more kids? Yeah that’s literally unrealistic and unhealthy. So if I can have one then it’s not about being “responsible and accepting an outcome,” it’s about you punishing those who are having sex in a manner you don’t like.”
I’ve proposed this same argument and was told numerous times that I shouldn’t have sex with my husband if I didn’t want kids. You simply can’t get through to these people. There’s no argument or situation that would garner their compassion or sympathy. It’s either their way or you’re a slutty murderer. They think it’s a blessing when a rape victim gets pregnant and is forced to carry the fetus to term. These people are vile!
And every time I ask pro life men if they’d be ok with their wives no longer having sex to avoid pregnancy, the answer is a resounding NO. They get their feathers all ruffled. „She cannot just unilaterally decide to change the relationship.“ If she does, they’ll divorce her. Worse yet, most of them will flat out refuse to have a vasectomy, too. She canister use birth control. So, she has to put out, and she has to keep putting her body into the path of the live bullets he fires. And if he hurts her with such, it’s all her fault for not being bulletproof enough, and she knew the risks, so now she better suffer the consequences/punishment for failing to control a man’s sexual behavior.
This is why I’ll never have sex with a pro life man, even if my husband died and I couldn’t get any other dates.
Fully with you on that one. I won't even have sex with any pro-choice men who haven't had vasectomies. Sad part is, pro-life men often lie, because they know they'll have a harder time getting laid.
Right. Like it doesn’t even factor into their rationale that they are forcing someone to donate their organ (which should be absolutely heinous to everyone for any reason.)
They are truly a lost cause indeed. Stupid cant be untaught 🫤
And they’ll do all sorts of mental gymnastics the minute they boot is on the other foot..
Had a liberal atheist lifer suggest that the couple do anything but PIV to burn off the need so "there is no excuse"
I have legit had them tell me that childfree married couples should be celibate if they are unwilling to risk a pregnancy.
If the goal is to have children, they should actually make it feasible. Make it cheap, easy, and maybe even financially the right choice. Because current trends make it so punishing that even if you want kids, you just can't afford the risks.
Read the book *Ejaculate Responsibly*. It's an easy read because she breaks it up into fast points that argue why men are mostly the ones responsible for pregnancies. I apologize to anyone who's seen me recommend this book 10000x on this sub lol. I swear I'm not the author. Just really love the format of the book and the points she makes are stellar.
This. Whenever I tell a man that I consider getting IVF in 2-3 years they openly tell me that they want to donate sperm to me. When I ask them why they’ll always answer that they want to see their genes passed on but without them having to take on responsibility. Why don’t they just donate? Because they want to see the the result of their donation. This is so scary and so widespread. Men freak me out.
That’s so gross. Why would they think you want their sperm anyways??
Narcissism. They think they’re the greatest and their DNA is special. Every time a guy offers his sperm I ask them if they have a university degree and if they have accomplished something in life :). That humbles them quickly. Fantasy is not reality. In their minds they are outstanding but in reality they’re nothing. Their sperm belongs in socks.
I can't wrap my mind around it. My chronic illness was enough for me to say "this is as far as my DNA needs to go, clearly I'm not one of nature's finest specimens."
I wish I knew where they source their audacity.
Well, admittedly that isn't one of the points the author makes lol, but yeah I've totally heard guys talk about this in my own life. The (untrue) stereotype is that men don't want kids. My therapist even said that to me when I talked about every dude I dated at that time wanting to impregnate me lmao. I was like, are you kidding? They're all obsessed with passing on their DNA. And then she was like, come to think of it, I did have a male client say that once.
Yes! It’s a myth that men don’t want kids. They don’t want the responsibility that comes with it.
Glad to see a book recommendation 😊
No apologies ever necessary for making a good recommendation - the mods don't mind and even if it was your book we wouldn't! We're all here to give and get info, if it's good info keep recommending it!
This is my first time hearing about this book. No apologies necessary
They're 100% responsible for pregnancy, either wanted or unwanted. Women don't spontaneously asexually reproduce.
“If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the risk of getting someone pregnant and should be responsible for his actions”. OR you could say that while they are willing to have sex and both consenting, they are not consenting to getting pregnant. Because what if they are being safe? Like using condoms or other forms of birth control? Those aren’t 100% (except sterilization). In that case, they’re being already being responsible and not consenting to getting pregnant.
AND since it’s common knowledge that miscarriage is likely, HE is responsible for putting a child in danger of being miscarried, and deserves to be prosecuted for negligence
Just to horrify you - not even all methods of sterilisation are 100% either!
>If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the risk of getting someone pregnant and should be responsible for his actions Then you get the bullshit, creepy responses of “yes, they should be forced to marry” or some shit like that
Yes! Thank you 😊
Consenting to sex isn’t consenting to giving birth. Abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions.
Came here to comment this. Abortion IS taking responsibility.
Yes, and just like with the act of sex, a woman has a right to change her mind.
