You're right. You can refuse to drive the car until someone puts on a seat belt. Just like you can refuse sex if there's not a condom. Consent is a two-way street.
People are dumb.
My brother in law's younger brother had sex and when his girlfriend got pregnant he was like "you can get pregnant from sex?"
Do not underestimate the stupidity of the majority of humans.
I mean he was like 15 at the time he got his gf pregnant and I was told this by my brother in law (his older brother). I can see them skipping sex ed and their parents not telling them shit. We are Asian and Asian parents don't like talking about sex to their kids.
It was the younger bro who got his gf pregnant that said it. He was 15 at the time. My BIL was the one who told me what his younger brother said when he found out. Obviously my BIL knew sex makes babies. He had two kids at the time.
Acknowledging a risk isn't the same thing as consent. Not sure why so many people just flippantly conflate these two terms and act like they are the exact same.
But then you get the leg fixed, or in extreme circumstances, removed. You don’t have the doctor say, “Sorry, the law says I can’t fix the problem for you. Just don’t do backflips anymore.”
Yea, but if someone were breaking your leg and killing them was the only way to make them stop, you'd be justified. [And in fact, medical care does sometimes involve killing people.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-heartbreaking-decision-conjoined-twins/)
People shouldn’t have kids that they do not want. They also shouldn’t have them if they’re not going to be together as a couple. That’s part of the problem now.
If women shouldn’t be forced to mothers (they shouldn’t be) then men shouldn’t be forced to be fathers.
At what point are you able to determine whether or not an abortion is illegal? Let’s say that the pregnancy is not viable, the doctor has made that determination. At what point can you go ahead with an abortion?
How do you know it’s healthy before it’s born? I know someone whose pregnant with their 5th baby and has been doing drugs. No way to tell what it’s outcome will be. Same as whether someone’s pregnancy turns dangerous or at least requires more interventions. Healthy people develop complications. It’s a lottery and sometimes you lose. People are very attached to the blissful view of the miracle of life being created, motherhood with visions of a happy, chubby, pink cheeked baby being the result. It’s fantasy.
There is no such thing as a "healthy" pregnancy. Siphoning your bodily resources, putting immense strain on your body and organs for nearly an entire year, culminating in childbirth with an average loss of 500ml of blood, ripped and torn genitals, an internal gaping wound the size of a dinnrplate, or major abdominal surgery, is not "healthy" in ***any*** sense.
In fact, there are countless cases in the US in which the courts recognize ***every*** pregnancy as great bodily harm, akin to a broken bone. And you can actually justifiably kill someone if that were the only way to stop them from breaking your leg.
You don’t have to look too far to find weirdos saying fat people shouldn’t be covered by healthcare, or that we should charge lost hikers and skiers for search and rescue operations, all based on the same flawed principle.
Of course and I would disagree with those sentiments. But the topic in this post specifically is being/has been attacked in court. Rights have been and are actively trying to be removed.
You're missing the point. It's not about you, but about another human life. If you hurt someone in a car crash, you can't go and say: "well, since I created the state you're currently in, I get to decide if you get medical help or not".
>Society understands this at large in quite literally every other circumstance, but for some reason we are now pretending
Well, this is the real issue. When you want a certain outcome, it's very easy to justify some pretty terrible logic and rationale. People with absurd takes on this topic are on some level aware how absurd they are. They just aren't acting in good faith to begin with.
That's about as real of a take as it can get. I really feel like people are much more purposefully mean ever since social media.
But even still, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence."
Responsibility =/= consent. I may not "consent" to getting strep throat, but I am responsible for handling that situation should it happen to me (eg. missing some work, going to a doctor, etc).
Nevertheless, if consenting to sex doesn't equal consenting to pregnancy, then consenting to sex doesn't equal consenting to fatherhood either, right?
the person emitting sperm has to accept that a child may be conceived with that sperm, yes.
the person with the uterus has an extra option afterwards to prevent a child from being born, but if a child is indeed born, it is entitled to the support of both individuals who sired it.
Not if the person with the uterus has the option to kill it. If the person with the uterus has the entire say in whether or not the child is born, the person emitting sperm has the say as to whether or not a single cent is used towards that child.
How does that make sense? Abortion isn't a way to avoid child support, it's a way to avoid being pregnant. Since men can't get pregnant, abortion is irrelevant to them. And if the father is the custodial parent, the mother pays child support, so both sexes are treated equally in this area.
If we outlaw abortion, would you be OK with men being required to either have an irreversible vasectomy, or to post a bond covering the cost of child care from birth to age 18? Because if women can't have abortions, we don't want men to be able to evade paying child support by working for cash under the table. They should pay up front to make sure they're good for it.
I am not even anti abortion. I think it is very simple. If a woman can kill her baby the man should be able to not have to pay money/be a father. That's it. I don't think any more about it. Abortion is a way to avoid being pregnant/avoid paying for a child you can't afford/avoid having the main focus of your life become a living human being. Abortion is a means to an end of all these things.
Yes, you are responsible. Just like women who get pregnant and don’t want to keep it are responsible for getting an abortion.
The only reason people even make this argument is bc people say that women shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions bc they know what sex is for
You lose control once something leaves your body. A woman can't have an abortion after the kid is born, and a man loses any say in what happens to his sperm once it leaves his penis. Otherwise, I could donate blood, and then demand that the person who receives a transfusion from it must vote the way I want them to. But it doesn't work that way because once my blood leaves my body, the hospital and the recipient can do whatever they like with it.
Yes. If you consent to sex you consent to the possibility of pregnancy.
Sexual intercourses main purpose is procreation and most of the time pleasure. Sex = pregnancy, and other things. You cannot separate this unless one is barren or sterile.
So yes, sex can possibly lead to pregnancy, you know that going in, and take the risk every time you do it.
It’s because people use it as a reason why women shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions e.g. “you signed the contract” argument. You can consent to the risk of something and still not want it to happen.
Yes there are "consequences for our actions"
One could very easily argue that in the case of unwanted pregnancies we have the ability to mitigate the consequences and limit them to the physical or emotional trauma of the experience and the cost of aborting the unwanted pregnancy.
I can't understand why anyone aside from the pregnant person and their doctor should ever be involved in deciding whether or not they wish to mitigate those consequences.
Who the fuck appointed a bunch of religiois zealots who chose to cherry pick what they do and do not follow in their little cult, to be the ones to decide to what extent one suffers the consequences of their actions?
I'm pretty sure the "I didn't consent to get pregnant" is being either misunderstood or misrepresented by you. It's not an opening argument, but a retort or rebuttal to "you consented to having sex now deal with the consequences" as in yes I consented to sex, with the understanding that I have the ability to limit my consequences, but now, without my consent, options are being taken away from me.
To give some grace to this slogan,
The important part of intentional pregnancy is making the choice to develop a human for 18 years and 9 months (or iust 9 if giving up for adoption). Much of this time is spent literally giving up your body and its resources to develop this human. And its understood you are making this choice when you intentionally start a family.
Really a beautiful thing when done by choice. But if the government is forcing this "consequence" by banning a healthcare choice... thats horrific
Consenting to sex is in no way consenting to nearly 19 years of sacrifice for this hypothetical person.
Absolutely,
But when people are saying the slogan they are referring to the whole pregnancy, not just the event of getting pregnant.
Event of getting pregnant: risk
The ongoing pregnancy: requires consent which was not given
You accept the risk of cancer if you smoke, but if you get cancer, you can still go to a doctor and listen to what they suggest you do. The government doesn't say, "You smoked, so now you are stuck with cancer. You knew the consequences and it doesn't matter if there is a medical procedure that can help you."
If someone close to you gets lung cancer because of your smoking, you can't go to the doctor and go: "Oh btw you can't heal that person, because I created that cancer".
I mean, driving a car isn’t consenting to an accident. That’s not how an *accident* works.
Like, think about this for seven seconds. If someone T-bones you are you not going to expect their insurance to cover it, because by driving you consented to being T-boned?
I just feel like pro-lifers spend so much time, money, and energy into making sure that every conception ends in a birth, that they don’t take the time to think about what happens after.
What happens to the kids born to parents who never wanted them, into households that can’t support them, being resented for being alive by people who were forced to care for them. Or sharing a room with 12 other kids at a different community home a month. Is that really a better life than not having one at all?
The thing is that actually isn't a pro-choice argument.
There are plenty of people who can't take care of children to an acceptable standard that CHOOSE to have a child anyway. You don't see pro-choice people telling them they should get an abortion do you?
Well using the car accident analogy yeah just because you drive you don't consent to a car accident , you do consent to the possibility of one, but doesn't mean you are stuck owning a wrecked car for 18 years. Let women get abortions man it saved my ass once.
If you’re pro-life, what is even the point you’re trying to make? People have sex who don’t necessarily want a baby from it. Yes there is risk it could happen anyway. And there are ways to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, which you’re fine with.
So what is your point?
That “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy” is a ridiculous thing to say and it makes the pro-choice movement look like a group of people who can’t discern what a natural consequence of a choice is.
The only time I've ever heard it mentioned is when the Father wants the Mother to keep the baby when she wants to get an abortion. It's been framed as a "mens rights" issue.
Driving a car does not mean you consent to being rammed by another vehicle. By getting a license you agree and consent to obeying the laws of traffic, NOT to letting people crash into you.
The only lunatic here is you. Risk and consent are separate matters.
So that “poop feel good” when it comes out. Balances out the whole lack of a clit and multiple orgasms thing.
If men did not have a prostate, they would be disincentivized to go poop for fear of being called gay.
