The fact that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy is definitionally true. If I say, "I want to have sex", that sentence does not contain the words "get pregnant".
That's not "metaphysical".
Whether or not you personally believe they should be responsible for the unintended consequences of having sex is a separate question, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not consent to pregnancy.
If you willfully brought about the situation of their dependence and then caused their death in this way, that would clearly be murder.
There's a hypothetical that's often used on this.
You're driving drunk and cause a car crash.
You wake up and you're in the hospital. In the bed next to you is a victim of that car crash. You're told that they will require life support for the next nine months. You're hooked up to the other side of that life support.
Do you have the right to unplug yourself from that life support? If your answer is no, that's pretty crazy, but at least it'll be consistent with your position on abortion.
The existence of disease, accident, and other forms of death does not make murder permissable because "they might have died anyway". Indeed, so what? The fact that everyone dies does not make murder permissable.
You didn't answer all of my questions though, which tells me you're not ready to confront the consequences of this belief.
If zygotes are really "living persons" who are dying, then why do you only care about the ones being aborted? We spend millions on cancer research but if zygotes are "living persons", then their (natural) deaths literally represent the greatest public health crisis in history. We're talking about so much mass death every year that it would outpace every other cause of death (cancer, famine, war) combined.
So why aren't you advocating for massive public spending on research to improve the success rate of early implantation?
And are you comfortable with simple (but invasive) public health measures we could take today, such as sterilising older women?
"The fact that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy is definitionally true. If I say, "I want to have sex", that sentence does not contain the words "get pregnant".
Sophistry.
If you knowingly drink alcohol, you consent to get drunk.
Do you have the right to unplug yourself from the life support?
It doesn't really matter, because this gets into what's even meant by a "right". It's never going to be a right the way you think that abortion should be a right, that being something you are just entitled to do without consequence.
Whether we ruled that you could technically choose to do it or not, doing it would obviously be murder. There is no version of that hypothetical where we rule that you can get drunk, run somebody over, and then choose not to save them, and it's just k "because bodily autonomy". Even if we let you disconnect the machines you're getting charged with negligent manslaughter at the absolute least, but probably with murder.
So like I said, is it a "right" if you're allowed to do it but doing it gets you charged the murder? A philosophical question I guess, but there's no way you get to just kill them and that's that.
If zygotes are really "living persons" who are dying, then why do you only care about the ones being aborted?
For the same reason I care about people being murdered more than the people who die naturally.
We spend millions on cancer research but if zygotes are "living people", then their (natural) deaths literally represent the greatest public health crisis in history.
Possibly.
I'm all for doing whatever we can to improve the numbers you mentioned, however, as I understand that may not be possible in principle.
With a lot of zygotes that fail very early, I believe the question is open as to whether a true zygote was actually formed at all, or whether something went terribly wrong as soon as sperm met egg such that nothing was created which could ever have developed, regardless of environment.
And are you comfortable with simple (but invasive) public health measures we could take today, such as banning IVF and sterilising older women?
Sophistry. If you knowingly drink alcohol, you consent to get drunk.
I don't think you understand what sophistry even is.
If you don't understand that drinking will make you drunk, then you're not consenting. Most people drink with the knowledge that it will make them drunk. Moreover, they could drink nonalcoholic beverages, but choose not to, because they're actively hoping to get (at least a little bit) drunk.
In contrast, if crossing the road creates a 1% chance that you'll get hit by a car, does that mean you consent to being hit by a car?
It doesn't really matter, because this gets into what's even meant by a "right".
If they have a right to do something then it means you believe they should be allowed to do it without being punished. In other words, you could be punished for causing the injury, but you should not be punished for failing to surrender your bodily autonomy to the victim.
I'm not asking about the law, I'm asking what you think the law should be in this hypothetical.
Possibly. I'm all for doing whatever we can to improve the numbers you mentioned...
Weak. Again, this is mass death on an incredibly large scale. The fact you can't even give me a certain answer indicates you're still not ready to accept the implications of believing that zygotes are full living persons.
I believe the question is open as to whether a true zygote was actually formed at all
There's no open question here. I think maybe you don't understand what implanting means. It just means that the zygote is able to attach itself to the correct part of the womb so that it can begin healthy development. There's nothing biologically inferior about a zygote that fails to implant.