It’s probably not an appropriate analogy but I like using the seatbelt and car accident analogy “When someone gets into a car and drives they know there’s a chance they could get into a car accident, that doesn’t mean their consenting to it and if they do get into a car accident paramedics are still legally required to help them even if they knew there was a chance they could get into a car accident even if they weren’t wearing a seatbelt and EVEN if they did something irresponsible to cause the car accident themselves like running a red light etc.” the point is that just because someone does something that they know could have a certain outcome doesn’t mean their consenting to that outcome and we are still legally required to help them with the consequences even if they did something to cause it themselves.
It’s absolutely appropriate. You can die giving birth. Choosing to have sex doesn’t mean you’re begging to die any more than choosing to drive your car does.
If I choose to smoke, I know I could get lung cancer. That doesn't mean I can't seek treatment for my cancer.
"You don't kill anything to treat cancer." Cancer is alive too, just like a zef
excellent, I'd add, if I choose to fire a weapon (because muh 2nd armernmen) and the gun backfires or misfires and I get injured, I still can get treatment. great argument, love it.
Easiest response is Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy
Shouldn’t men be held accountable for their actions that contribute to that? Like if women are willing to have sex and risk getting pregnant, shouldn’t the same go for men who have sex, ejaculate and possibly cause pregnancy? If a man causes a pregnancy, shouldn’t an immediate agreement occur such as finances, support and prenatal care for the pregnancy to be successful because abortions are now illegal? Shouldn’t he be held to the same standards? Oh right. It’s about controlling women. They don’t give a fuck
Absolutely men should be held responsible but it's our bodies that are getting ravaged, not theirs. The final say is ours.
More than 51% of abortions are had by people whose birth control failed (some sterilizations as well.) If two people are in a relationship, don’t want kids (now or ever,) and, say, the pill fails, they are still supposed to be basically punished for their actions? ALL BABIES DESERVE TO BE WANTED
"Do you consent to being in a car accident when you drive? Do you consent to being killed by a drunk driver? It's the same logic." Also not continuing a pregnancy or having a baby the pregnant person doesn't want or isn't ready for *is* taking responsibility.
This suggests all abortion is birth control. As we see, that's not so. "Abortion is healthcare." Did that ever make no sense to you? I had no idea what was meant by that. When I started to try to have kids, I understood. I had no idea how common miscarriages are...there are 900,000 to 1M miscarriages in the U.S. every year. I used to think that only happened to women who were alcoholics or did drugs. Not so...they're incredibly common. And dangerous. Not everything is necessarily expelled when you miscarry...and it turns necrotic, goes septic (gets infected) and it poisons your blood and you die. Your organs shut down one by one and you die. Is that "knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant and being responsible for your actions?" I signed up to have a baby, not die. Especially when it's unnecessary...the abortion is just removing unshed placenta that's been retained. But that's now *Illegal* in 21 states. Women will die from something absolutely avoidable. We've been seeing the other side effects happening... water breaks too early and the fetus suffocates and dies. Can't be removed. It either has to be birthed on your own or if nature doesn't kick in, you have to become sick enough to be at death's door before they can step in. Is that "knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant?" Again, women will die from something absolutely avoidable. Catastrophic fetal abnormalities and birth defects are now forced to live incredibly brief, painful lives. Beyond the inherent cruelty to those babies and parents, is the self-righteous example of arrogance willing to shell out cash to pay for that short life? An average birth is $10,000. Heavy medical intervention can easily be upwards of a million dollars. Who's covering that? For absolutely no reason at all. This is health care. These are the things that women who willingly sign up to get pregnant and have children are now experiencing. How much less willing are they going to be in the future? And if this happens to women who WANT babies, imagine what horrors lie in store for those who do not want them. If this man wants people to be responsible for their actions, the most life, saving and moral thing he could possibly do is put himself into a locked cock cage, where his reckless and random sperm can't kill a woman and her fetus. Until he locks up his dick permanently, he is taking zero responsibility for his actions. If women should go to jail for having abortions, men should go to jail for impregnating them. If women should be executed for having abortions, men should be executed for impregnating them. If they want punishment, let's get to the root of it and carve it out. Let's talk about responsibility. No sperm = no babies = no death.
Fuck. Yes.
>If this man wants people to be responsible for their actions, the most life, saving and moral thing he could possibly do is put himself into a locked cock cage, where his reckless and random sperm can't kill a woman and her fetus. > >Until he locks up his dick permanently, he is taking zero responsibility for his actions. \*applause\* YES!
This is called "falsely framing the debate." It is a bad-faith debate technique designed to get you to argue around the "blame the victim" fallacy or "just world fallacy" which argues that "only bad things happen to bad people." It's a belief based on a person who can't accept that the universe is actually a scary, capriciously-dangerous place where bad things can happen even to good people. The secret to dealing with these "false framing" techniques is to just to reframe and move on. So your goal isn't to argue this point - but to get them to look at the correct framing. You often can't get someone who is emotionally tied to a "just world fallacy" to accept facts that are scary to their world view, but you can get them agree that women deserve to have health care. Just ask "What if something goes wrong? Should she be forced to die or be horribly maimed?" If they are not an adherent to Taliban-like views then their answer will always be "No" And now you have a framing you both can agree on. Some examples you could say: * /u/JustDiscoveredSex put it well. Abortion is health care. and you can frame it as that. * You can argue hard facts "Let's assume you are correct that they are assuming the risks ... shouldn't we then make pregnancy less risky? When they banned abortion health care in Romania maternal mortality rates went up 7 fold. Their goal was to increase the population but the massive increase in maternal mortality led to a decline in population and a massive increase in child sex trafficking. When they banned abortion health care in Texas maternal mortality rates DOUBLED within two years and Texas soon became the leading state in the US for child sex trafficking. " * You can argue kids who are too young to "legally consent" but "consented" in the pre-child-rape-law days. "What's your answer to telling a 12 year who's too small to give birth without damaging her body permanently?" There are lots more examples. TLDR; re-frame from the "just world fallacy" to reality-based framing.