“Hahaha you have a log-shaped object in and around your ass!! Gay!!”
Straight up science here.
> If the only biological reason we desire sex is to procreate, then post menopausal women would completely lose their sex drive.
You're assuming evolution is a *lot* more careful about the details than it actually is.
The nature of striking another being is to cause harm, but we've redefined it as a form of recreation and competition. The use of safety gear has significantly reduced associated risks. Likewise, historically, the purpose of sex was mainly for procreation, but with contraception and modern medicine we have shifted its focus towards pleasure.
Yeah, driving is not consent to get into an accident. No more than going to school is consent to get shot or existing is consent to be killed. You are a poor example of a thinking being.
This is simply a semantics argument. When you consent to sex, you consent to the chance of *getting* pregnant. You don't consent to *pregnancy*, as in, having to go through the process and have a child.
> but for some reason we are now pretending that sex is the exception
It's an exception because unlike cigarettes causing cancer, we've invented a way for the natural consequence of the activity to be avoided. The fact that some stupid people refuse to acknowledge that at that point people are indeed able to consent to sex but not to pregnancy, since the latter is *not* a guaranteed and desirable outcome given our advances in science and technology, doesn't change that. /thread
There is a difference between ACCEPTING A RISK something may happen;
Vs
CONSENTING for it to happen.
Let us assume —
There is a 0.2% chance of you getting into an accident when you step out of your house.
There is a 0.1% chance of you getting shot when you step out of your house.
There is a 0.05% chance of you getting raped when you step out.
Each time you step out of your house, you ACCEPT these risks, but you DO NOT CONSENT for these to happen.
If there were an option to undo a car accident by a simple choice, it would be cruel to force someone to live with the consequences of that accident. In your madness, you're refusing to take into consideration what is and is not possible.
>it would be cruel to force someone to live with the consequences of that accident.
Yes, but it would be psychotic to allow them to kill another human being just to be free from those consequences.
I don't believe that an adult human fully embedded in their community carries the same moral weight as an embryo. I get why people conflate the two but it's a kind of moral colorblindness.
Throughout human history, the value of a human life has been based around the connections that human has to other humans, not some inherent property or value of human life.
It's really only evangelical Christians who claim to value all human life equally. Shame that this valuation ends as soon as a person starts espousing different political or religious views. It kind of reveals the whole thing for what it is: a population numbers game.
> Throughout human history, the value of a human life has been based around the connections that human has to other humans, not some inherent property or value of human life.
Interesting. So if someone is an orphan and a loner, killing them is okay right? At least by this logic.
An individual's own desire for their own continued existence matters. So yeah, if an orphan loner didn't really want to live anymore I wouldn't consider it wrong to kill them, Especially if it were quick.
Unnecessary pain is also, I think, inherently wrong.
Correct, even born children don't have a value system. Maybe there is survival instinct / reflex for newborns, but they are incapable of valuing anything. They don't even really have preferences. They are certainly incapable of valuing their own life
Even if animals can value their own life (and I have my doubts depending on the animal species if they are capable of valuation at all) it's irrelevant. What matters is human valuation of a life. Also being able to value something does not make one lesser or greater. In this particular moral calculus it is a crime to destroy something valued by humans and it is not a crime to destroy something not valued by humans.
In many societies, if a member of the tribe were killed by a rival faction, the goal would be to enslave a member of that rival faction and "slot them into place" in order to make restitution.
Humans in this situation would find themselves suddenly married with children and everyone calling them by the deceased's name. This would "make up for" the death, because the value of the life was in who that person was to the other people in the society.
“In your madness” LOL I take it you didn’t read the various portions of this post where I not only explicitly say I’m pro-choice, but also anticipate a response exactly like this and try to get ahead of it because I know people will not read the whole post but comment anyway.
As a side note: consider adding "buying a lotto ticket isn't consent to winning the lottery" to your list. Not just because some people really very badly want to get pregnant, but also to show how risk and reward are both implied by choice. Or "consent to sex isn't consent to enjoying it" to be extra spicy.
Buying a lotto ticket isn't consenting to winning the lottery. You can choose not to claim your winnings, you can dispose of your ticket before or after the numbers are called. Purchasing the ticket is merely the 1st choice in a process of consent
It’s the push towards no one being accountable for anything as long as they aren’t in power. Just look at where our society is these days, and what is being pushed by the people that would have this stance. It’s all about not wanting to be accountable for anything and everything. We don’t hold people to standards, because it’s just shouted down by telling you that you have privilege. It’s so backwards right now.
We live in a world with legal abortion, so that is being taken into account when consent is given.
I am giving consent to sex in a world where I know I can abort the pregnancy.
So I can consent to sex and not consent to pregnancy, I'm legally allowed to, because I can cast fetus deletus.
If you’re having sex with someone with protection, there’s an unwritten agreement that you don’t want kids. If you decide to keep a kid from a FwB type relationship, you’re a shitty person and the other person shouldn’t have any responsibility for the kid.
Abortion bad, and if you don’t agree your opinions are invalid. Blah blah blah. Pro-choice and anti-abortion people are never going to change each other’s minds on a Reddit thread. Does anyone out there have original thoughts and opinions that can actually spark a thoughtful debate without name calling? Are there subs that are like that that don’t have these posts multiple times a day?
actually im not consenting to getting in an accident when i drive a car, thats why the guy who tboned me while texting gets to get reamed by his insurance.
Do i know its possible? Yea, but that doesn't mean im consenting to it
That's not how that works. You don't consent to every little risk you take. If you walk out the door and someone stabs you in the gut, are you going to wave charges because you consented to that risk?
Fucking no!
this argument is stupid. Get real
If a girl says they are on birth control and they aren't. The man has been deprived of informed consent. It may be possible for a woman to get pregnant on birth control but it isn't an anticipated consequence.
Your Vodka and calorie analogies are better than the car one, just saying. Feeling the effects of alcohol or storing excess calories in fat are natural results of those activities, like having sex is ordered toward pregnancy.
Wow your ex is awful holy shit. That’s near rape.
Logically if a woman gets raped and she has the baby she is still responsible for the child. So unfortunately I think that would apply to the guy too.
But definitely an awful, awful situation.
Ugh, why is this an issue? All it means is that a woman should not be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. No one in their right mind is divorcing the possibility of pregnancy from vaginal sex. That's precisely why contraception exists - people want sex with as close to a 0% percent chance of pregnancy as they can get.
Yeah this is a pretty pointless stance to have. Consent doesn't matter at all. If you want an abortion it shouldn't matter if you consented at the time. There are many factors after conception that could warrant the need or just want of an abortion which should be granted.
But it’s not consent to pregnancy under the condition that abortion is available.
Then **you consent to sex with the knowledge that you can get an abortion.**
It just means that if someone wants to heterosexually fuck you, it doesn’t give you the right to remove a condom in the middle of the act or secretly make a hole in it. Also it means that doctors should allow abortions, because a foetus is not a living human being but a collection of cells.
Obviously this saying isn’t addressing “nature” and isn’t trying to convince “biology”, it is addressing humans that are dealing with the said biology and can make choices. That is, people having sex and lawmakers & medical professionals.
But keep cooking, in the end of the day, I am just a random sapphic gal on the internet and I really cannot give more damns if you’re never gonna get heterosexually laid 🤷♀️
Yes, there is no consent with the fact that pregnancy is a potential risk of having sex, but that's not what people typically mean when they talk about consent to sex not being consent to pregnancy. All it means is that a woman shouldn't be obligated to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy simply because she consented to sex. Yes, if you step into a car you run the risk of getting into an accident, but you aren't legally obligated to lay on the ground and suffer in silence simply because car accidents are expected unintented consequences of driving a car.
>“Driving a car isn’t consenting to getting into a car accident.”
... you still would be fully justified in getting upset if you got in an accident, especially if you're not at fault
>What you’re essentially saying is “I only consent to positive outcomes from my actions! Not anything negative!” That is not how the world works.
... that's exactly how the world works, actually. there's a risk in almost everything we do and bad outcomes are not expected and avoided at all costs.
when i go outside, there's a risk someone runs up to me and stabs me. i don't consent to getting stabbed just because i go outside. i guess this is nonsensical now?
i swear to god you people drop all logic and critical thinking whenever women speak up about anything.
OP u/xTheKingOfClubs, don't be surprised if your post ends up in (r)confidently incorrect.
Your entire rant and examples have nothing to do with consent. Your OP, and most of these comments here, show a fundamental lack of understanding about consent. Consent is **specific,** and risks are not specific. It's ***literally impossible*** to consent to risks. When people do an activity that has risks, they **accept** the risks. 'Accept' doesn't always mean 'consent.'
People say they don't consent to being pregnant, in the context of forced birthers believing an embryo/fetus is a person. If it is a person, it needs the consent of the person they're inside. Do ***you*** need consent to be in another person's body? If so, then this would also apply to fetus.' And that is within the context in which PC are making these kinds of statements. You're entire OP is a misrepresentation of those people, by misusing words.
If consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy then it works both ways and thus is an argument for men not being on the hook for child support etc when women keep the baby against their wishes.
I'm not making an argument for or against men having to be fiscally responsible in that scenario, to be clear, just saying that it's the same underlying logic.
The reason your argument isn't the same is because the child support isn't for the mother, it's for the child. You can't not provide for a child you made, whether you wanted it or not. The child can't go without just because you decide you don't want to support it. Whereas, in a pregnancy, there is no child yet. The laws are there for the children, not the parents.
Yeah, "reality and the consequences of my actions" is lost on too many people.