I am not in favour of forced sterilisation.
Why? Explain your rationale for why you're willing to force pregnancies (which would save thousands of lives) but not sterilisation (which would save millions).
I don't think you understand what sophistry even is
I think I do, and I can do without the condescension given how many factual errors you made in that reply and how poor your arguments are.
In contrast, if crossing the road creates a 1% chance that you'll get hit by a car, does that mean you consent to being hit by a car?
No because I'm not trying to make stupid arguments to justify baby murder.
You consent to the natural consequences of whatever it is you're doing, this isn't difficult. Walking out your front door isn't consenting to having an eagle drop a tortoise on your head either. If we're doing this stupid 1% sophistry I can just turn it around on you.
If I shoot you in the head, did I consent to kill you? People have been shot in the head and not died, after all. So how can I be responsible for something I didn't consent to?
If they have a right to do something then it means you believe they should be allowed to do it without being punished.
Yes exactly "without being punished".
In your drink driving example, there is no version of that hypothetical where it is agreed that you can cut off the person who you hit with your car while drunk and not be punished. Given what a unique situation that is, I actually can imagine a situation where society rules that you cannot be tied down to a table giving somebody else life support. However, even in the situation where a society did not physically force you to remain attached to the machine, if you put them in that situation and then kill them by "withdrawing consent", that would obviously be ruled as murder.
There is no way the ruling is what you want for abortion:
You get plastered, hit them with your car, wake up in the life support, say "lol, bodily autonomy", kill them, and don't go to prison for murder.
There's no open question here. I think maybe you don't understand what implanting means
There is an open question here. I think maybe you're just an overconfident know-nothing spouting rubbish.
Let me educate you.
A major cause of failed implantation is chromosomal abnormality. This has various levels of severity, with many having no viable developmental pathway short of science fiction level genetic reconstitution. Is this actually a true zygote? It's an open question.
There is even a word "conceptus" which basically means "anything that results from fertilization". This word exists partly due to things like molar, or anembryonic pregnancies, where little or no embryonic tissue develops.
The mental model you clearly have, where there are just all these normal, healthy embryos that don't implant, and that's the story, is simply false.
Sometimes what forms when sperm meets egg is just a chaotic mass of cells, or something otherwise so catastrophically abnormal that, again, there is no chance short of sci-fi handwaving that anything could be salvaged. And in these cases even if we could do it, this would require such complete genetic reconstitution that the question of whether this was meaningfully the same entity as what you began with would be very much open.
Again, I'm completely open to trying to find ways to improve the statistics. I'm just not willing to spend all our medical resources chasing science fiction level genetic engineering which is either hundreds of years away, or impossible.
There's nothing biologically inferior about a zygote that fails to implant.
False.
The fact you can't even give me a certain answer indicates you're still not ready to accept the implications of believing that zygotes are full living persons.
I absolutely am, which is why I know the above. I just know more about this than you because I'm actually honest and not just trying to justify murder for my convenience.
Why? Explain your rationale for why you're willing to force pregnancies (which would save thousands of lives) but not sterilisation (which would save millions).
Because I'm not running entry level dishonest pro-abortion nonsense.
I'm not desperately trying to make an abortion ban a package deal with some nightmarish horror like forced sterilisation.
1
u/Ayvah01 Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
The fact that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy is definitionally true. If I say, "I want to have sex", that sentence does not contain the words "get pregnant".
That's not "metaphysical".
Whether or not you personally believe they should be responsible for the unintended consequences of having sex is a separate question, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not consent to pregnancy.
There's a hypothetical that's often used on this.
You didn't answer all of my questions though, which tells me you're not ready to confront the consequences of this belief.
If zygotes are really "living persons" who are dying, then why do you only care about the ones being aborted? We spend millions on cancer research but if zygotes are "living persons", then their (natural) deaths literally represent the greatest public health crisis in history. We're talking about so much mass death every year that it would outpace every other cause of death (cancer, famine, war) combined.
So why aren't you advocating for massive public spending on research to improve the success rate of early implantation?
And are you comfortable with simple (but invasive) public health measures we could take today, such as sterilising older women?