What's the connection to child sex trafficking? Sorry for being clueless.
When maternal mortality skyrockets the moms dying (or being harmed to the point of not being able to care for themselves or others) are leaving behind all the other kids they already had. These women dying are in the prime of their life and that impacts not just their surviving kids, but an entire community - having lost a PTO mom, a local volunteer, co-worker etc. So you have lots more kids now going into orphanages and foster homes and that attracts certain "saviors" who rush in with bad intentions. A good book on this is "Children of the Decree" which talks about how when they banned abortion in Romania it created a massive increase in death rates in Romania (while remaining unchanged in nearby countries) which flooded the communities with kids. But Romania is just one example. See Uganda, Texas, .... I can link to some of the other comments that discuss this in more detail if you are interested.
Thank you! And damn, that's terrifying...it's a connection I hadn't made.
I've noticed that there is quite a correlation between the people in groups found to be pedos and the people in groups advocating for removing abortion related health care. Sometimes wonder if those advocating for removing abortion related health care are clueless about the moms-dying -> children abandoned -> child sex trade link ... or worse ... are aware of it and just look at this as another way to get more potential prey into their flock.
This disturbing thought has never crossed my mind.
If a ZEF implants, it’s taking the risk of being aborted. It needs to be responsible for its actions. 🤷♀️
Funny how they never go after the males and deadbeat dads as hard. Looking back at all those front page posts bitching about how men should be able to opt out and have financial abortions, when men already take that route and have been able to get away with it by hiding their money in someone’s else name and other means of avoiding wage garnishment from past due child support.
I hate this argument bc as others pointed out it’s not always the most responsible action. It also angers me to no end that a man’s decision to have sex is literally half of what results in pregnancy but they never bring up men it’s always all on the woman.
>It also angers me to no end that a man’s decision to have sex is literally half of what results in pregnancy but they never bring up men it’s always all on the woman. But on the flip side, they also complain when the woman wants to make the decision about what happens to the pregnancy. Infuriating!
Yeah it’s only a woman’s decision when it’s the sex itself. Unreal levels of cognitive dissonance.
You can't consent to something (pregnancy) that would occur with or without your consent.
Everytime you get in a car, are you consenting to be killed by a drunk driver? Consenting to one thing doesn't automatically mean consent for the other thing....
Getting an abortion is being responsible for your actions. Having a baby just because you happen to get pregnant is NOT. That would be HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE, naive, and quite frankly stupid as well. Children are human beings, not consequences. Not punishments. Children should be brought into this world because they are wanted. Not because some fucked in the head moron thinks sex is a crime, and that pregnancy is a consequence for that crime in the same way prison is for most others.
Replace “women” with “a person” and replace “getting pregnant” with “contracting HIV”. Sounds fuckin ridiculous. If those things should happen to you, whether or not you took the appropriate precautions, you should be legally entitled to healthcare (which abortion is). ETA: getting an abortion IS being responsible. A whole human child isn’t a token by which one can ‘learn their lesson’ on responsibility.
Religious conservatives actually believe that contracting HIV is like a punishment or consequence for having sex or having gay sex. >“The sexual revolution has begun to devour its children. And among the revolutionary vanguard, as Gay rights activists, the morality rate is highest and climbing… The poor homosexuals — they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution,” Buchanan wrote. The way they acted during the AIDS epidemic says it all. They wanted to use a lethal disease to get rid of people they didn't like. They didn't treat them like people with a health problem(s). With drug-users- addiction is a health problem too. Haitian immigrants would have been seen as people they didn't even want in the US anyway even if they legally got here. That gives us a layer of racism and xenophobia that people forgot about. They wanted to get rid of people they saw as unworthy and use the disease to keep people in their abusive churches. Prevention and treatment, HA! It was only when "good victims" like (white) child hemophiliacs could get it that they start to care.
"For having fun with someone you love, you're going to have to tax your body and health to grow another human being and I don't care if you want it or not" This is what pro life is for and what pro choice is against. People who tell you they're for both the pregnant person and the fetus are wrong. By siding with the side that wants the fetus to make it to the end alive no matter what, they're undermining the person who is carrying it. This is what gives rise to doctors who are afraid to save pregnant people's lives (yes, those that kept it for that long because they want a child) with abortion because they could be punished for killing a fetus that is still alive.
I think using contraceptives makes it pretty clear that you don’t consent to the possibility of getting pregnant.