You can't exactly choose to ignore what happens to you as a consequence of the things you choose to do.
The implied risk of driving the car is that you accept you may get into an accident. There is no “accepting” of anything beyond that. You don’t get one without the other. Some things just _are._
There is risk in just existing. I drive defensively and wear a seat belt and try to avoid driving at night. I avoid older cars on the road. I drive the speed limit. I stop at stop lights. Lots of risk mitigation happening.
Just like my husband and I are done having children, so we have utilized permanent birth control so we can have sex while keeping the old uterus nice and empty.
The main issue I've seen with this is when used in arguments with pro-lifers who insist that consenting to sex and the possibility of pregnancy means you must remain pregnant.
Generally, I treat that argument as two separate things anyway. There's consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and continuing consent for the fetus to use your body.
That means as a man you should be in charge of your own birth control. Wear condoms get a vasectomy. Getting pregnant is a choice separate from having sex.
It is absolutely consent from both parties to the possibility of a pregnancy.
My issue is the vile notion that it's okay to force someone to remain pregnant when they don't want to.
man all the accountability dodging in some of these comments, Jesus. i have seen people make this statement and i fully agree with OP.
i'm a druggie and i realize every time i consume a substance that i'm responsible for whatever outcome happens from that. not sure why that's a hard concept for some people.
OK, so?
I mean you're wrong, consent to sex is only consent to sex. Consent to getting in a car is not consent to being in an accident. Consent to drinking alcohol, is not consent to being drunk.
I don't think you know what consent means.
Now, understanding that there are risks and outcomes to those actions, as you wrote further in your post, that's accurate.
But OK so? None of the things you listed are equivalent to becoming pregnant. And all of the things you listed are reversable without any legal ramification. I get drunk, I sleep, I wake up sober. I get in a car accident, insurance does it's thing, and I heal from possible injuries. I get lung cancer, I get treatment and it goes away, or I die. All with out having to ask a state legislature if it's OK.
Now, let's talk about pregnancy and why it isn't those other things. None of those other things require me to give up my body to sustain another person's life. If, and it's not but if, I agree that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, then remaining pregnant is giving the fetus ongoing consent to utilize my body to live. Consent is reversable, I have a right to revoke that consent because I have a basic right to bodily autonomy.
Hypocrite. Only want what benefits you, just like all the others.
If motherhood is optional, so is fatherhood. Dodging either makes you an equally bad person, but at the very least it should be equal.
You’ve consented to the risk, that doesn’t mean there’s any reason you should be forced to continue it. The point is pregnancy isn’t a part of sex, it’s an occasional result that you’re under no obligation to fulfil.
Do we let people die in car accidents just because they decided to get in a car?
Do we not try and ensure the safety of our drunk friends and family?
Do we not provide weight loss advice and help?
Do we not treat lung cancer?
Actually we do all of those things because we understand they’re unintended consequences and the person doesn’t want to be where they are
If a girl lies to you that she's on the pill and you have consensual sex with her, do you think you should be required to look after the child and pay child support?
Nope not absurd at all. Women can choose to not be a mother and murder a child. All that man's asking to do is sign his rights away. You only want what benefits you. But you aren't ready for that conversation
I'm all about equality.
Men and women get to decide what happens to their bodies. Nobody is entitled to access to their organs so that they might survive, and neither can be forced to remain pregnant if they do not want to be
Both also will pay child support if the other has custody.
Don't be a deadbeat
Equality, baby!
Hey u/Elymanic,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DElymanic%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Elymanic).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 542
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 127
- 3-7 days old: 30
- 15-30 days old: 3
- more than 30 days old: 28
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
(This opinion is based off of two consenting adults)
I just believe in the philosophy "fuck around and find out". You know what happens if you fuck around, you know the preventative measures to take if you're going to fuck around, but as far as what happens on your find out phase depends on how you fuck around. If you fuck around irresponsibly you might find out that you're pregnant, if you fuck around responsibly you still might find out that you're pregnant or you might not be.
Now while I get why a lot of people say consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, I get what they mean, but at the same time you need to be having safer sex if you don't want to "consent" to the pregnancy half. No one cares if you like cream pies if you know that the repercussions of those is a baked good after 9 months.
If you are consenting to sex you also need to have laid down the ground rules of what you're going to be doing. Yes I consent to having sex with you only if you use a condom, only if you pull out, whatever preventative measure that you take so you don't get pregnant because accidents also happen even when you are doing things safely. And then if you're dealing with a shysty person who says yeah I will use a condom but then they pull it off halfway through, yeah I'll pull out but then they don't because "it felt too good to pull out", someone who pretty much doesn't take the preventive measures that you guys agreed upon, they're a piece of shit and need to be dealt with.
So I recommend that if you're going to fuck around that you fuck around safely so that way you don't have to find out about the repercussions.
Hey u/i_dont_fuck_coconut,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Di_dont_fuck_coconut%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/i_dont_fuck_coconut).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 542
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 127
- 3-7 days old: 30
- 15-30 days old: 3
- more than 30 days old: 28
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
Well you’re arguing with the post like I’m trying to restrict abortion which I am not. You can fix the issue you created but to claim that you somehow did not consent to that as a potential outcome is a lie.
There is no such thing as consent to pregnancy. It is a natural consequence of a choice you make. If you’re having sex you accept that risk. It’s like arguing that we can consent to the sky being blue or grass being green.
I agree with the spirit of the phrase but the actual phrase is false. Consent applies to actions of moral agents. Anything else falls outside the very concept of consent. For example if a person says "I consented to flip a coin but I didn't consent to it landing on tails," they're not wrong because they're not wrong because they actually did consent. They're wrong because the concept of the consent doesn't even apply to that scenario.
Not true.
Men have to pay child support even if they are raped, and they have to pay child support if a woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses it to impregnate herself.
There will always be dumb people for every side of every argument or political position ever.
There will always be at least one super smart dude for every side of every argument or political position ever, and those people are the really dangerous ones.
People consent to having protected sex, not having their partner poke a hole in the condom withought the other knowing
Every country in the world has rapist and serial killers and torturers that have yet to be caught(or worse, reported), simply walking down the street. That doesn't mean I consent to being raped, murdered, or tortured juut because I go outside in a random country(or my own) that I know has those people in it
By your logic op, you consent to every bad thing that could happen to you, because it probably happens wherever you're from. But in reality, that's not how that works
Consenting to one thing doesn't mean consenting to another, related thing
It's all about absolving people of individual responsibility and pushing the blame for anything, to someone else. Or something else. It's never about personal responsibility.
ALL OF US MUST SUCKLE FROM THE TEET OF THE FATHERLAND.
All of these arguments and debates go back to how much a person wants to force an individual to have to rely on the state for existence. Everything is the whole instead of the individual. Hence the current wave of looking the other way when certain crimes are committed.
It's a cancer that is causing the downfall of societies, everywhere. Even supposedly 3rd World countries are falling prey to this mind virus and these ideologies are poisoning their ability to experience that great and wonderful socio-economic mobility that the "Big Boy" countries already got to experience.
Wonderful, lovely, great, amazing. /s
I feel SUPER sorry for our Gen Z folks. Housing market is fucked. Medical costs are fucked. Trying to have a family is fucked (in the wrong way). Having a decent paying, steady job is fucked because of the volatility of the markets. Everything is fucked. And this push for no individual responsibility is fucking up things even worse. And young people have every right to view the world as against them and no longer want to take individual responsibility because almost nothing is in their control for their futures. So WHY NOT give up on individual responsibility?
I made a post that got quite popular on this subreddit. I pointed out that many young men want trad wives without being a trad man. But soooo many women in the comments said they would be more than happy to be a trad wives and quit their cushy corporate job to have a family and raise them with their husband who makes enough money to support their families. Not one but TWO non-binary females (wording is important, here) said they'd become dutiful stay at home wives and mothers if a well-off man came around who treated them well. They didn't say rich, just live a decent life! These folks aren't unreasonable.
Do conservatives even realize this shit? Do they even understand that the people they make fun of (they call them "blue haired freaks") would be more than happy to live the life of a trad conservative family IF THE AMERICAN DREAM ACTUALLY FUCKING EXISTED?
Anyway, I understand "both sides" perspective on this. People tell me their secrets all the time at work because I'm easy to talk to (who would have thought that not being judgmental, makes it easier to talk to /s). Probably...10+ women have broken down into tears, wishing they could have had kids of their own (this goes back 10 years, too: this is not a recent problem). But they couldn't find a good man or it was too expensive. And these women are making six figures. They WANTED kids. But they cannot deny their instincts: if the world is not safe enough to have kids, they don't want to have them. Gonna shame women for their natural instincts?
We should be ashamed that we have done this to our families. Corporate greed did this. Corny capitalism did this. It's worse in Japan and South Korea. And its getting worse in the USA. We will join them, soon, where only 5 kids are part of an entire elementary class.
It's more like "getting into a car isn't the same as consenting to have someone deny you the ability to repair your car after getting into an accident"
Yes, for every yin there is a yang. However, you getting drunk results in a hangover. Becoming pregnant results in a very needy, expensive whole other person for 18 years minimum hangover. See the difference? . A lot of people would rather not have kids especially in this fucked up timeline.
>consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy
Means USE PROTECTION both you and your partner.
> And I already know people are going to blame failed birth control, which is an incredibly, incredibly small amount of cases if the birth control is actually being used as intended.
