So many things wrong with this argument but here it is in standard form:
Premise 1: When we consent to an action, we are automatically consenting to that action’s effects. Premise 2: Consent to the act of sex implies consent to the possible outcomes of that act, including pregnancy. Conclusion: Therefore, obtaining an abortion after consenting to sex is wrong because it involves withdrawing consent to the consequences of the act.
Firstly, the author makes a grave error. BECOMING pregnant is a consequence of sex. However, REMAINING pregnant is not a consequence of sex, but it is a consequence of consent on behalf of the woman. The fetus is utilizing her blood supply and minerals that she is providing, and extracting resources directly from her body in order to grow. When a woman has sex, she is not consenting to “remaining pregnant” because “remaining pregnant” is a consensual action in and of itself.
Consider the case of a woman having sex, but revoking consent during sex, yet she still gets pregnant. By the author’s own admission, you can revoke that consent at “any point” during the act. This must then logically include the point at which it is not possible to prevent sperm from making its way to the egg. Thus, if a woman revokes her consent during sex, the man complies, and she still becomes pregnant, this is a situation that merits an abortion be permitted, as the conditions are relevantly similar, just not morally similar, to those conditions of sexual assault: Pregnancy as a result of non-consensual sex.
So you can revoke consent to sex, thus not bearing the responsibility of its consequences, including conception. It then follows, that you can revoke your consent to remaining pregnant, thus not bearing responsibility to host the fetus. And if the only way to exert your preference of non-consent to the fetus is to remove it, thus killing it, then that act must not be an immoral act.
Secondly, the casino example necessitates bringing a legal framework into the conversation since the arguments against abortion imply a legal response. If you lose your money in a casino, you can sue the casino for your loses, but you would not win in such a case because in order for the state to exert a positive obligation to force the casino to pay you your losses back, there must be proof that these losses occurred against your consent. The same is true for sex. Morally, a man is wrong for continuing to have sex with a woman after she has revoked her consent, but legally, the state cannot convict him of a crime unless there is proof that it occurred against her consent.
It is then clear that the state cannot and should not exert a positive obligation to require restitution or punishment unless it is proven that an act was or wasn’t consented to. Therefore, utilizing the author’s logic, a woman consenting to remaining pregnant during the non-viable stages of fetal development can revoke her consent of providing it resources. After she has legally declared this revocation (via a sworn statement provided to her by her legal counsel or abortion provider) the fetus is now acting against her consent and she now has a legal right to remove it.
So you see, the “consent” argument used by anti-abortion advocates can simply be resolved legally (but maybe not morally) by revoking consent to providing resources to the fetus. This is why the consent argument is weak, as it cannot justify itself and can barely even be used in the narrow set of circumstances it even sees an opening in. This is why the strongest anti-abortion arguments remove the consent element altogether because it provides a hole in their armor. Yet, they allow for this hole for popularity reasons, given that abortion with no rape exceptions is only supported by 10% of the country. Not allowing for rape exceptions is the more unpopular, extreme position, but it is logically consistent, and a much stronger position to defend.
Premise 1: When we consent to an action, we are automatically consenting to that action’s effects.
Premise 2: Consent to the act of sex implies consent to the possible outcomes of that act, including pregnancy.
Conclusion: Therefore, obtaining an abortion after consenting to sex is wrong because it involves withdrawing consent to the consequences of the act.
Firstly, the author makes a grave error. BECOMING pregnant is a consequence of sex. However, REMAINING pregnant is not a consequence of sex, but it is a consequence of consent on behalf of the woman. The fetus is utilizing her blood supply and minerals that she is providing, and extracting resources directly from her body in order to grow. When a woman has sex, she is not consenting to “remaining pregnant” because “remaining pregnant” is a consensual action in and of itself.
Consider the case of a woman having sex, but revoking consent during sex, yet she still gets pregnant. By the author’s own admission, you can revoke that consent at “any point” during the act. This must then logically include the point at which it is not possible to prevent sperm from making its way to the egg. Thus, if a woman revokes her consent during sex, the man complies, and she still becomes pregnant, this is a situation that merits an abortion be permitted, as the conditions are relevantly similar, just not morally similar, to those conditions of sexual assault: Pregnancy as a result of non-consensual sex.
So you can revoke consent to sex, thus not bearing the responsibility of its consequences, including conception. It then follows, that you can revoke your consent to remaining pregnant, thus not bearing responsibility to host the fetus. And if the only way to exert your preference of non-consent to the fetus is to remove it, thus killing it, then that act must not be an immoral act.
Secondly, the casino example necessitates bringing a legal framework into the conversation since the arguments against abortion imply a legal response. If you lose your money in a casino, you can sue the casino for your loses, but you would not win in such a case because in order for the state to exert a positive obligation to force the casino to pay you your losses back, there must be proof that these losses occurred against your consent. The same is true for sex. Morally, a man is wrong for continuing to have sex with a woman after she has revoked her consent, but legally, the state cannot convict him of a crime unless there is proof that it occurred against her consent.
It is then clear that the state cannot and should not exert a positive obligation to require restitution or punishment unless it is proven that an act was or wasn’t consented to. Therefore, utilizing the author’s logic, a woman consenting to remaining pregnant during the non-viable stages of fetal development can revoke her consent of providing it resources. After she has legally declared this revocation (via a sworn statement provided to her by her legal counsel or abortion provider) the fetus is now acting against her consent and she now has a legal right to remove it.
So you see, the “consent” argument used by anti-abortion advocates can simply be resolved legally (but maybe not morally) by revoking consent to providing resources to the fetus. This is why the consent argument is weak, as it cannot justify itself and can barely even be used in the narrow set of circumstances it even sees an opening in. This is why the strongest anti-abortion arguments remove the consent element altogether because it provides a hole in their armor. Yet, they allow for this hole for popularity reasons, given that abortion with no rape exceptions is only supported by 10% of the country. Not allowing for rape exceptions is the more unpopular, extreme position, but it is logically consistent, and a much stronger position to defend.