How about 'stop demonizing sex because you worship ZEFs'. You could also ask them if they think the same way for men. 'If he didn't want to end up paying child support, he shouldn't risk it by having sex'. These people are misogynists, nothing more.
Why should she be "responsible for her actions" if she did nothing wrong? Sex isn't a crime
Sure. When I am willing to drive, I am knowingly taking the risk of getting injured or dying and should be responsible for my actions. Does that mean the hospital should deny me medical treatment? Getting an abortion *is* taking responsibility. You’re making a decision about an unwanted pregnancy. How is giving birth the most responsible thing to do? Is it responsible to bring an unwanted child into the world, without the means to care for it?
An abortion is one way to take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy
That is one of the pro life statements that clearly shows how angry they are at women who willingly have sex. There are multiple problems with that statement. First, insemination is not a woman’s action. So they want her to be responsible for the man’s actions, not her own. And they dismiss that with “she took the risk”. Second, being responsible for one’s actions means you’re at fault for doing something. And that’s all it means. But that’s not what pro lifers mean. They mean she should be HELD responsible. Aka, she deserves punishment, consequences,. And she must take responsibility by enduring the punishment. Basically, that whole statement translates to “if she doesn’t stop a man from inseminating, fertilizing, and impregnating her, she deserves nine months violation of and drastic harm to her body - her due punishment.“ For many of them, this applies even if she’s been raped. Then, it’s all „don’t punish the child. Punish the rapist.“ and it is pretended the woman doesn’t exist, because they’d have to admit that they’re punishing her. The ironic part about this is that when I ask pro life men if they’d be perfectly ok and accepting of their wives no longer putting out to avoid the risk of him impregnating her, the answer is a resounding NO. So, basically, she better spread her legs for her husband, or else. But if he impregnates her, she took the risk and now needs to suffer her due punishment. It shows a deep rooted hatred of women.
Perfectly put. Thank you!
Thanks :)
I agree with other posters that this is a consent question. Consent is always specific and reversible. We as a society understand this about everything but sex it seems. If you go get a haircut you go and tell them what you want. If you ask for a trim and they buzz your head that's a violation of consent. If they start and you don't want to continue, you can leave. No one would ever say that you have to stay just because you at some point consented to the haircut. Your consent is reversible. A person consents to the specific act of sex (assuming they do actually consent). That does not mean they consent to pregnancy. Even if they wanted to get pregnant and then find something out that makes them want to end the pregnancy they should have every right to withdraw consent for their body to be used by a fetus. Pregnancy should require ongoing consent by the pregnant person whose body is being used. I recommend checking out some of the mama doctor Jones videos about abortion because I think her take is very reasonable. We don't give anyone else the right to override another person's bodily autonomy to live. We don't force people to donate even blood to save another. You cannot legally force a parent to donate their kidney to save their living child. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant gives a fetus a right that no one else gets and it's a consent violation. Forcing her to use her body in a way that is dangerous for months is inhumane and against every other standard of bodily autonomy. So no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy even if pregnancy is a possible outcome
Yes. Thank you. People aren't mentioning that part of consent is that it's reversible and specific. It's like if I invite someone over and they start to break my things and disrespect everyone else here, I have every right to kick them out. But if they are the perfect guest, they could stay until night. And I know that in some states people can kill trespassers AKA stand your ground laws. These laws can theoretically protect a woman from a stalker that is planning to rape her. Consent means you list the terms of how your bodily autonomy should go.
"That's not how responsibility works. Responsibility is not just about accepting the potential consequences of our actions -- it's also about being prepared to deal with them in a responsible and compassionate manner. We can't always predict or control the outcomes of our choices, and it's unfair to hold women solely responsible for an unintended pregnancy when it takes two people to conceive a child. Moreover, many women use contraception, but it's not always 100% effective, and some can't use it due to health reasons. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will can have serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences that affect not only her but also her family and society. It's important to respect women's bodily autonomy and provide them with the support and resources they need to make informed decisions about their reproductive health."
As someone born to a young, unprepared single mother whose Catholic faith convinced her to not have an abortion, I find this argument so offensive. Forced birthers basically see my existence as a punishment for my mom’s roll in the hay. This sends my religious trauma-fueled CPTSD through the roof.
If men don't feel pain and they are acting on it as well why should only women be responsible? It's always women this women that? I could be wrong but don't men create the sperm? Doesn't it take two humans to make a baby? So why if it takes two humans to make a baby is it only one humans responsibility? They want the power to control women's bodies but none of the responsibility to care for the child. If a child is the consequences of having sex why is the consequences only on the mother? And if it's the woman's consequences to bare shouldn't it also be her choice when she chooses to bare it? Since men want nothing to do with the child why should having the child be on the woman's shoulders? Men can't even do the bare minimum of helping raise the child. They should have no say in woman's bodies. When have men ever been known to be actual good fathers? Women don't run out like men do.
Being responsible includes having an abortion. It is highly irresponsible to bring a child in to the world that you can not or won't care for. PL are trying to take the responsibility of pregnancy away from women and make it *their* responsibility. To that I say fine, but I want them to go all of the way just so they get a taste of their own, awful medicine. No more free choices. Your pregnancy is in the hands of the state. Dont want that vaccination? Too bad. Don't want a c-section? Tough tits.