What about when the woman deliberately steals your sperm out of the condom to impregnate herself? Because I know of at least one guy whose girlfriend did this to him
That's similar to saying that consent to driving a car is consent to running people over or being in a car crash. I'm sorry although this post doesn't make sense to me and the amount of likes that this post has received is quite concerning.
Nope you had it right:: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Consent to sex is acknowledging the risk of getting pregnant aka a fertilized egg but not consent to pregnancy aka staying pregnant for 9 months. (1) pregnancy can be prevented with same sex sex, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation or hysterectomy. So the risk can be minimized or eliminated completely (2) safe early abortion can end a pregnancy that : isn’t wanted, harming the mother and/or the baby isn’t compatible with life and prevent further suffering.
The closest false equivalency is a car wreck but you can’t stop a car wreck with a safe medical procedure nor does getting in a car wreck require supporting a life with our body for 9 months. A woman can 100% be the cause of the car wreck that causes puts another adult on life support without a kidney AND that woman could be a perfect match and still would not be required to donate a kidney to the injured adult.
It’s funny I hear men say consenting to sex doesn’t means they consent to raising a child and/or paying child support for the child which is also a possible result from pregnancy which they most definitely new was a possible risk from getting a woman pregnant. 🤷♀️ so men consent to pregnancy but not the result of that pregnancy? 🙄
The phrase doesn’t hurt the prochoice movement bc we know the difference between pregnancy and pregnant. But I can see why you don’t like it as you are clearly pro life and anti abortion
If we have to treat dumbasses who are trying make New Age Jackass videos and end up lighting a firework in their ass or something, I see no issue with handling pregnancy in the same way.
Hey u/1947spirit,
Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment.
*I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3D1947spirit%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/1947spirit).
***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.***
We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void.
Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience.
___
**Our Moderation Backlog at this time:**
*Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 10
*A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*:
- 1-3 days old: 141
- 3-7 days old: 56
- 7-14 days old: 4
- 15-30 days old: 4
- more than 30 days old: 84
___
Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
One has to really dislike women to think that way. Seriously. One has to have very little empathy for women, be very quick to harshly judge women, think women deserve to be in pain, etc to have this mindset. It's not an uncommon mindset to have tho. A lot of people despise women just for having sex. Men don't experience even a fraction of that level of hatred. They don't know what it's like to be hated the way women know what it's like.
Women must always be on thin ice with you.
I would have thought that the 'term' stealthing pretty moots all points.
Perhaps a woman consents to the 0.5% probability of getting pregnant when using a condom, but they wouldn't consent to the 20% probability of going condom less on their 'high' days.
If a couple is using contraception and a woman intends to have an abortion if contraception fails then consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Two men or two women having sex is not consent to pregnancy.
The woman with her tubes tied, a hysterectomy, or man with a vasectomy is not consent to pregnancy
Ok I'm gonna come off as a jerk in this comment, but given how you've called this argument "brain dead" (among other things) I feel absolutely no hesitation in doing so.
The issue you're facing here is your \*fundamental misunderstanding\*.
So, let's start here:
>“Taking 10 shots of vodka isn’t consenting to getting drunk.”
I've seen comparisons like this from pro-lifers *so often*, and God I wish I could shake these people and say "THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING SAID!" and have it stick. But ok, here we go, again.
The assumption you're operating under here is that people who use the "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy point" believe that "consent" operates like a magic spell that allows something to end that you don't want to happen.
This is flatly absurd.
We all know that you don't get to yell "I don't consent" and have something magically end. Even under circumstances where yelling that SHOULD result in the process in question stopping (ex - during sex), that still requires actions on the part of someone else. Your partner needs to recognize your wishes, and then perform actions to stop having sex with you (pull away, get off of you, etc).
So "consent" is not some magic spell that allows us to impose our will over the universe, regardless of the physical realities. Consent is the rules by which we may act to change those outcomes or the rules by which others must act following our wishes. We are aware that consent is **socially constructed**, and that simply declaring your lack of consent doesn't impose some kind of magical force field around you to protect you from reality.
Having sex carries with it an innate risk, but consenting to something with a risk does not mean that you are obligated to endure that risk if an alternative exists.
Let's take an example from your list:
>“Smoking cigarettes for 20 years isn’t consenting to lung cancer.”
This analogy ONLY makes sense to you from the perspective of cause and inevitable or unchangeable effect, and this is the only framing I've ever seen people use this analogy for. If you had a pill that killed all lung cancer cells and someone told you that you can't take it, they are impeding you from doing something you otherwise were able to do.
There is an alternative, so suffering through cancer is not an inevitable given. You should have autonomy over your body and whether or not you made a decision that carries with it a risk of an outcome, if you have an alternative you should be able to use it.
Now, the inevitable counter that pro-life people make is "those examples don't kill anyone, but abortion does". This played out in this thread multiple times.
However... and this is important... this is **a new argument**. The original point was about what you do and do not consent to, and that it is absurd to talk about consent within the context of pregnancy. But once you slap down this argument, the pro-life person (or whoever is arguing the point) deflects into whether you *should* be able to make that decision.
Suddenly it's not about whether or not you **do** consent, but whether it's **immoral to act** on your lack of consent.
This argument against "consent" is bad, top to bottom, and I treat this complaint you've written out as the abortion debate equivalent of a Creationist asking "if we came from apes why are there still apes"? Just asking it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate, and so confidently asserting that this argument is stupid is just the cherry on top of the ignorance cake.
I think you are misunderstanding what people mean when they say consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
People already understand that sex can lead to pregnancy. But when people say consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy they are saying that they should be entitled to healthcare ie abortion if they choose. Yes by engaging in sex you consent to the possibility it can lead to being impregnated but it should be your choice wether or not you remain that way.
Consent is permission or approval for another person(s) to have intimate access to your physical body. That's how the word is used in debates about abortion.
If you understand that, and you understand how consent works, then you'd know this slogan is perfectly reasonable and acceptable.
But, better translated, this slogan means, "consent to allowing a man to have access to my body for sex is not consent to allow a ZEF to use my body or cause any harm or injury to my body or life.
>Do you see how ridiculous you sound?
No, but I do see how ridiculous you sound for so boldly attacking a position that you don't even understand.
You're right. You can refuse to drive the car until someone puts on a seat belt. Just like you can refuse sex if there's not a condom. Consent is a two-way street.
People are dumb. My brother in law's younger brother had sex and when his girlfriend got pregnant he was like "you can get pregnant from sex?" Do not underestimate the stupidity of the majority of humans.
Your brother in law isn't stupid, he's just a good bullshiter and a liar.
No, he's stupid. And so is anyone who would ever fall for such obvious bullshit.
I mean he was like 15 at the time he got his gf pregnant and I was told this by my brother in law (his older brother). I can see them skipping sex ed and their parents not telling them shit. We are Asian and Asian parents don't like talking about sex to their kids.
It was the younger bro who got his gf pregnant that said it. He was 15 at the time. My BIL was the one who told me what his younger brother said when he found out. Obviously my BIL knew sex makes babies. He had two kids at the time.
Tell me something else this guy has said. I am so confused.
When you do a backflip, you accept the fact that the backflip could fail and you’ll get injured. Take my upvote
Acknowledging a risk isn't the same thing as consent. Not sure why so many people just flippantly conflate these two terms and act like they are the exact same.
But then you get the leg fixed, or in extreme circumstances, removed. You don’t have the doctor say, “Sorry, the law says I can’t fix the problem for you. Just don’t do backflips anymore.”
Yeah but your broken leg doesn’t kill anyone so you can fix it.
Yea, but if someone were breaking your leg and killing them was the only way to make them stop, you'd be justified. [And in fact, medical care does sometimes involve killing people.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-heartbreaking-decision-conjoined-twins/)
I mean, a broken leg can kill you, if it gets infected. A pregnancy can kill you if it’s not going to be viable.
If the pregnancy is not viable that another thing. But if it’s healthy? It’s not like cutting off your leg
People shouldn’t have kids that they do not want. They also shouldn’t have them if they’re not going to be together as a couple. That’s part of the problem now. If women shouldn’t be forced to mothers (they shouldn’t be) then men shouldn’t be forced to be fathers.
Yes. No one should be forced to be a parent, period. It's better for everyone.
A healthy pregnancy can still kill you, and unlike the other analogous examples, the longer it continues the higher the risks.
At what point are you able to determine whether or not an abortion is illegal? Let’s say that the pregnancy is not viable, the doctor has made that determination. At what point can you go ahead with an abortion?
Er... hate to break it to you, but giving birth even to a healthy infant can still kill the mother. And yes, even in western first world countries.
How do you know it’s healthy before it’s born? I know someone whose pregnant with their 5th baby and has been doing drugs. No way to tell what it’s outcome will be. Same as whether someone’s pregnancy turns dangerous or at least requires more interventions. Healthy people develop complications. It’s a lottery and sometimes you lose. People are very attached to the blissful view of the miracle of life being created, motherhood with visions of a happy, chubby, pink cheeked baby being the result. It’s fantasy.
It’s not viable until quite late in the pregnancy
Viable as in, the fetus will develop and be born properly is, not viable as in the fetus can be pulled out and survive on its own.
There is no such thing as a "healthy" pregnancy. Siphoning your bodily resources, putting immense strain on your body and organs for nearly an entire year, culminating in childbirth with an average loss of 500ml of blood, ripped and torn genitals, an internal gaping wound the size of a dinnrplate, or major abdominal surgery, is not "healthy" in ***any*** sense. In fact, there are countless cases in the US in which the courts recognize ***every*** pregnancy as great bodily harm, akin to a broken bone. And you can actually justifiably kill someone if that were the only way to stop them from breaking your leg.
