There is no comparison between rules for a casino game and an unwanted pregnancy. The two are totally different. Furthermore, the fact that you engage in an act does NOT mean you consent to the results. If one drives a car, they know they could be involved in a car accident, that does not mean they consent to it. The same goes for drinking, you know you could get a hangover doesn't mean you consent to it. The same goes for sex, you know that you could get pregnant possibly and that the guy walks away, it does NOT mean you consent to it. There is NO sex contract between men and women, people have sex, things happen plain and simple.
Try to keep up. Nobody is saying that pregnancy is exactly the same as a casino game. The analogy is meant as a response to a very specific argument - that because the risks of pregnancy are asymmetric between men and women and it's easier for men to evade responsibility for the child, women also shouldn't have any responsibility for the child. Though ERI's analogy is too convoluted and tries too hard IMO. Comparing a gambler at a casino to the house better demonstrates asymmetric risk (the odds always give the house an advantage, gamblers frequently experience financial ruin while casinos almost never do, and everyone old enough to gamble at a casino understands these facts).
"Consent to pregnancy" is meaningless. One doesn't consent to an outcome, one consents to an action and accepts the outcome (even if they might prefer some outcomes over others). Part of accepting the outcome means you have to help people that were made needy by your actions. If you damage someone or their property with your car, you owe them compensation (even if you only "consented" to driving the car, not to hitting them). If a man has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, he is liable to pay child support (even if he only "consented" to the sex and not paying child support). If you get drunk and injure someone or break something, you owe them compensation (even if you only "consented" to having a few drinks). This holds even if a different person doing the exact same action would face different risks. A petite Asian woman would be too intoxicated to legally drive after two drinks, but she wouldn't be able to get out of a DUI charge or paying someone compensation (in the case of harm) by pointing out that large white males are able to drive after two drinks without problem. Everyone old enough to drink understands that different people have different limits, and they're expected to take appropriate precautions.
If there were no "sex contract", no man would ever be liable to pay child support unless he explicitly, enthusiastically, and ongoingly consented to it. He would merely explain to the court that people have sex and things happen plain and simple. But men do have to pay child support, even though women have access to abortion on demand in 49 states (so they can evade the responsibilities of conceiving a child even though the men cannot).
There is no comparison between rules for a casino game and an unwanted pregnancy. The two are totally different. Furthermore, the fact that you engage in an act does NOT mean you consent to the results. If one drives a car, they know they could be involved in a car accident, that does not mean they consent to it. The same goes for drinking, you know you could get a hangover doesn't mean you consent to it. The same goes for sex, you know that you could get pregnant possibly and that the guy walks away, it does NOT mean you consent to it. There is NO sex contract between men and women, people have sex, things happen plain and simple.
"Consent to pregnancy" is meaningless. One doesn't consent to an outcome, one consents to an action and accepts the outcome (even if they might prefer some outcomes over others). Part of accepting the outcome means you have to help people that were made needy by your actions. If you damage someone or their property with your car, you owe them compensation (even if you only "consented" to driving the car, not to hitting them). If a man has sex with a woman and she gets pregnant, he is liable to pay child support (even if he only "consented" to the sex and not paying child support). If you get drunk and injure someone or break something, you owe them compensation (even if you only "consented" to having a few drinks). This holds even if a different person doing the exact same action would face different risks. A petite Asian woman would be too intoxicated to legally drive after two drinks, but she wouldn't be able to get out of a DUI charge or paying someone compensation (in the case of harm) by pointing out that large white males are able to drive after two drinks without problem. Everyone old enough to drink understands that different people have different limits, and they're expected to take appropriate precautions.
If there were no "sex contract", no man would ever be liable to pay child support unless he explicitly, enthusiastically, and ongoingly consented to it. He would merely explain to the court that people have sex and things happen plain and simple. But men do have to pay child support, even though women have access to abortion on demand in 49 states (so they can evade the responsibilities of conceiving a child even though the men cannot).