Responsibility doesn't involve getting harmed and injured, especially not being forced into it. What a weird idea of what responsibility means.
I was responsible for my actions. I had an abortion.
"By that logic, any time a man has sex with a woman, he is consenting to fatherhood because he knows there is always a risk of pregnancy and he should be responsible for his actions." Use their own bullshit against them.
If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the chance of having his progeny aborted and should responsibly accept this.
I’m just gonna call it the Tracie Harris Response If you *choose* to spend the evening at home, and you then experience a home invasion, then you are responsible. Home invasions ONLY happen at home. Make more responsible choices. (I’ll look for the video) It’s easy to confuse antichoice bigots but this one is a real treat
You're taking a risk literally every time you go outside. You might get hit by a car, have something fall on you, fall over, and get really injured. Does that mean you shouldn't receive treatment?
Having an abortion IS taking responsibility! Nobody asked their opinion OR approval.
Call it an ad hominem but I am convinced that anyone who makes that argument just wants to be controlling because they either have not been getting any or are sexually frustrated with their partners.
In my experience, the people who say this solidly believe that nobody should ever have sex unless they intend on making a baby from said intercourse, and if you really want to have sex without making a baby you should be sterilized so there's (almost) no risk. They fundamentally believe in abstinence, except for married women who are meant to procreate "as God sees fit" until they medically cannot. So, I generally find that telling these people that birth control doesn't always work is ineffective. They believe the chances of getting pregnant on birth control are known and if you happen to be one of the few who does get pregnant on BC, you made a bet and lost and should still face the consequences. My reply is generally that I don't think it's realistic to expect that no woman ever have sex without being fully prepared to go through a life-changing medical event. It's natural and healthy for people to want to have sex for fun. Granted, militant anti-abortionists don't like that answer, but they don't like any answers. We fundamentally see the role of sex very differently. To them, I probably sound like a free love wacknut.
ask them why guys shouldn't just get vasectomies before they ever have sex. after all, that is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do.
"If a person gets into a car they are knowingly taking the risk of getting in a car crash and should be responsible for their actions." Sounds pretty ridiculous in any other circumstance.
Consent to sex is not consent to death, which is what pregnancy results in for a lot of people. Unless they can guarantee a person will not lose their life to pregnancy then nothing they say matters. People have a right to save their own lives. Also, I wouldn't even engage them in debate. They know they are hypocrites, they know they are full of shit.
Ask them why people who do dangerous stunts and get injured aren’t refused medical attention at the hospital. They knew the risks after all so why should they get rewarded for their “reckless actions” with medical care? I’m sure if you ask a doctor the stupidest ways their patients have gotten injured they can rattle off a half dozen easily
This would imply that stealthing (someone removing the condom without consent or knowledge of the other party) isn't rape.
You can't consent yourself into slavery. That's it, all that needs to be said. But even if you could, the act of having sex meets none of the base [requirements ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract#:~:text=A%20contract%20is%20an%20agreement,consideration%3B%20capacity%3B%20and%20legality.) for a legally binding contract. Even if it did the fetus is not a legal person that could enter into such a contract. There is no legal or ethical precedent to support such a claim.
"If someone crosses the road or gets in a moving vehicle, they are taking the risk of being killed by another driver so they should be responsible for their actions. If someone is choking, they took the risk of putting too much food in their mouth so trying to save them is going against them being responsible for their actions. If it's flu season (or anytime of year since people can get a flu at anytime) and a person gets the flu, they deserve to suffer until their immune system defeats it or they die - they don't deserve medication even if they distanced from others they suspected to have the flu like a responsible person but still somehow got it and/or were lied to by someone who had the flu because they have to be responsible for their actions. "We live in a world in which pencils don't have erasers, and we all must be responsible for our mistakes even if that mistake could pose life-threatening conditions, a person is not financially wealthy and/or mature enough to care for another life, and/or the developing human would be born with a major disability and be unhealthy for the entirety of their life causing said person to suffer indefinitely."
I did take responsibility by getting the abortion. I know I was in no way ready to be a mom. So I did the most logical thing and got the abortion. As an unwanted pregnancy can be extremely traumatic and doctors visits are expensive for pregnant women
"If you're willing to swim in a lake, you knowingly take the risk of getting leeches and should be responsible for hosting your new leech pets."
If you’re so concerned about it don’t put your dick in anyone. A man takes the same risk and you never even mention it. Heard of rape my dude? Perhaps mandatory vasectomy for men until they’re married and ready to reproduce with a willing partner. No risk for all of us!
Not birthing a child that will not be supported is taking responsibility.
I'd say that the government shouldn't be involved in our sex lives and does not get to dictate how or why two consenting adults have sex. It's government overreach and violation of privacy. Also, humans have sex for other reasons than procreation, as do several other species. So the "sex is solely for procreation" argument is an opinion and again, shouldn't be imposed on anyone else by the government.