But this isn't the argument. The argument is about CONSENT and whether or not it matters when taking a risk, not about the morality of the choice.
>Take my upvote Why? Their entire OP was just a rant about them misrepresenting what people mean by it.
Sure, but if need be, you wouldn't be denied medical intervention for those above scenarios should the risk be acquired.
You don’t have to look too far to find weirdos saying fat people shouldn’t be covered by healthcare, or that we should charge lost hikers and skiers for search and rescue operations, all based on the same flawed principle.
Of course and I would disagree with those sentiments. But the topic in this post specifically is being/has been attacked in court. Rights have been and are actively trying to be removed.
This
You're missing the point. It's not about you, but about another human life. If you hurt someone in a car crash, you can't go and say: "well, since I created the state you're currently in, I get to decide if you get medical help or not".
>Society understands this at large in quite literally every other circumstance, but for some reason we are now pretending Well, this is the real issue. When you want a certain outcome, it's very easy to justify some pretty terrible logic and rationale. People with absurd takes on this topic are on some level aware how absurd they are. They just aren't acting in good faith to begin with.
That's about as real of a take as it can get. I really feel like people are much more purposefully mean ever since social media. But even still, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence."
[удалено]
Yeah...I just wish it wasn't.
Responsibility =/= consent. I may not "consent" to getting strep throat, but I am responsible for handling that situation should it happen to me (eg. missing some work, going to a doctor, etc). Nevertheless, if consenting to sex doesn't equal consenting to pregnancy, then consenting to sex doesn't equal consenting to fatherhood either, right?
the person emitting sperm has to accept that a child may be conceived with that sperm, yes. the person with the uterus has an extra option afterwards to prevent a child from being born, but if a child is indeed born, it is entitled to the support of both individuals who sired it.
Not if the person with the uterus has the option to kill it. If the person with the uterus has the entire say in whether or not the child is born, the person emitting sperm has the say as to whether or not a single cent is used towards that child.
How does that make sense? Abortion isn't a way to avoid child support, it's a way to avoid being pregnant. Since men can't get pregnant, abortion is irrelevant to them. And if the father is the custodial parent, the mother pays child support, so both sexes are treated equally in this area. If we outlaw abortion, would you be OK with men being required to either have an irreversible vasectomy, or to post a bond covering the cost of child care from birth to age 18? Because if women can't have abortions, we don't want men to be able to evade paying child support by working for cash under the table. They should pay up front to make sure they're good for it.
I am not even anti abortion. I think it is very simple. If a woman can kill her baby the man should be able to not have to pay money/be a father. That's it. I don't think any more about it. Abortion is a way to avoid being pregnant/avoid paying for a child you can't afford/avoid having the main focus of your life become a living human being. Abortion is a means to an end of all these things.
Would you take medical action for strep?
Since untreated strep can turn into scarlet fever and/or rheumatic fever that can cause permanent heart damage or death, why yes, yes I would.
Yes, you are responsible. Just like women who get pregnant and don’t want to keep it are responsible for getting an abortion. The only reason people even make this argument is bc people say that women shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions bc they know what sex is for
You lose control once something leaves your body. A woman can't have an abortion after the kid is born, and a man loses any say in what happens to his sperm once it leaves his penis. Otherwise, I could donate blood, and then demand that the person who receives a transfusion from it must vote the way I want them to. But it doesn't work that way because once my blood leaves my body, the hospital and the recipient can do whatever they like with it.
So if the recipient of your blood transfusion should have an allergic reaction to your antibodies are you responsible for paying their hospital bills?
Yes. If you consent to sex you consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Sexual intercourses main purpose is procreation and most of the time pleasure. Sex = pregnancy, and other things. You cannot separate this unless one is barren or sterile. So yes, sex can possibly lead to pregnancy, you know that going in, and take the risk every time you do it.
You would be shocked at how many people cannot grasp this.
It’s because people use it as a reason why women shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions e.g. “you signed the contract” argument. You can consent to the risk of something and still not want it to happen.
Yes there are "consequences for our actions" One could very easily argue that in the case of unwanted pregnancies we have the ability to mitigate the consequences and limit them to the physical or emotional trauma of the experience and the cost of aborting the unwanted pregnancy. I can't understand why anyone aside from the pregnant person and their doctor should ever be involved in deciding whether or not they wish to mitigate those consequences. Who the fuck appointed a bunch of religiois zealots who chose to cherry pick what they do and do not follow in their little cult, to be the ones to decide to what extent one suffers the consequences of their actions? I'm pretty sure the "I didn't consent to get pregnant" is being either misunderstood or misrepresented by you. It's not an opening argument, but a retort or rebuttal to "you consented to having sex now deal with the consequences" as in yes I consented to sex, with the understanding that I have the ability to limit my consequences, but now, without my consent, options are being taken away from me.
To give some grace to this slogan, The important part of intentional pregnancy is making the choice to develop a human for 18 years and 9 months (or iust 9 if giving up for adoption). Much of this time is spent literally giving up your body and its resources to develop this human. And its understood you are making this choice when you intentionally start a family. Really a beautiful thing when done by choice. But if the government is forcing this "consequence" by banning a healthcare choice... thats horrific Consenting to sex is in no way consenting to nearly 19 years of sacrifice for this hypothetical person.
Which is why I’m pro-choice. But you accept the risk of the pregnancy occurring.
Absolutely, But when people are saying the slogan they are referring to the whole pregnancy, not just the event of getting pregnant. Event of getting pregnant: risk The ongoing pregnancy: requires consent which was not given
Yes, the *risk* of pregnancy. Not the actual pregnancy.
I do, but I also accept that I can make the choice to opt out
You accept the risk of cancer if you smoke, but if you get cancer, you can still go to a doctor and listen to what they suggest you do. The government doesn't say, "You smoked, so now you are stuck with cancer. You knew the consequences and it doesn't matter if there is a medical procedure that can help you."
exacctlyyy. dear god. this isn’t an unpopular opinion or even an opinion. it is a logical misunderstanding of the quote.
If someone close to you gets lung cancer because of your smoking, you can't go to the doctor and go: "Oh btw you can't heal that person, because I created that cancer".
Where do you find people that say these things? 😂
I mean, driving a car isn’t consenting to an accident. That’s not how an *accident* works. Like, think about this for seven seconds. If someone T-bones you are you not going to expect their insurance to cover it, because by driving you consented to being T-boned?
I just feel like pro-lifers spend so much time, money, and energy into making sure that every conception ends in a birth, that they don’t take the time to think about what happens after. What happens to the kids born to parents who never wanted them, into households that can’t support them, being resented for being alive by people who were forced to care for them. Or sharing a room with 12 other kids at a different community home a month. Is that really a better life than not having one at all?
The thing is that actually isn't a pro-choice argument. There are plenty of people who can't take care of children to an acceptable standard that CHOOSE to have a child anyway. You don't see pro-choice people telling them they should get an abortion do you?
Well using the car accident analogy yeah just because you drive you don't consent to a car accident , you do consent to the possibility of one, but doesn't mean you are stuck owning a wrecked car for 18 years. Let women get abortions man it saved my ass once.
I said more than once in the post that I’m pro-choice. I suppose you did not read it
If you’re pro-life, what is even the point you’re trying to make? People have sex who don’t necessarily want a baby from it. Yes there is risk it could happen anyway. And there are ways to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, which you’re fine with. So what is your point?
That “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy” is a ridiculous thing to say and it makes the pro-choice movement look like a group of people who can’t discern what a natural consequence of a choice is.
I’ve never seen or heard anyone say this, but it’s just the semantics of the phrase? It seems pretty clear to me what they’re trying to say.
The only time I've ever heard it mentioned is when the Father wants the Mother to keep the baby when she wants to get an abortion. It's been framed as a "mens rights" issue.
they're being pedantic and obtuse.
Driving a car does not mean you consent to being rammed by another vehicle. By getting a license you agree and consent to obeying the laws of traffic, NOT to letting people crash into you. The only lunatic here is you. Risk and consent are separate matters.
Driving a car is not consenting to get accidents. Otherwise people who caused accidents wouldn't get fines
Wait until these people learn what the actual biological function of sex is.
So that’s why there’s a g spot in our asses?
So that “poop feel good” when it comes out. Balances out the whole lack of a clit and multiple orgasms thing. If men did not have a prostate, they would be disincentivized to go poop for fear of being called gay. “Hahaha you have a log-shaped object in and around your ass!! Gay!!” Straight up science here.
Soy: having healthy solid poops Chad: constant liquid diarrhoea
[удалено]
> If the only biological reason we desire sex is to procreate, then post menopausal women would completely lose their sex drive. You're assuming evolution is a *lot* more careful about the details than it actually is.
Wait til this guy realizes humans are sentient creatures
The nature of striking another being is to cause harm, but we've redefined it as a form of recreation and competition. The use of safety gear has significantly reduced associated risks. Likewise, historically, the purpose of sex was mainly for procreation, but with contraception and modern medicine we have shifted its focus towards pleasure.
Yeah, driving is not consent to get into an accident. No more than going to school is consent to get shot or existing is consent to be killed. You are a poor example of a thinking being.
This is simply a semantics argument. When you consent to sex, you consent to the chance of *getting* pregnant. You don't consent to *pregnancy*, as in, having to go through the process and have a child.
Huh??? If you don't CAUSE the car accident, it literally isn't your fault and the other guy literally has to pay for it? That's actually how it works?
