Does consent to sex = consent to the risk of pregnancy? Why or why not?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I am confused as to which side I take on this debate.  I want the people here to provide arguments I can't think of myself.

Really with all activities you can do that are dangerous, you can say, “If you don’t want the risk, then don’t do the activity”.  But with all of these activities (except for sex), if things go south, then you can legally get treatment in all 50 states since you aren’t harming anyone by getting treatment for the vast majority of activities (you aren’t harming anyone significantly if you put ice on your hand after a burn from matches).

Find some situation that meets all of the following criteria:

1. Feels very good to do on an instinctive level.
2. Has plausible risk to it if things go very south.
3. Treatment would harm some other entity significantly 

And one bullet point from the following criteria:
4. Therefore, you should not be allowed to get the treatment due to the significant harm it would cause to others.
5. Despite this, you should be allowed to get the treatment despite the significant harm it would do to others.

It’s easy for me to think of many situations where 1 and 2 are met.  It’s much harder for me to complete 1-3 and then get 4 or 5.  Your answer for 4 or 5 should be something pretty much everyone agrees with.

I will tag one person who believes abortion should be legal and another who wants it banned.  Let me know what you guys come up with.

Topic's author
#2
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Mall
@Sidewalker
Tagged you guys.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

Yes, that is what mifepristone is for.
Topic's author
#4
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@FLRW
Mifepristone is an abortion pill (which if you are PAL, then you would obviously want to be legal, but if you are ANAL, then you would want banned).

If a state bans abortion, then they would also have to ban mifepristone if they were consistent.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you don’t want the risk, then don’t do the activity
Sure, but there is no risk. Just have abortion.

#6
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
It depends. If it is me fucking your mom then yes, but if it is me fucking your dad than no
#7
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
Life is trouble, to be alive is to undo your belt and look for trouble - Alexi Zorba
Topic's author
#8
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Sure, but there is no risk. Just have abortion.
The issue with that is it's intentional homicide.
#9
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
First off pregnancy is not a risk but an inherent function.

It's like the function of pressing the button on the TV remote to turn the TV on. It's not a risk being an expected inherit outcome as the point of that remote.
Which is the function of that remote.
You may refuse or reject the function like you would a risk you'd avoid. You don't want the TV on but you're doing the act that is structured to execute. I'll say structured. Apparently people struggle with the word "designed" .

In this day and time, function has been reduced, downplayed to an insignificant entity treated as more of a probable risk trying to use methods to evade it.

The consistency for pregnancy to occur is anticipated for something that is structured to the point of it occuring . Unlike a risk that is arbitrary inconsistently based on hit or miss variable factors.

The question of how can the abortion and birth control dilemma and controversy end will never end because the expectancy of something to function to not inherently function as it does is false.

Banning or legalizing abortion which some believe legalizing is a step towards no abortions by compromise which is false, this has not ended the dilemma and controversy.
People are criminals and still do things regardless of the law in one instance or another.


To end all of this, you have to start with the mindset of every individual when it comes time to look at playing with fire.
Fire will burn . Now either stay away or take on the aftermath of being exposed to the heat.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Mall
It's like the function of pressing the button on the TV remote to turn the TV on.
The claim, “If you turn on the remote, then you consent to the chance that the TV will be on” is not a fair analogy because it doesn’t meet all of the following requirements:

1. Feels very good to do on an instinctive level.
2. Has plausible risk to it if things go very south.
3. Treatment would harm some other entity significantly

And one bullet point from the following criteria:
4. Therefore, you should not be allowed to get the treatment due to the significant harm it would cause to others.
5. Despite this, you should be allowed to get the treatment despite the significant harm it would do to others.
Pushing a remote button doesn’t feel super good.  There is no plausible risk things go south from the TV being on that is homicide level south or similar.  If you get a TV addiction, since nobody is significantly harmed by you breaking it, you are allowed to treat your TV addiction.

To end all of this, you have to start with the mindset of every individual when it comes time to look at playing with fire.
Fire will burn . Now either stay away or take on the aftermath of being exposed to the heat.
Fire doesn’t meet step 3: Treatment after a burn doesn’t harm others significantly.
#11
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
"The claim, “If you turn on the remote, then you consent to the chance that the TV will be on” is not a fair analogy because it doesn’t meet all of the following requirements:"

I don't know where the claim "If you turn on the remote" came from. I know I mentioned pressing the button on the TV remote to turn the TV on.

It's very simple. We don't have to complicate it. You don't do something that you know what  result will be and say "oh I didn't consent or agree".

No basis in doing it in the first place then.

You can't plead ignorance if you actually know as you appear paradoxical which is what is going on with people crying about not wanting something by doing something to get the very thing they don't want .

Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Mall
I don't know where the claim "If you turn on the remote" came from. I know I mentioned pressing the button on the TV remote to turn the TV on.
That is kind of what I meant.

You don't do something that you know what  result will be and say "oh I didn't consent or agree".

No basis in doing it in the first place then.
I hear you, but this perspective isn’t universal.  It’s why I like to argue with analogies that translate well where pretty much everyone will get the same result.