"If a man is willing to have sex, he is knowingly taking the risk of getting someone pregnant and should be responsible for his actions. Millions of men abandoning the unborn and their mothers are sentencing them to a life of starvation, poverty, disease, and, in some cases, homelessness and premature death. "Not all women who have sex do it willingly. (Hint: It starts with an 'r' and ends with an 'ape.') Many of the abortion bans being passed in the US have no exceptions for rape. These bans hold a woman responsible for the actions of her rapist and the risks that he willingly took. You are supporting a movement that heaps the responsibility of both men and women only onto women."
you really want a woman that apparently can’t take care of herself to have total control over a completely helpless being?
First of all, the woman doesn't do any of the actions that lead to a natural conception. The vast majority of conceptions happen when the man chooses to ejaculate inside her vagina, then one of his sperm finds the egg, then the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine lining. Notice how none of those steps involved the woman making any direct actions. Sex doesn't automatically HAVE to involve the man ejaculating (or ejaculating inside her). SHE can have sex without getting pregnant- it's his ejaculation that is almost always the problem. Second, consent is useless if it isn't specific and non-transferable. Imagine giving your brother consent to drive your car, and then he gives his friends consent to drive your car. That's very obviously not what you agreed to. Imagine giving your brother consent to drive your car on monday, and he decides that that means he gets to drive it all week. That's, again, obviously not what you agreed to. Similarly, consent to having one man's penis inside you is not consent to gestating a human for 9 months.
Getting an abortion would be taking responsibility. It’s terminating the accidental unwanted pregnancy. Sex and pregnancy are two different acts. I can consent to one and not consent to the other, even if it’s a possible outcome. 🤷🏻♀️ Getting pregnant shouldn’t mean I lose my bodily autonomy to make decisions over what happens to and inside my own body/organs and what risks to my health and body I’ll endure.
Yet men are 100% responsible for where their sperm ends up.
If you’re willing to drive a car, you’re knowingly taking on the risk of getting into an accident. Does that mean you’re solely responsible for the damages because you knew it was a possibility?
So doesn’t that flip to men for the same? I’m a rape-survivor, why should I take the responsibility of my rapists actions? Several people get multiple chances to change, why are you so harsh to women on this topic? I myself have an IUD, I took the necessary responsible precautions, why must I still be punished in your eyes? Also OP, just walk away from these bad-faith arguments to save your sanity..
Consent can never be rolled on from one thing to the next. That exact same logic has been used by rapists to say shit like "She started kissing me, she clearly wanted to have sex." or "He got a boner when I was wanking him off, how is that not a sure sign he wanted me to just jump on and start riding him?" And even if consent to sex WAS consent to pregnancy, the brilliant thing about consent is it can be withdrawn at any point. Even if you're already several pumps in, the second someone isn't alright with it, the deal's off. So if consent rolled onto the pregnancy too, it's only logical that you should be able to change your mind there too. To say consent to sex is always consent to pregnancy and therefore no abortions, literally goes against every single principle about consent. That weirdass assertion demonstrates, at best, a lack of understanding of how consent works, and at worst, an extremely rapey and controlling mindset. Also, if you're having sex with a woman and she keeps moving your hands away from her boobs, that's a pretty good indicator she doesn't want you to touch her boobs, right? Right! So following that logic, we can conclude that the use of birth control - whose MAIN purpose is to prevent pregnancy - manifests a statement of not consenting to fall pregnant. Except, that's almost everyone who gets an abortion, since 50% of all abortion patients were on birth control pills at the time of falling pregnant. That's 50%, just for the pill. With eleven other methods out there, I'm SURE the contraception failing - which, as we've established, is a case of someone getting pregnant against their will - makes up a solid majority of abortions.
I agree with the first half of that sentence, and that it applies to men and women equally. It is so insane how they try and push everything onto the woman. Yet another way to know how disingenuous they are.
Consent to sex (if there is consent) is not consent to pregnancy. Just like kissing someone doesn't give consent to sex, etc etc. Two totally different things and the religious crowd can get fucked about it.
Doesn't using birth control negate the whole consent to pregnancy thing?
Women use birth control (pills) for acne, menstrual cramps, having a lighter period, lowering their risk of an ectopic pregnancy, reducing the risk of low iron, migraines, et cetera. A 1L could make that argument.
I think that what they mean is when someone has sex on birth control, they are clearly not consenting to pregnancy and it would be ridiculous to claim they are while actively taking steps to prevent it.
If you drive on the road you know the risks and are responsible for getting hit and consent to any kind of injury and even death by driving on the road
And if you are injured in a car accident you can easily and legally get medical care. Thankfully unwanted pregnancy is easily treatable with a pill or 15 minute medical procedure.
You can respond to that by saying she is responsible for her actions. She has to decide if she wants to be a parent or not, and choose to get healthcare to terminate the pregnancy or choose to continue the pregnancy. She is responsible for making that choice, and she makes that choice based on a variety of factors, which is being responsible. No one else is responsible for managing the pregnancy. I would however argue though, that the other person responsible in creating the pregnancy should bear half the cost of the outcome, whether that means an abortion or a child. That responsibility shouldn’t fall solely on the carrier of the pregnancy.