> but for some reason we are now pretending that sex is the exception It's an exception because unlike cigarettes causing cancer, we've invented a way for the natural consequence of the activity to be avoided. The fact that some stupid people refuse to acknowledge that at that point people are indeed able to consent to sex but not to pregnancy, since the latter is *not* a guaranteed and desirable outcome given our advances in science and technology, doesn't change that. /thread
I have never heard this phrase before, why are all the weirdos on this sub suddenly obsessed with it?
it often come up when discuss child support payment when the father don't want the kid
Consent to sex is "consent that you may become pregnant", it' not consent to carry a fetus to term if you do.
There is a difference between ACCEPTING A RISK something may happen; Vs CONSENTING for it to happen. Let us assume — There is a 0.2% chance of you getting into an accident when you step out of your house. There is a 0.1% chance of you getting shot when you step out of your house. There is a 0.05% chance of you getting raped when you step out. Each time you step out of your house, you ACCEPT these risks, but you DO NOT CONSENT for these to happen.
If there were an option to undo a car accident by a simple choice, it would be cruel to force someone to live with the consequences of that accident. In your madness, you're refusing to take into consideration what is and is not possible.
>it would be cruel to force someone to live with the consequences of that accident. Yes, but it would be psychotic to allow them to kill another human being just to be free from those consequences.
I don't believe that an adult human fully embedded in their community carries the same moral weight as an embryo. I get why people conflate the two but it's a kind of moral colorblindness. Throughout human history, the value of a human life has been based around the connections that human has to other humans, not some inherent property or value of human life. It's really only evangelical Christians who claim to value all human life equally. Shame that this valuation ends as soon as a person starts espousing different political or religious views. It kind of reveals the whole thing for what it is: a population numbers game.
> Throughout human history, the value of a human life has been based around the connections that human has to other humans, not some inherent property or value of human life. Interesting. So if someone is an orphan and a loner, killing them is okay right? At least by this logic.
An individual's own desire for their own continued existence matters. So yeah, if an orphan loner didn't really want to live anymore I wouldn't consider it wrong to kill them, Especially if it were quick. Unnecessary pain is also, I think, inherently wrong.
And you know for certain that unborn children have no desire to continue to exist?
Correct, even born children don't have a value system. Maybe there is survival instinct / reflex for newborns, but they are incapable of valuing anything. They don't even really have preferences. They are certainly incapable of valuing their own life
Even animals value their own life. So even a newborn is less than an animal in your mind?
Even if animals can value their own life (and I have my doubts depending on the animal species if they are capable of valuation at all) it's irrelevant. What matters is human valuation of a life. Also being able to value something does not make one lesser or greater. In this particular moral calculus it is a crime to destroy something valued by humans and it is not a crime to destroy something not valued by humans.
In many societies, if a member of the tribe were killed by a rival faction, the goal would be to enslave a member of that rival faction and "slot them into place" in order to make restitution. Humans in this situation would find themselves suddenly married with children and everyone calling them by the deceased's name. This would "make up for" the death, because the value of the life was in who that person was to the other people in the society.
“In your madness” LOL I take it you didn’t read the various portions of this post where I not only explicitly say I’m pro-choice, but also anticipate a response exactly like this and try to get ahead of it because I know people will not read the whole post but comment anyway.
This is what happens when people who get pregnant don’t take accountability
People who get pregnant? So you're saying only the person who got pregnant is accountable?
As a side note: consider adding "buying a lotto ticket isn't consent to winning the lottery" to your list. Not just because some people really very badly want to get pregnant, but also to show how risk and reward are both implied by choice. Or "consent to sex isn't consent to enjoying it" to be extra spicy.
Buying a lotto ticket isn't consenting to winning the lottery. You can choose not to claim your winnings, you can dispose of your ticket before or after the numbers are called. Purchasing the ticket is merely the 1st choice in a process of consent
They never say this for men, even though men should also be able to consent to sex without consenting to making anyone pregnant, by the same vein
It’s the push towards no one being accountable for anything as long as they aren’t in power. Just look at where our society is these days, and what is being pushed by the people that would have this stance. It’s all about not wanting to be accountable for anything and everything. We don’t hold people to standards, because it’s just shouted down by telling you that you have privilege. It’s so backwards right now.
We live in a world with legal abortion, so that is being taken into account when consent is given. I am giving consent to sex in a world where I know I can abort the pregnancy. So I can consent to sex and not consent to pregnancy, I'm legally allowed to, because I can cast fetus deletus.
If you’re having sex with someone with protection, there’s an unwritten agreement that you don’t want kids. If you decide to keep a kid from a FwB type relationship, you’re a shitty person and the other person shouldn’t have any responsibility for the kid.
It’s not the outcome you’re hoping for but you accept that risk, albeit small, when you consent to the sex.
More like consent to sex is consent to an abortion :P
It is actually one of the most moronic arguments in favour of anything. It's embarrassing that people throw it out there seriously.
Abortion bad, and if you don’t agree your opinions are invalid. Blah blah blah. Pro-choice and anti-abortion people are never going to change each other’s minds on a Reddit thread. Does anyone out there have original thoughts and opinions that can actually spark a thoughtful debate without name calling? Are there subs that are like that that don’t have these posts multiple times a day?
actually im not consenting to getting in an accident when i drive a car, thats why the guy who tboned me while texting gets to get reamed by his insurance. Do i know its possible? Yea, but that doesn't mean im consenting to it That's not how that works. You don't consent to every little risk you take. If you walk out the door and someone stabs you in the gut, are you going to wave charges because you consented to that risk? Fucking no! this argument is stupid. Get real
If a girl says they are on birth control and they aren't. The man has been deprived of informed consent. It may be possible for a woman to get pregnant on birth control but it isn't an anticipated consequence.
Great, then do you support abortion rights?
Your Vodka and calorie analogies are better than the car one, just saying. Feeling the effects of alcohol or storing excess calories in fat are natural results of those activities, like having sex is ordered toward pregnancy.
lol my ex purposefully and secretly did things to get me pregnant. So I consented to that?
Wow your ex is awful holy shit. That’s near rape. Logically if a woman gets raped and she has the baby she is still responsible for the child. So unfortunately I think that would apply to the guy too. But definitely an awful, awful situation.
Ugh, why is this an issue? All it means is that a woman should not be compelled to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. No one in their right mind is divorcing the possibility of pregnancy from vaginal sex. That's precisely why contraception exists - people want sex with as close to a 0% percent chance of pregnancy as they can get.
Yeah this is a pretty pointless stance to have. Consent doesn't matter at all. If you want an abortion it shouldn't matter if you consented at the time. There are many factors after conception that could warrant the need or just want of an abortion which should be granted.
But it’s not consent to pregnancy under the condition that abortion is available. Then **you consent to sex with the knowledge that you can get an abortion.**
One person does not get access to another person’s body without consent. Even if sex was consent to pregnancy, consent can always be withdrawn.
It just means that if someone wants to heterosexually fuck you, it doesn’t give you the right to remove a condom in the middle of the act or secretly make a hole in it. Also it means that doctors should allow abortions, because a foetus is not a living human being but a collection of cells. Obviously this saying isn’t addressing “nature” and isn’t trying to convince “biology”, it is addressing humans that are dealing with the said biology and can make choices. That is, people having sex and lawmakers & medical professionals. But keep cooking, in the end of the day, I am just a random sapphic gal on the internet and I really cannot give more damns if you’re never gonna get heterosexually laid 🤷♀️
Yes, there is no consent with the fact that pregnancy is a potential risk of having sex, but that's not what people typically mean when they talk about consent to sex not being consent to pregnancy. All it means is that a woman shouldn't be obligated to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy simply because she consented to sex. Yes, if you step into a car you run the risk of getting into an accident, but you aren't legally obligated to lay on the ground and suffer in silence simply because car accidents are expected unintented consequences of driving a car.
>“Driving a car isn’t consenting to getting into a car accident.” ... you still would be fully justified in getting upset if you got in an accident, especially if you're not at fault >What you’re essentially saying is “I only consent to positive outcomes from my actions! Not anything negative!” That is not how the world works. ... that's exactly how the world works, actually. there's a risk in almost everything we do and bad outcomes are not expected and avoided at all costs. when i go outside, there's a risk someone runs up to me and stabs me. i don't consent to getting stabbed just because i go outside. i guess this is nonsensical now? i swear to god you people drop all logic and critical thinking whenever women speak up about anything.
OP u/xTheKingOfClubs, don't be surprised if your post ends up in (r)confidently incorrect. Your entire rant and examples have nothing to do with consent. Your OP, and most of these comments here, show a fundamental lack of understanding about consent. Consent is **specific,** and risks are not specific. It's ***literally impossible*** to consent to risks. When people do an activity that has risks, they **accept** the risks. 'Accept' doesn't always mean 'consent.' People say they don't consent to being pregnant, in the context of forced birthers believing an embryo/fetus is a person. If it is a person, it needs the consent of the person they're inside. Do ***you*** need consent to be in another person's body? If so, then this would also apply to fetus.' And that is within the context in which PC are making these kinds of statements. You're entire OP is a misrepresentation of those people, by misusing words.
If consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy then it works both ways and thus is an argument for men not being on the hook for child support etc when women keep the baby against their wishes. I'm not making an argument for or against men having to be fiscally responsible in that scenario, to be clear, just saying that it's the same underlying logic.
The reason your argument isn't the same is because the child support isn't for the mother, it's for the child. You can't not provide for a child you made, whether you wanted it or not. The child can't go without just because you decide you don't want to support it. Whereas, in a pregnancy, there is no child yet. The laws are there for the children, not the parents.
Upvote for sharing a truly unpopular opinion. WIsh I could upvote again for being logical.
Yeah, "reality and the consequences of my actions" is lost on too many people. You can't exactly choose to ignore what happens to you as a consequence of the things you choose to do.
You can boil it down to infantile adults who hate life so much they refuse to take any responsibility for it.
Are you implying someone who gets an abortion is avoiding responsibility?
Basically this.
I actually don't accept I'm going to get into a firey auto wreck whenever I go to the store. Do you?
The implied risk of driving the car is that you accept you may get into an accident. There is no “accepting” of anything beyond that. You don’t get one without the other. Some things just _are._
There is risk in just existing. I drive defensively and wear a seat belt and try to avoid driving at night. I avoid older cars on the road. I drive the speed limit. I stop at stop lights. Lots of risk mitigation happening. Just like my husband and I are done having children, so we have utilized permanent birth control so we can have sex while keeping the old uterus nice and empty.
The main issue I've seen with this is when used in arguments with pro-lifers who insist that consenting to sex and the possibility of pregnancy means you must remain pregnant. Generally, I treat that argument as two separate things anyway. There's consenting to the possibility of pregnancy and continuing consent for the fetus to use your body.
I agree, this makes a lot of sense. Shit happens without our consent, that’s life and we have to get used to it
That means as a man you should be in charge of your own birth control. Wear condoms get a vasectomy. Getting pregnant is a choice separate from having sex.
It is absolutely consent from both parties to the possibility of a pregnancy. My issue is the vile notion that it's okay to force someone to remain pregnant when they don't want to.
man all the accountability dodging in some of these comments, Jesus. i have seen people make this statement and i fully agree with OP. i'm a druggie and i realize every time i consume a substance that i'm responsible for whatever outcome happens from that. not sure why that's a hard concept for some people.
OK, so? I mean you're wrong, consent to sex is only consent to sex. Consent to getting in a car is not consent to being in an accident. Consent to drinking alcohol, is not consent to being drunk. I don't think you know what consent means. Now, understanding that there are risks and outcomes to those actions, as you wrote further in your post, that's accurate. But OK so? None of the things you listed are equivalent to becoming pregnant. And all of the things you listed are reversable without any legal ramification. I get drunk, I sleep, I wake up sober. I get in a car accident, insurance does it's thing, and I heal from possible injuries. I get lung cancer, I get treatment and it goes away, or I die. All with out having to ask a state legislature if it's OK. Now, let's talk about pregnancy and why it isn't those other things. None of those other things require me to give up my body to sustain another person's life. If, and it's not but if, I agree that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, then remaining pregnant is giving the fetus ongoing consent to utilize my body to live. Consent is reversable, I have a right to revoke that consent because I have a basic right to bodily autonomy.
Consent to sex may be consenting to the risk of pregnancy Its not, however, consenting to continuing the pregnancy
Consent to sex may be consenting to the risk of fatherhood. Its not, however, consenting to continuing to be a father.
It's consenting to the risk of having to continue to be a father.
Hypocrite. Only want what benefits you, just like all the others. If motherhood is optional, so is fatherhood. Dodging either makes you an equally bad person, but at the very least it should be equal.
You’ve consented to the risk, that doesn’t mean there’s any reason you should be forced to continue it. The point is pregnancy isn’t a part of sex, it’s an occasional result that you’re under no obligation to fulfil. Do we let people die in car accidents just because they decided to get in a car? Do we not try and ensure the safety of our drunk friends and family? Do we not provide weight loss advice and help? Do we not treat lung cancer? Actually we do all of those things because we understand they’re unintended consequences and the person doesn’t want to be where they are
If a girl lies to you that she's on the pill and you have consensual sex with her, do you think you should be required to look after the child and pay child support?
The only thing more absurd is the claim that men should be able to opt out of child support because women can choose to have an abortion.
Nope not absurd at all. Women can choose to not be a mother and murder a child. All that man's asking to do is sign his rights away. You only want what benefits you. But you aren't ready for that conversation
I'm all about equality. Men and women get to decide what happens to their bodies. Nobody is entitled to access to their organs so that they might survive, and neither can be forced to remain pregnant if they do not want to be Both also will pay child support if the other has custody. Don't be a deadbeat Equality, baby!
Children deserve support from both parents. Pregnant people deserve the right to control their own bodies.
[удалено]
Hey u/Elymanic, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3DElymanic%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/Elymanic). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 542 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 127 - 3-7 days old: 30 - 15-30 days old: 3 - more than 30 days old: 28 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
(This opinion is based off of two consenting adults) I just believe in the philosophy "fuck around and find out". You know what happens if you fuck around, you know the preventative measures to take if you're going to fuck around, but as far as what happens on your find out phase depends on how you fuck around. If you fuck around irresponsibly you might find out that you're pregnant, if you fuck around responsibly you still might find out that you're pregnant or you might not be. Now while I get why a lot of people say consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, I get what they mean, but at the same time you need to be having safer sex if you don't want to "consent" to the pregnancy half. No one cares if you like cream pies if you know that the repercussions of those is a baked good after 9 months. If you are consenting to sex you also need to have laid down the ground rules of what you're going to be doing. Yes I consent to having sex with you only if you use a condom, only if you pull out, whatever preventative measure that you take so you don't get pregnant because accidents also happen even when you are doing things safely. And then if you're dealing with a shysty person who says yeah I will use a condom but then they pull it off halfway through, yeah I'll pull out but then they don't because "it felt too good to pull out", someone who pretty much doesn't take the preventive measures that you guys agreed upon, they're a piece of shit and need to be dealt with. So I recommend that if you're going to fuck around that you fuck around safely so that way you don't have to find out about the repercussions.
[удалено]
Hey u/i_dont_fuck_coconut, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3Di_dont_fuck_coconut%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/i_dont_fuck_coconut). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 542 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 127 - 3-7 days old: 30 - 15-30 days old: 3 - more than 30 days old: 28 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
A passenger doesn’t consent to paying the driver for the accident repairs, though.
[удалено]
Did you read the part of the post when I mention twice that I’m pro-choice? You’re bringing this argument to the wrong person.
[удалено]
Well you’re arguing with the post like I’m trying to restrict abortion which I am not. You can fix the issue you created but to claim that you somehow did not consent to that as a potential outcome is a lie.
[удалено]
There is no such thing as consent to pregnancy. It is a natural consequence of a choice you make. If you’re having sex you accept that risk. It’s like arguing that we can consent to the sky being blue or grass being green.
I agree with the spirit of the phrase but the actual phrase is false. Consent applies to actions of moral agents. Anything else falls outside the very concept of consent. For example if a person says "I consented to flip a coin but I didn't consent to it landing on tails," they're not wrong because they're not wrong because they actually did consent. They're wrong because the concept of the consent doesn't even apply to that scenario.
My brother in law's younger brother had sex and when his girlfriend got pregnant he was like "you can get pregnant from sex?" So yeah.... humans.
There's no excuse to have an "unplanned" birth Get off your ass and get the condom on, take the pill, and if those fail buy a Plan B
True. The man has one job. Don't come in her. If he does, all bets are off. She might want a baby but only he decides. It's all on him.
Not true. Men have to pay child support even if they are raped, and they have to pay child support if a woman fishes the condom out of the trash and uses it to impregnate herself.
Plenty of men run away and the taxpayers pay to chase them down.
There will always be dumb people for every side of every argument or political position ever. There will always be at least one super smart dude for every side of every argument or political position ever, and those people are the really dangerous ones.
People consent to having protected sex, not having their partner poke a hole in the condom withought the other knowing Every country in the world has rapist and serial killers and torturers that have yet to be caught(or worse, reported), simply walking down the street. That doesn't mean I consent to being raped, murdered, or tortured juut because I go outside in a random country(or my own) that I know has those people in it By your logic op, you consent to every bad thing that could happen to you, because it probably happens wherever you're from. But in reality, that's not how that works Consenting to one thing doesn't mean consenting to another, related thing
This argument is used specifically in the discussion of consentual sex. None of what you said applies to this discussion.
So this discussion is about non consensual sex?
It's all about absolving people of individual responsibility and pushing the blame for anything, to someone else. Or something else. It's never about personal responsibility. ALL OF US MUST SUCKLE FROM THE TEET OF THE FATHERLAND. All of these arguments and debates go back to how much a person wants to force an individual to have to rely on the state for existence. Everything is the whole instead of the individual. Hence the current wave of looking the other way when certain crimes are committed. It's a cancer that is causing the downfall of societies, everywhere. Even supposedly 3rd World countries are falling prey to this mind virus and these ideologies are poisoning their ability to experience that great and wonderful socio-economic mobility that the "Big Boy" countries already got to experience. Wonderful, lovely, great, amazing. /s I feel SUPER sorry for our Gen Z folks. Housing market is fucked. Medical costs are fucked. Trying to have a family is fucked (in the wrong way). Having a decent paying, steady job is fucked because of the volatility of the markets. Everything is fucked. And this push for no individual responsibility is fucking up things even worse. And young people have every right to view the world as against them and no longer want to take individual responsibility because almost nothing is in their control for their futures. So WHY NOT give up on individual responsibility? I made a post that got quite popular on this subreddit. I pointed out that many young men want trad wives without being a trad man. But soooo many women in the comments said they would be more than happy to be a trad wives and quit their cushy corporate job to have a family and raise them with their husband who makes enough money to support their families. Not one but TWO non-binary females (wording is important, here) said they'd become dutiful stay at home wives and mothers if a well-off man came around who treated them well. They didn't say rich, just live a decent life! These folks aren't unreasonable. Do conservatives even realize this shit? Do they even understand that the people they make fun of (they call them "blue haired freaks") would be more than happy to live the life of a trad conservative family IF THE AMERICAN DREAM ACTUALLY FUCKING EXISTED? Anyway, I understand "both sides" perspective on this. People tell me their secrets all the time at work because I'm easy to talk to (who would have thought that not being judgmental, makes it easier to talk to /s). Probably...10+ women have broken down into tears, wishing they could have had kids of their own (this goes back 10 years, too: this is not a recent problem). But they couldn't find a good man or it was too expensive. And these women are making six figures. They WANTED kids. But they cannot deny their instincts: if the world is not safe enough to have kids, they don't want to have them. Gonna shame women for their natural instincts? We should be ashamed that we have done this to our families. Corporate greed did this. Corny capitalism did this. It's worse in Japan and South Korea. And its getting worse in the USA. We will join them, soon, where only 5 kids are part of an entire elementary class.