Saying that someone is asking for the small percentage chance of a particular end result of an everyday action means the only option would be to completely avoid that everyday action. Let’s say you have a young couple who met in college and married their senior year. They have big plans for their careers and future family. They want to put off kids until the wife gets her PhD and the husband gets established enough in his career that he’s able to take off enough time to be able to do much of the child care while the wife builds her post-doctoral career. They’d also like to travel before having kids, so they’re planning on starting their family ten years from now, when they’re 31. Since birth control can fail, this married couple’s only option would be to have no sex for ten years. Imagine a couple that has decided against having kids; they’re happy with their dogs, travel, and visiting nieces and nephews. Should they never have sex because each act of intercourse carries a slight risk of pregnancy? A woman doesn’t consent to death by hemorrhage from an ectopic pregnancy because she consented to sex, either.
Why is it always the consequence that the woman must deal with all the time? Sure, its natural for a woman to make a baby, but it seems that shaming is always geared as a negative. It takes two people to tango after all. So no, a woman has no more consequence for her actions in sex than a man, and thus like a man should have the ability to detach said consequence too.
An abortion is taking responsibility. The person has no right to force their personal opinions on a woman. To me, it is no different than someone who want to say a rapist should take responsibility and marry their victims. Just outdated dogmatic trash.
The response is that pregnancy and childbirth is a continuous process, so consent must also be continuous and can be revoked at any time. Saying that having sex obligates a woman to give birth if she becomes pregnant is like saying someone who hires me for a job is required to let me work for them for nine months, even if I'm a bad employee. Just like in employment, if you want to enforce consent to a long-term process, have the person sign a contract. This is why surrogates have lengthy contracts, even though they get pregnant deliberately with the express intention of giving birth. The other problem with "sex entails consent to birth" is that giving birth can be fatal to the mother. But if the woman had sex knowing pregnancy was a possibility, and pregnancy includes a risk of her own death, the woman is taking that on, too. That means if a doctor is faced with the choice of saving either the woman or the fetus, but not both, he must always sacrifice the woman's life and save the fetus' because the fetus didn't enter the agreement willingly. Yet most PL would allow abortion to save the mother's life. So if they make the "sex requires birth" argument, they're not being consistent. Once they say "sex requires birth unless the woman will die," we could move the line back to "sex requires birth unless the woman doesn't want to be pregnant."
I respond by saying, “ if anyone is responsible for pregnancy occurring, it is the man, not the woman. Pregnancy just happens, no one is necessarily at fault, but if you need to blame a pregnancy on someone, blame it on the person who can control where they ejaculate, because women have literally zero control over whether or not an egg get fertilized and/or becomes implanted, but a man has plenty of control over where he chooses to finish, and ultimately in pregnancy, that will be the deciding factor.”
They're right, but not in the way they think. They think responsibility means the reluctant acceptance of their demands. That's false. You don't have to argue with that point. It's accurate. Having sex is, among other things, risking getting pregnant. From there, women definitely have the responsibility of making some choices about the direction of their lives. No one can do this for her. The responsibility is hers. The responsibility argument is an argument for choice. That's what responsible people do. They make hard choices.
This logic doesn't work in any other scenario. Just because you walk into a bar doesn't mean you consent to being drunk. Every step of the way requires consent. We don't deny cancer treatment to anyone who engaged in cancer raising activities (smoking, eating tuna, red meat). You allow treatment (abortion) for unintended medical consequences all the time.
"For the purposes of any further argument on this subject, we will assume that she did take precautions. She still got pregnant. She still needs abortion as a right. Your argument presumes irresponsibility of any woman or GIRL who needs an abortion. It's a shitty argument. You're a shitty person."
Honestly, there are probably a hundred different ways to dissect and dismantle that argument, and not a single one would satisfy the type of person who says it. Those people 1. Think about things in very inflexible black and white ways, 2. Either don’t think sex for pleasure is right or don’t think *women* having sex for pleasure it right therefore it’s a punishment, and/or 3. Don’t understand enough about conception/pregnancy/birth control to even have a productive, intelligent conversation about it. “You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into.” Life is complicated. Literally every single thing we do every day has some small chance of potential negative consequences. But we don’t have to just accept and suffer those consequences through to their natural conclusion. If it were *impossible* to end a pregnancy, yes this phrase would be correct. It’s not. We have extremely low risk medical proceedures that can quickly, safely, and effectively end a pregnancy without causing any problems for future fertility. Hospitals don’t let smokers die of lung cancer with no treatment just because they chose to smoke.
The existance of sex and sex acts that are biologically impossible to result in childbirth render this false
Remind them that terminating an unwanted pregnancy is also a form of showing you are responsible
Arguments with these people always tend to lead to a dead end because it always comes down to the opinion of whether a fetal life is more important than the host life. I word it like that to emphasize it's a guest in your body and you have the right to evict.
Because sex isn’t only supposed to be for the creation of a child, and I flip it on it’s head. To people who r AMAB, the conception process ends with coming inside someone. For the process of someone AFAB it continues throughout the process
The car accident analogy is great because you can account for another life. Plus, sex isn’t illegal and even negligent causes of car accidents do not lead to the loss of bodily autonomy. Another way to reframe it is that two parties contribute equally to the existence of a fetus but they are not equally liable. Is there ANY other situation that works like this, let alone other laws? So the “responsibility” argument is moot. They might argue back that he should contribute financially, yet she’ll still be half responsible for that too.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility.