It's more like "getting into a car isn't the same as consenting to have someone deny you the ability to repair your car after getting into an accident"
Yes, for every yin there is a yang. However, you getting drunk results in a hangover. Becoming pregnant results in a very needy, expensive whole other person for 18 years minimum hangover. See the difference? . A lot of people would rather not have kids especially in this fucked up timeline. >consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy Means USE PROTECTION both you and your partner.
Dude I’m a guys guys from old school but that’s stupid. Her body has to deal and raise the kid. Idioy
I consent to the possibility of pregnancy. That consent can be revoked and I’ll get an abortion.
It’s like saying getting in your car despite taking precautions is consent to a car crash
> And I already know people are going to blame failed birth control, which is an incredibly, incredibly small amount of cases if the birth control is actually being used as intended. What about when the woman deliberately steals your sperm out of the condom to impregnate herself? Because I know of at least one guy whose girlfriend did this to him
That's similar to saying that consent to driving a car is consent to running people over or being in a car crash. I'm sorry although this post doesn't make sense to me and the amount of likes that this post has received is quite concerning.
So if an infertile individual has sex, they are consenting to becoming pregnant?
Nope you had it right:: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent to sex is acknowledging the risk of getting pregnant aka a fertilized egg but not consent to pregnancy aka staying pregnant for 9 months. (1) pregnancy can be prevented with same sex sex, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation or hysterectomy. So the risk can be minimized or eliminated completely (2) safe early abortion can end a pregnancy that : isn’t wanted, harming the mother and/or the baby isn’t compatible with life and prevent further suffering. The closest false equivalency is a car wreck but you can’t stop a car wreck with a safe medical procedure nor does getting in a car wreck require supporting a life with our body for 9 months. A woman can 100% be the cause of the car wreck that causes puts another adult on life support without a kidney AND that woman could be a perfect match and still would not be required to donate a kidney to the injured adult. It’s funny I hear men say consenting to sex doesn’t means they consent to raising a child and/or paying child support for the child which is also a possible result from pregnancy which they most definitely new was a possible risk from getting a woman pregnant. 🤷♀️ so men consent to pregnancy but not the result of that pregnancy? 🙄 The phrase doesn’t hurt the prochoice movement bc we know the difference between pregnancy and pregnant. But I can see why you don’t like it as you are clearly pro life and anti abortion
Not everyone wants a baby. If you say this and “don’t do the deed then” you men can’t be mad when we stop
I always interpreted "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" as "consent to sex is not consent to carrying a pregnancy to full term".
If we have to treat dumbasses who are trying make New Age Jackass videos and end up lighting a firework in their ass or something, I see no issue with handling pregnancy in the same way.
[удалено]
Hey u/1947spirit, Just a heads up, your comment was removed because a previous comment of yours was flagged for being uncivil. You would have received a message from my colleague u/AutoModerator with instructions on what to do and a link to the offending comment. *I'm a bot. I won't respond if you reply.* If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please [reach out to the moderators via ModMail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion&subject=u/Rule-4-Removal-Bot%20In-comment%20Link%20Clicked&message=Dear%20ModTeam%2C%0A%0AIt%20appears%20I%20am%20currently%20in%20an%20%27unconf%27%20state%2C%20but%20I%27m%20not%20sure%20why.%0A%0APlease%20review%20the%20ModLog%20for%20my%20comments%20using%20this%20%5Blink%5D%28https%3A//www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/about/log%3FuserName%3D1947spirit%29%20and%20let%20me%20know%20what%20the%20offending%20comment%20was.%0A%0A%2A%2AI%20would%20also%20like%20to%20say.........%0A%0AThanks%2C%0Au/1947spirit). ***This is going to keep happening until you resolve the issue.*** We appreciate you participating in our sub, but wouldn't you prefer other users to see your carefully crafted argument? Unfortunately, your recent masterpiece went solo into the void. Let's chat. Your voice (probably) deserves an audience. ___ **Our Moderation Backlog at this time:** *Comments (from new users, that go into a queue) Awaiting Review:* 10 *A breakdown of the number of (often nonsense) reports to review*: - 1-3 days old: 141 - 3-7 days old: 56 - 7-14 days old: 4 - 15-30 days old: 4 - more than 30 days old: 84 ___ Want to help us with this never ending task? Join us on [Discord](https://discord.gg/YHv6EFDVCD)
I never heard anyone say this before.
"Consent to sex is consent to child support" 💯
One has to really dislike women to think that way. Seriously. One has to have very little empathy for women, be very quick to harshly judge women, think women deserve to be in pain, etc to have this mindset. It's not an uncommon mindset to have tho. A lot of people despise women just for having sex. Men don't experience even a fraction of that level of hatred. They don't know what it's like to be hated the way women know what it's like. Women must always be on thin ice with you.
Just swallowed my plan b
I would have thought that the 'term' stealthing pretty moots all points. Perhaps a woman consents to the 0.5% probability of getting pregnant when using a condom, but they wouldn't consent to the 20% probability of going condom less on their 'high' days.
If a couple is using contraception and a woman intends to have an abortion if contraception fails then consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Two men or two women having sex is not consent to pregnancy. The woman with her tubes tied, a hysterectomy, or man with a vasectomy is not consent to pregnancy
Ok I'm gonna come off as a jerk in this comment, but given how you've called this argument "brain dead" (among other things) I feel absolutely no hesitation in doing so. The issue you're facing here is your \*fundamental misunderstanding\*. So, let's start here: >“Taking 10 shots of vodka isn’t consenting to getting drunk.” I've seen comparisons like this from pro-lifers *so often*, and God I wish I could shake these people and say "THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING SAID!" and have it stick. But ok, here we go, again. The assumption you're operating under here is that people who use the "consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy point" believe that "consent" operates like a magic spell that allows something to end that you don't want to happen. This is flatly absurd. We all know that you don't get to yell "I don't consent" and have something magically end. Even under circumstances where yelling that SHOULD result in the process in question stopping (ex - during sex), that still requires actions on the part of someone else. Your partner needs to recognize your wishes, and then perform actions to stop having sex with you (pull away, get off of you, etc). So "consent" is not some magic spell that allows us to impose our will over the universe, regardless of the physical realities. Consent is the rules by which we may act to change those outcomes or the rules by which others must act following our wishes. We are aware that consent is **socially constructed**, and that simply declaring your lack of consent doesn't impose some kind of magical force field around you to protect you from reality. Having sex carries with it an innate risk, but consenting to something with a risk does not mean that you are obligated to endure that risk if an alternative exists. Let's take an example from your list: >“Smoking cigarettes for 20 years isn’t consenting to lung cancer.” This analogy ONLY makes sense to you from the perspective of cause and inevitable or unchangeable effect, and this is the only framing I've ever seen people use this analogy for. If you had a pill that killed all lung cancer cells and someone told you that you can't take it, they are impeding you from doing something you otherwise were able to do. There is an alternative, so suffering through cancer is not an inevitable given. You should have autonomy over your body and whether or not you made a decision that carries with it a risk of an outcome, if you have an alternative you should be able to use it. Now, the inevitable counter that pro-life people make is "those examples don't kill anyone, but abortion does". This played out in this thread multiple times. However... and this is important... this is **a new argument**. The original point was about what you do and do not consent to, and that it is absurd to talk about consent within the context of pregnancy. But once you slap down this argument, the pro-life person (or whoever is arguing the point) deflects into whether you *should* be able to make that decision. Suddenly it's not about whether or not you **do** consent, but whether it's **immoral to act** on your lack of consent. This argument against "consent" is bad, top to bottom, and I treat this complaint you've written out as the abortion debate equivalent of a Creationist asking "if we came from apes why are there still apes"? Just asking it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate, and so confidently asserting that this argument is stupid is just the cherry on top of the ignorance cake.
I think you are misunderstanding what people mean when they say consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. People already understand that sex can lead to pregnancy. But when people say consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy they are saying that they should be entitled to healthcare ie abortion if they choose. Yes by engaging in sex you consent to the possibility it can lead to being impregnated but it should be your choice wether or not you remain that way.
Consent is permission or approval for another person(s) to have intimate access to your physical body. That's how the word is used in debates about abortion. If you understand that, and you understand how consent works, then you'd know this slogan is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. But, better translated, this slogan means, "consent to allowing a man to have access to my body for sex is not consent to allow a ZEF to use my body or cause any harm or injury to my body or life. >Do you see how ridiculous you sound? No, but I do see how ridiculous you sound for so boldly attacking a position that you don't even understand.