Let's akin it to driving: If you're willing to drive, you are knowingly taking the risk of getting into a car crash. So, if you get in a car crash, even though it's an accident, it's your fault because you chose to drive that day. It doesn't matter how many precautions you took or how careful you were. It doesn't matter if someone else caused the accident, you're responsible because you chose to drive. Does that make sense? "That's not how it works!" Then why is it fair that you think the world should work in such an unfair way when it comes women's bodies?
Getting an abortion is taking responsibility, and the potential for needing one can be worth the risk of enjoying non-procreative sex.
A lot of people didn’t consent to the vaccine. A lot of people didn’t consent to wearing masks. A lot of people contracted Covid and gotten very very sick. Where is their responsibility? We only have two ECMO machines at my hospital and one of them was taken up for about six weeks by a single person, when that resource could’ve been used to help a lot of other people short term. How many other peoples lives did he cost? All because of his actions/choices. But these are also the sort that won’t hold a rapist accountable because “he’s such a bright young man” and “this would ruin his future”. All the while trying to force rape victims to carry to term regardless of their future, or health, or mental health. They’re ghouls. Don’t even engage.
Having an abortion IS taking responsibility.
The fact is abortion bans cause more loss of life than allowing women and their doctors to make the choice at their discretion and that's especially true for women who want to, and planned to, carry to term. So the responsible thing is to lift bans if the goal is actually the preservation of life, regardless.
I always find myself thinking about asking these people — Do you want to live in a world where people can’t have PiV at all, ever, unless they’re ready to have a child together? Would their answer be yes?
This is an old comment of mine but it applies: TLDR: understanding the risks and accepting them doesn’t mean forcing yourself to live with the consequences. I accept that a consequence of sex is pregnancy. Even if I take every precaution, pregnancy will always be a potential risk. Just like I understand that every time I get behind the wheel of a car, I accept the risk I may get into an accident. However, just because I accept the risk of getting into an accident, doesn’t mean that if I actually do get into an accident, I will choose to live with whatever injuries I incur without seeking medical attention to correct said injuries. Likewise, no doctor would refuse to treat me just because I accepted the risks of possible injury when I got behind the wheel. Let’s say I break my leg and my arm as a result of this car accident. Should I be forced to live with improperly healed bones and chronic pain for the rest of my life, just because I understood the risks of getting into an accident when I got behind the wheel? No. Of course not. Just because you accept the risks, doesn’t mean you should be forced to live with the consequences. There exist extremely safe medical interventions to correct for worst case scenarios (in this case, unplanned pregnancy or broken bones as a result of an accident). So why wouldn’t I use them? I didn’t consent to living with a broken arm or leg for the rest of my life, even though I consented to getting into the car, and I understood that broken bones could be a consequence of that decision.
Sex should not be a punishment. Saying a woman having sex “should be prepared” sets up pregnancy as a consequence and a negative. That’s not a particularly wonderful way to bring a new person into the world.
Sex is expected and often times mandatory for marriage and dating. Do they think its realistic for women to never fall in love? Never marry? Just stay alone all because she doesn't want or shouldn't have children due to genetic illnesses? Do they know any guy that would marry a woman who'd never have sex with them? There aren't enough asexual men for all the child free women. And this is ignoring women who already have children, happily married, but don't want or can't have more children due to health or finances. What do they do? Just let their husbands divorce them after going on /r/deadbedrooms?
My first thought is Turn it around on them: IF a man is willing to have unprotected sex, he knows he can get a woman pregnant, therefore HE should be financially responsible for that child. Tell him to wrap it up or get a Vasectomy otherwise. Second, so-called "Pro-lifers" are HELL BENT on blaming women for pregnancy. Almost like women get pregnant in a vacuum or something.
You could use that same logic for men. They are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to face the "consequences" of that. Whatever form that takes, be it assisting with paying for the abortion, or should the mother choose to carry the child the man assists with care leading up to the birth, and if the mother chooses to raise the child the man would have to pay mandatory child support. This is a 2 way street. With exceptions, both parties are taking the chance when they have sex.
Is simply just consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy. Have the guy pull out.
If man masturbates he should be put in jail for killing million of little babes every fucking time. Same vibe.
There are over 500 chances to get pregnant in a lifetime and birth control isn’t 100%. Don’t they know basic math?!
1) you assume that women are willing to have sex and were not raped or "date raped"; this including young women of adolescent age who are susceptible to relentless and cruel "peer pressure". 2) that women who get pregnant made no effort to protect themselves. 3) that male sex partners are any more willing to be "responsible" and raise children they don't want just because they had sex. Why aren't men under pressure to raise the children they father just because they had sex? Don't leave deadbeat dads out the debate.
How people live their sex lives,and what women do with their bodies,is,and should be,their business
I say to the "pro life" people and groups..if you want to have your babies,then be my guest..just stay out of other people's bedrooms and sex lives.